|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Dave Boyce and Almanac staff
The news that Time Inc. is considering selling its property at 80 Willow Road, the iconic home of Sunset magazine, elicited a mixture of sadness and resolve in Menlo Park Mayor Ray Mueller.
“If they leave, I just think it’s a tremendous loss for the city,” Mr. Mueller said Thursday. “Obviously we’ll make ourselves available to see if there’s anything we can do to keep them staying, but it’s very concerning.”
Sunset’s employees were informed of the situation on Friday, Nov. 7, Jill Davison of Time Inc., Sunset’s parent company, told the Almanac. The story was first reported in the San Jose Mercury News.
The company is in the process of engaging a local real estate agent, Ms. Davison said.
There are “absolutely no plans” to sell the magazine, Ms. Davison told the Mercury News.
The seven-acre property, located at Willow and Middlefield roads, is zoned C-1 for administrative and professional offices.
The campus
In 1951, Sunset moved from San Francisco to its landmark campus in Menlo Park. In 1952, locals Bill and Mel Lane took over company operations from their father, Laurence W. Lane, who had bought the magazine for $65,000 in 1928, when it was a fledgling travel magazine.
After looking at several locations in the Bay Area — “Hillsborough wouldn’t have us,” said Mel — the Lane family settled on Menlo Park.
Sunset was one of the first tenants in the city’s innovative garden office zone, established under Mayor Charles Burgess, according to a 1998 Almanac article by Marion Softky. “There were no electric signs, no commercial retail and no manufacturing. It was perfect,” said Mel Lane.
Residential architect Cliff May designed his first commercial building to resemble an early Spanish ranch home. Set on seven acres adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, the adobe building with the patios and test kitchens was surrounded by spacious gardens designed by Thomas Church. “It became a laboratory for western living and model for what the magazine promoted,” said Bill Lane in the 1998 article.
The elegant new headquarters also became a popular tourist destination as Gray Line made it a stop on its tours, and residents brought friends and out-of-town visitors to peer into the kitchens and stroll through the gardens. There was a time when 75,000 people a year took the Sunset tour, Ms. Softky wrote.
The Lane brothers sold the company to Time Warner in 1990 for $225 million. Mel Lane died in 2007 and Bill Lane in 2010.
In recent years, the Sunset headquarters at 80 Willow Road has hosted an annual “Sunset Celebration Weekend” event for two weekend days in the spring, when thousands of people visited the campus for cooking demonstrations, wine seminars, and programs on gardening, home designs and green living.
Why do they want to move?
Tragic. Nothing short of tragic.
I doubt it’s that they *want* to move, it’s that the bean counters at Time Headquarters have noticed how valuable that real estate is and figure that they can rent cheaper office space for the magazine somewhere else. Magazine publishing is struggling, sadly.
Thanks, Mr. Wells. Sounds like the most reasonable explanation. Was just wondering if the Almanac had a definitive answer from Sunset/time.
The office building at 200 Middlefield Road in Menlo Park, very close to the Sunset campus, sold recently for more than $50M, or about $1,193 per square foot (https://www.hfflp.com/MediaRoom/PressReleases.aspx?DT=DealDocument&ID=98117). That fact alone likely cemented Sunset’s exodus, never mind that the entire Lane Family is rolling over in their graves.
It’s a shame there’s no longer room in Bay Area communities for garden office zones. We lost the beautiful AT&T office property in Linfield Oaks (adjacent to Sunset) to medium-density housing — nice housing, it must be said — and now Sunset’s acreage will likely end up another Stanford project in terms of scale, with how many hundreds more car trips clogging Willow and Middlefield Roads, the only vehicular access?
I have no idea what such a sale and subsequent move will mean for the Sunset brand but I’m not envisioning great things. We, as neighbors, will certainly miss them and their much-loved Celebration Weekend.
Gern
It was only a matter of time given land prices and the Time ownership.
I hope the communty rallies to ensure the building retain their historic importance. The South Building is an historic icon and no one should be able to change that.
If the community wants to designate the South Building as aHistorical Building please do that BEFORE it is sold. It would be unfair to a new buyer to devalue their purchase after the fact.
City should try to buy the south property (PA side). It would be a beautiful park and the building could be used for education, social and civic purposes. It would make a great venue for corporate events, weddings, etc. The rentals alone would pay for the annual upkeep. Problem is coming up with the cash to buy it. Perhaps Mr. Zuckerbeg could chip in with an agreement that Facebook gets to use it for x number of events a year.
“City should try to buy the south property (PA side)”
The best way to do that would be to put a parcel tax on the ballot.
Here is what the citizens of Basel Switzerland did when faced with the possible loss of some great art:
http://placessavvy.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-picasso-miracle-of-basel.html
The south campus would be a great place for a preschool or elementary school . . . just dreaming . . . if only the school district had the money.
Maybe we can get more office space into that area.
That would be fantastic. Ray, please meet with Bohannon and Arrillaga and see if you can get this done.
How certain is this sale? People are talking as if it’s a done deal.
The building is one thing, but I really hope they keep the garden and with some access for the public as they do now. I would hate to see the garden be built over or suffer through lack of maintenance (considerable burden though I daresay that is). Menlo Park doesn’t really have that much that’s distinctive or even mildly interesting for an outing or as a destination for a visitor. Sunset and Allied Arts is about it, and we can’t afford to lose half of that inventory. If a parcel tax to fund a city intervention is what it takes to preserve it, I’d be all for it.
Perfect opportunity for the menlo park city school district – but, alas, the price tag may be a bit high!
My understanding is that a building can’t be designated as historical unless the owner agrees, and Time Inc, as the owner of the property, would have to agree, which seems very unlikely.
Alan, Time Inc would like to sell the Sunset property by the end of this calendar year.
Time, Inc. wants to sell? Anybody got Zuckerberg’s number? A few million bucks is just pocket change to that precocious kid. ; )
Call me disgusted at this turn of events. Destroying beautiful buildings and local history — all just to make lots of money. I am reminded of what Princess Leia said to Han Solo in the first “Star Wars” movie, “If money is all you want, then money is all you will get.” Not love or beauty or caring about others. Just greed. For shame. For shame.
And no, I don’t give a rip that Time, Inc., has the “right” to do this. However, they do have a corporate obligation to be good corporate citizens of whatever communities they are in — and selling the Sunset HQ property and buildings is most definitely not good corporate citizenship. And, yes, a lot of the blame falls directly onto the shoulders of the Lane family for selling this priceless asset to a huge corporation in the first place.
“And, yes, a lot of the blame falls directly onto the shoulders of the Lane family for selling this priceless asset to a huge corporation in the first place.”
And what counter offer did the citizens of Menlo Park offer the Lane family at that time? NONE.
As noted above, when the citizens of Basel Switzerland were faced with the possible loss of some great art owned by a Basel resident they voted to tax themselves to buy the art! Do you think that the citizens of Menlo Park would ever rise to that standard?
http://placessavvy.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-picasso-miracle-of-basel.html
“On 20 April 1967, a plane of Basel’s Globe Air crashed and took 124 people to their deaths. The disaster led to the first grounding of a Swiss airline since air travel had started. The main shareholder of Globe Air, Peter A. Staechelin was held personally responsible had to meet all financial demands. Peter A. Staechelin didn’t posses a lot of cash, but art worth millions was hanging in Basel’s Art Museum. His father had moved the family’s art collection into a foundation. The pictures could not be sold unless a family member got into severe financial distress. That moment had come.
When the family trust sold the first painting “La Berceuse” by Vincent van Gogh out of the country to the Unite States, Basel’s art world went into collective shock. The sale of more paintings loomed over the Basel Art Museum. Among the paintings viewed for a possible sale were two important paintings by Pablo Picasso: “Arlequin assis” (1923) and “Les deux frères” (1905).
Franz Meyer was the director of the Art Museum Basel. He managed the extraordinary and brought Peter A. Staechelin, the government, and businesses to one table. They reached an agreement that the city would be able to buy the two paintings by Pablo Picasso for 8.4 million Swiss francs. The deal was that if the private sector would bring in 2.4 million, the remaining 6 million would be paid the city.”
Basel’s parliament passed the urgent motion in record time, but voters opposed the credit and asked for a public ballot. The credit was under contention to the last, but Basel’s voters balloted in favour of the credit.
Pablo Picasso followed the student protests and the fact that the people had voted in a ballot to purchase his pictures. He responded by donating four of his paintings to Basel.
Would Menlo Park have done the same?
I think that Palo Alto Square theater was once up for a remodel or sale and the PA city council said no, if there was a change it would have to be another theater. The Planning Commission has power under architectural control not to approve changes making a big negative change to the city’s future and this might qualify given the building history and public benefits provided by Sunset’s management. There needs to be publicity that demolition of the existing property may face unified resistance from residents and city officials, unless there is something drastically wrong with the structure. Sunset may be sunsetted but the building can remain.
The Sunset property is zoned for a type of use ( C-1 Administrative and Professional District, Restrictive) which is not unique to its current use. If it is sold with that current zoning then the City has few alternatives but to allow the new owner to redevelop the property for any use which meets the current zoning.
If the citizens want to do something different then they should find a way to purchase the property.
“The Planning Commission has power under architectural control not to approve changes making a big negative change”
Wrong – the Planning Commission has no such power.
@Peter: Planning Commission control is limited but the boundary is somewhat porous:
MP Zoning Ordindance 16.02.050 Interpretation by planning commission. Whenever the planning commission of the city is called to determine whether or not the use of land or any structure in any district is similar in character to the particular uses allowed in a district, the commission shall consider the following factors as criteria for their determination:
(1) Effect upon the public health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood involved and the city at large;
(2) Effect upon traffic conditions;
(3) Effect upon the orderly development of the area in question and the city at large in regard to the general planning of the whole community.
For some, this language is sufficiently broad for the Planning Commission to consider a range of issues (site planning, scale, uses) involving significant changes to large parcels.
Dagwood – You miss my point. IF something is proposed that complies with the existing zoning the Planning Commission may “consider” whatever it wants but the Planning Commission has zero approval authority except with regard to providing “guidance” on architectural design.
I sent a note to Mark Zuckerberg suggesting he buy the Sunset campus property, and use it for a Facebook conference center. Seems that way the Sunset campus and buildings could be preserved.
As a Sunset insider, I think the community should know that Time Inc has every intention of selling the property in the next 4-6 weeks (by the end of 2014). If the community wants to save the iconic 1952 Cliff May buildings and Thomas Church gardens, we need to act immediately to establish historical status. I strongly urge anyone with any experience protecting historical buildings or culturally significant buildings to spear-head this effort.
The news that Menlo College was interested in buying the property and preserving it is very hopeful. However, there is not enough time. As of Wednesday (11/19/14) when the article was published, Menlo College had not yet been in touch with TIme Inc. TIme Inc has already been showing potential buyers the property and marketing it as a prime investment in Silicon Valley. As someone who cares deeply about the property, I think the sale and potential redevelopment would be a devastating loss to the community and the history of the West.