Talk:Carmel Development Company Building

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this building actually on the California Register of Historic Resources?
Is this building actually on the California Register of Historic Resources? It seems that a proposal was submitted 20 years ago, and some of the content (which should probably be deleted) states why it should be on the register. I can find no record of the building actually being accepted/approved. Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not on the register.. I will remove the promo.proposal. Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Carmel Development Company Building was recorded by Kent L. Seavey in 2003 to the department of parks and recreation with why it is historically significant. The building has been placed on Carmel's inventory of historic resources. Just because it is not on the Caliifornia register yet is no reason to discount its historical importance (see below info). Greg Henderson (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Carmel Development Co. Bldg redirect
Please remove the redirect placed on the Carmel Development Co. Bldg. It is an important buildinig that has a standalone and reliable source. It contains information that is important to the article, e.g. "The Carmel Development Co. Bldg. is significant under Califomia Register criterion 1, in the area of history as the first and oldest commercial business block in Carmel by-the-Sea. It is significant under criterion 3, in the area of architecture for its method of construction, as the first “fireproof concrete block building in Carmel."

"The Carmel Development Co. Building is a very significant structure in Carmel's downtown commercial core. it qualifies for inclusion in the historic survey under California Register criterion 1 in the area of history, due to its age, association with the founders of the community, and its importance to the economic development of early Carmel. It also qualifies under criterion 3 in the area of architecture, due to its unusual method of construction."

"The Carmel Development Co. Building clearly reflects the findings of, and is consistent with, the 1997 Carmel Historic Context Statement under the themes of architectural and economic development." Kent L. Savey, the preservation consultant.

Please also see CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES DATABASE. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Greg, the building is not notable. The content simply has been moved to Carmel Development Company where it belonged in the first place.
 * The sources before the redirect - and after the redirect - consist of a few sentences in Seavey on hyper-local Carmel architecture. That Seaey wrote a (failed) proposal to the State of California and the Dept. of Parks & Recreation championing for the building to be included in the state registry is admirable. It makes a lot of sense since he is a historic preservation consultant, and I can understand why you would admire his civic pride. The second Seavey citation is the actual proposal, which is a primary source that does not contribute to notability. The Dramov citation reiterates the same content as Seavey. And the Hudson citation is a name check.
 * There is nothing - ZERO - nothing in the larger architectural historical scholarship outside of the town of Carmel that is about this building. No discussion about this building whatsoever - if it were truly notable, other architectural historians - nationally and internationally - would have taken notice.
 * It is not a landmark; it did not win any awards; it's not a tourist destination; it's not a feat of architectural engineering; and it is not in the California or Federal Registry as an important architectural structure.
 * The building is a much better fit nested in the Company article, than as a stand alone article. The content did not disappear. Please consider not taking things so personally. Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * {{@Greghenderson2006I suggested the merger, I fully support it. There was a considerable overlapping contents between the two articles which shows how closely related they are. Dispute it through Redirect for Discussion if you really object. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)