Palm Springs preservation board clears way for demolition at Swim Center ⋆ The Palm Springs Post

*The current office at the city’s Swim Center is at left, and an early rendering of the new Swim Center office is at right.*

The Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation Board voted Tuesday to take no action on the historic status of the office building at the city’s Swim Center, clearing the way for its demolition as part of a larger renovation project.

The board voted unanimously, with one member absent, on the request by the city. The vote means the city will not pursue redesignating the building, a Class 4 historic site, to a higher historic status, and can proceed with standard building permit procedures.

Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon told the board the office building does not retain the design intent of its original 1970s concept and does not reflect the influential work typically associated with its design team. She said staff found the building fell short of the criteria required for historic significance.

The Swim Center was built in 1975 as part of a larger city initiative under Proposition R that included several recreational facilities at Sunrise Park. A design team that included architects William Cody and Donald Wexler was assembled for the project, with the firm Kaptur and Lapham designing the swim center.

Yoon said budget cuts during construction significantly reduced the scope of the swim center compared with its original design, which had featured a larger, more prominent building.

*Original plans for the city’s Swim Center, seen here, were much more grand than the final facility.* *(Photo: Cal Poly Pomona archives)*

While noting the building’s integrity “was compromised long before the first foundation stone was laid,” one board member compared the situation to buildings where value engineering diminished the original architectural vision.

Board Chair Kurt Bachman agreed, saying the building is compromised “functionally and esthetically.”

Yoon said the site plan’s original layout and location remain intact, but other elements, including the building’s design and workmanship, have been altered or diminished over time.

The board’s action does not constitute approval of the redesign proposed for the site. Yoon said the design review for the renovation project has proceeded separately from the board’s historic review, and that the board would not review the future design of the site because it will no longer carry the same construction date designation once demolition occurs.