Another Burlingame Bungalow Bites the Dust

The home stood on Douglas Avenue for more than 100 years, along with a century of memories. Then, suddenly, in the blink of an eye, it was gone. Gone also would be the stories the building itself could have told. Nothing, that I could tell, was salvaged. Not the original fixtures like the home’s oak entry door, the old growth shingle siding, the original crown moldings, none of the bricks that flanked the porch entry. All gone--off to the landfill.

A description of the home from a survey conducted by architectural historians Carey & Company as part of the city’s proposed Downtown Specific Area Plan.

1134 Douglas Avenue
Constructed in 1910, this shingle-clad residence has a full-width porch with thick, square, brick- clad supports and a pyramidal hipped lantern with four wood-sash, one-over-one, double-hung windows on each side. The building stands adjacent to 1124, 1128 and 1132 Douglas Avenue, which appear to be California Register-eligible, and 1138 Douglas Avenue, another notable building. City directories list R. F. Allan, the owner of the Burlingame Dry Goods Company, as the occupant from 1918 to 1922. 
This building appears to be of local interest as one of five adjacent homes constructed around the time of Burlingame’s incorporation in 1908. 

I guess that’s called progress. I guess there’s a demand for more housing along with the unintended consequences-- more traffic, more noise, more congestion. I guess that’s what the future of Burlingame looks like. More density. More height. Gone will be the starter homes, the small” affordable” homes. Gone will be the homes with backyards and front yards and sometimes even a side yard. Gone too, I fear, will be the sense of community some of us moved here for.

Are we destroying the very essence of our town when we tear a small home down and replace it with one three or four times its size?

Below image from Google earth.

Below: December 12, 2009

 

Comments

[Holyroller]

You are right on with your observation!
Nevertheless, the new tax will help pay the City of Burlingame's bills.
I believe within 10 years this City wil either look like Gellert Blvd.-Daly City, or the enclave of Pebble Beach.
It will never have the "charm" of yesteryear because that is gone for good.
To be a homeowner in Burlingame, unless you have moved into your parents home,about 50% of the Newbys. A regular homeowner needs to take home $1.6 Million per year.
*Sperlings*
No wonder so many people eat at Curry Up, or Now..

[two face pols]

What really makes me sick is the two faced politicians who talk green, green green and then sit silent when this kinda thing happens. Where is Nagel? Working on the next pet parade? I'll bet she's hatching some scheme to make the new Safeway outlaw plastic bags but can't be bothered to worry about the worst environment problem in town. At least O'Mahoney was upfront about not being green. Where does Browning stand? Blalock needs help with this problem.

[Vince]

I live across the street from his building and watched the whole thing get torn down from my window. (Amazingly, it only took about 4 hours! Why they decided to start a construction project in the winter though is beyond me.)

I think every city will see more density in the future, not just Burlingame. The days of buying a mansion in Tracy or Livermore and commuting for hours a day to work are coming to an end. People would rather have the quality of life attributed with living near a downtown (and near where they work) even if they spend the same money as their Livermore mansion for a place 1/5th the size. This is part of evolution and America is now catching up to most of Europe. Drive 10 minutes outside of ancient cities like Rome, Paris, etc and you feel like you're in the country. There are farms, vineyards, etc just minutes outside of these massive cities. There isn't as much urban sprawl there, but there is a lot more density within the cities. I think this is where most cities in the US are headed and it can be applied on the micro-level too to small towns like Burlingame. I know of a few people who've moved down from Hillsborough to get a place within walking distance of Burlingame Ave.

It's all about the quality of life attained when you don't have to get in your car to go everywhere.

[Luke Blogger]

"It's all about the quality of life attained when you don't have to get in your car to go everywhere."

Does that apply to getting into an airliner? How about a horse and buggy? How about a bicycle? I'm not flaming, I just want to understand.

I spend money on my automobile because IT INCREASES my quality of life. I can live in a nicer hood than where my work is and I don't have spend 2 extra hours a day on the bus or 3 hours on a bike.

"People would rather have the quality of life attributed with living near a downtown (and near where they work) even if they spend the same money as their Livermore mansion for a place 1/5th the size."

People don't want to live in Livermore because they have to drive for hours??? OK, then why doesn't the same reasoning apply when you calculate how long it takes to take the bus somewhere? To me it seems that the growth rhetoric is often intellectually dishonest.

As density goes up in suburban areas the desirability to live outside the urbanizing areas goes up FOR MANY.

Worse, business owners move their business to the outskirts... of course near a bus line or rail line and call it smart growth, but no one wants to spend the time on the bus...

Drive outside of ancient cities a little further and you find the country homes of the rich. Living in the city was not a choice then. In many European cities as salaries have increased so has travel by auto.

[Holyroller]

You know what people..
Downtown Livermore, and the surrounding developments are beautiful.
Anyone driving by at 80MPH should really take 1/2 hour to see what a great job has been done to keep that town real.
Livermore seems just like Burlingame.
Except..
The stores are open
The streets are smooth
Livermore is in the country.
No freeway noise, no Airplane noise, and people who can have a regular income, afford to live, and have time for themselves and family.
The only down side is that there is no "Curry Up."

[luke blogger]

holyroller,

EXACTLY. Unfortunately, livermore is not suppose to be a nice to live in the smart growth world view. It is totally bs that only way to find a nice place to live it to tear down bungalows and replace it with mixed used high density.

[Russ]

Undoubtedly, there are many perspectives about why or why Burlingame should limit tear-downs, but at the very least, we should look at our current regulations regarding recycling and perhaps make them even stronger. Some cities across the country are instituting tear-down fees, an idea suggested here on the BV some months ago. I still think its an idea worthy of discussion at the council level

In yesterday's SF Chronicle, there was an article about the growing movement to salvage vintage architectural resources.

Here is a link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/17/BUQB1B4KVE.DTL

[house for sale Philippines]

Great post about this historic homes. Nice photos too.

Deirdre G

[Ted]

another bit of Burlingame and it's history torn down. too bad all the real "Burlingame people" have passed on or moved away