Talk:Palace of Fine Arts

Untitled
The article is still pretty much a stub. It would be good to see some material on the original form of the building. I picked up a leaflet at the Exploratorium which showed a much grander building, but unfortunately the very patchy black and white image wasn't suitable for reproduction.

The design of the building could form a section all by itself.

More could be said of ongoing conservation efforts, and plans for the future. I think this grand building deserves a bit more yet before it could be said to be a complete article. I only visited for an hour or so and I'm now back in Australia - is there nobody local to do a bit of research? Pete 30 June 2005 01:47 (UTC)

New photo
I've included a new photo in this article. It's a panoramic view, and I think It could replace the previous two pictures. I'm not so sure about the size, just tell me what you think about this change. --Sam67fr 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking just for myself, I think your new photo looks fine.


 * Atlant 00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OLD PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALACE OF FINE ARTS BUILDING IN SAN FRANCISCO
Comments deleted - advertising on Wikipedia is not allowed. Wikipedia is a non profit organization

Reformat
Ugh! Philbertgray 10:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Palace of Fine Arts. The current marker is off to the east, over some houses. The marker should be at 37°48'10.60"N 122°26'54.10"W, right? Also, isn't the Exploratorium marker off, too? —76.105.145.143 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deor (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1960s Demolishing and reconstruction
Are there some photos available of this? It would be a great addition to the article. Better yet, some photos showing the original dome murals and other few elements that weren't replicated in the new building. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More primary sources are required here. For example construction plans from the city archives, involved contractors, etc. Currently not much real evidence exists for statements about a complete rebuild in the 1960s, especially with the now found primary source from 1915 proving the original construction having been made from steel and concrete, much different than all the other exposition monuments, except for the Japanese Tea House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenberg (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

[comment moved to the contradicion topic below]

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Palace of Fine Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012104149/http://www.exploratorium.edu/palace/palace_4.html to http://www.exploratorium.edu/palace/palace_4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101200539/http://palaceoffinearts.org/background.html to http://www.palaceoffinearts.org/background.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Palace of Fine Arts (16794p).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 26, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-03-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Confusion over construction
The references in the lead section indicate the original 1915 building was concrete and steel and supposedly fireproof, and was rebuilt 1964-74. The History section says that after WW2 "its structure was not stable. Originally intended to only stand for the duration of the Exhibition, the colonnade and rotunda were not built of durable materials, and thus framed in wood and then covered with staff, a mixture of plaster and burlap-type fiber. As a result of the construction and vandalism, by the 1950s the simulated ruin was a crumbling ruin." Are these contradictory? Can someone clear this up? Masato.harada (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

One explanation for the apparent contradiction about the 1915 statement of concrete and steel construction and the other reports about plaster and burlap could be a different type of construction for the curved hall building where the artwork exhibition was most likely located in and the rotunda and columns outside. Or maybe only the curved hall building was remade in the 1960s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenberg (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Quoting page 19, National Register of Historic Places, 2005, https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/04000659: ''Maybeck's professional successor and supervising architect of the restoration Hans U. Gerson in 1963 discovered the telegram in Maybeck's files, dated January 12, 1957: "The Palace of Fine Arts is probably the last of the traditional pieces of architecture to survive the modern age. [...]" '' --Isenberg (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Quoting Germaine LaBerge interviewing Robert L. Bridges in 1997, Sixty Years of Legal Advice to International Construction Firms; Thelen, Marrin, Johnson and Bridges, 1933-1997. https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/rohoia/ucb/text/sixtyyearslegal00bridrich.pdf:

''TOC: IV POSTWAR LEGAL WORK, 1946-1982

p75: I think I may have said that, but it was MacDonald and Kahn. Alan MacDonald had died during Boulder Dam days, and his son, Graeme MacDonald, was the MacDonald that was involved in MacDonald and Kahn in 1946. Felix Kahn was the head of the company, and his right hand man was a chap named Modglin. In Felix's family, he had several brothers and they had all died early. So Felix was getting his estate in shape to die. His principal asset was MacDonald and Kahn, and at this stage, it was a good time to liquidate because he was going to go out of business, you might say--and he did. Modglin formed a new company called M & K, in which, to start with, Elkus's sonswho were sons-in-law of Felix Rahn-- joined with Modglin. Felix Kahn had no interest in M & K.

p91: One time, when I was in Europe, Modglin sold his company and David Styles, who was then a partner here, working with me at Frank's request, Dave drew up a contract of sale. Frank lived for several years but ever after he blamed me for his selling his business, even though he sold it while I was away, and I hadn't known about it. Modglin [spells]. And Frank died. So it was a sad ending.

'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenberg (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 MW
— Assignment last updated by AngelGomezLlerena! (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)