by Paul R. Spitzzeri
When, after a lengthy period of investigation and as advances in aviation were so rapid that many feared the city was wasting opportunity in asserting a prime position in the field, the Los Angeles City Council approved the idea, in March 1928, of acquiring three sites, covering well over 2,000 acres, for municipal airports, the next move was to promote the project in seeking voter approval for a bond issue, to be held on 1 May, to pay for the acquisition and other work.
On 1 April, the Los Angeles Times, always a reliable booster for anything that would increase business and promote the region’s economic possibilities, ran a lengthy feature by Bill Henry under the title of “THREE AIRFIELDS NEEDED TO COMPLETE CITY CHAIN” and the journalist began by observing,
The three new proposed municipal airports on which the voters will express approval or disapproval at the May election will supply the missing, and most important, links to complete the chain of airports around the metropolitan district. With them Los Angeles will have the finest airport system to be found in any municipality in the world. Without them Los Angeles will be just another city that is not alive to its opportunity.
Henry went on to remark that most cities chose a site and concentrated all aspects of aviation there, but noted that “it is this mistake which Los Angeles plans to avoid through the purchase of a string of [sites for] airports . . . each of which will be specifically planned for a certain branch of air activities.” For example, the Terminal Island site next to the burgeoning Port of Los Angeles was to be for use by the Navy, though this was not to be exclusive. It was added that the site, 5000 feet long and half as much wide, was to accommodate 200 naval craft and $50,000 was already expended for its development.
Vail Field along Telegraph Road in Montebello and City of Commerce, an existing operating field for two years on 411 acres, was deemed the most important site because “it will be the home field of Western Air Express, the most successful air transportation company in the world,” as it handled air mail delivery from this region to Salt Lake City, from whence transfers took the cargo elsewhere, while passenger service was imminent, as the post on this blog in the above link discusses. The key to Vail was that it was “close in” to downtown Los Angeles and in a good location with respect to minimal fog and prevailing winds, while work with lighting, road access and “a little money to turf the field” was “all that is required to make Vail Field an ideal airport.”
Henry then wrote that,
With the greater part of the business activity of regular transportation lines at Vail Field, the huge 800-acre site at Inglewood, known as the Mines site, undoubtedly will be the home of the individual plane owner, the salesman of aircraft, the man who sells short rides, the aerial photographer and the myriads of other activities of the air.
The journalist added that “unquestionably, there will be considerable regular aerial transportation from this field also” while he remarked that Mines was the best location with regard to proximity to residential areas “which provides the larger part of the air traffic.” It was commented that Maddux Airlines, managing a line from San Diego to the Angel City, “will operate from this field with the luxurious Ford all-metal planes,” though the company, which started at Rogers Field near the Baldwin Hills not far north of Mines, later provided service from the Grand Central Air Terminal at Glendale.
Henry added that the Mines Field site was likely to draw aerospace manufacturing, including the earlier noted reports that the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was planning for its dirigible firm to have a plant there. After observing that a single site would pose potential programs like a novice pilot destroying a $2 million blimp “and make it worth about 10 cents” or a “worse result by wild flying around passenger planes,” the writer noted that “undoubtedly before the Mines Field is established as a running and operating location the city fathers will give a lot of thought to proper regulations,” as would federal authorities as such standards and practices were better formulated, “for the use of the field.”
As for the Sesnon site near modern Northridge in the San Fernando Valley, this was “a matter of insurance against future needs” as Henry wrote that, despite Council member Charles H. Randall’s ambitions for it as mentioned in part one, “at this time this site would not be very greatly developed.” Still, it was asserted that Sesnon “undoubtedly a very active field in the matter of use” and the 1000-acre property was near a fast growing area, with most of the Valley annexed in 1915 just after the Los Angeles Aqueduct was completed and the water flowed in at the northeast corner of the valley. Moreover, the writer continued, “the city can afford to buy this site just for the money it would bring on resale,” though it was not believed this would be necessary.
Henry identified a trio of other existing airports that “complete the circle around the city,” including the Griffith Park field, used by the National Guard; Clover Field in Santa Monica, where the U.S. Air Corps (forerunner of the Air Force) Reserve and Donald Douglas company were situated; and the “extremely active flying field” at Long Beach. It was restated that Vail “will become the central passenger depot where the giant airliners will arrive and depart” and anyone heading to other parts of the region would take smaller craft “and be whisked in a few minutes to these other fields” mentioned in the article, which offered a regional map showing the seven sites and concluded,
The Mines site is expected to be the most active of all the fields because there will be more individual operators there than in any other location. It probably will be the scene of the greater international air races this fall and will be visited at that time by hundreds of thousands of spectators as well as by flyers from all over the world.
No city in this country or in Europe has planned as carefully for the future as Los Angeles and the present airport plans will make this city the outstanding city of the world, from the standpoint of aviation.
With regard to the upcoming air races, the Times of the 4th observed that there were a quartet of sites under consideration, including Mines; one at El Monte, likely touted as a possible municipal (metropolitan) airport but which would have needed “considerable preparation;” the Long Beach city airport noted above; and one near Rogers and which was described as “the American Airport and Pacific Air Transport field.”
The main considerations of the committee choosing the location included substantial size, proximity to downtown Los Angeles “and [being] perfect from a meteorological standpoint.” It was added that craft with top speeds of 300 mph and faster needed more space for take-off and landing, while air currents and downdrafts were also at issue, while enough room was required to accommodate 150,000 daily spectators for a nine-day meet expected to draw north of a million visitors.
In its number of the 18th, the Los Angeles Record noted that “L.A. Aviation Future Meets Test May 1” as the question was “whether Los Angeles is to realize its opportunity of becoming a world center of aviation where the mighty aeronautical industries of America will be centered.” The paper added that “for two years the municipal airport question was a political football in [the] city council” and that “while other cities were establishing airports and keeping pace with the rapid progress in aerial navigation, Los Angeles was falling behind.”
It took, the paper continued, a new council seated the prior summer for the matter to finally get some meaningful impetus so that “opinion from all sources has been one of unanimous approval,” but, as to locations and funding, “there has been a wide difference of opinion which apparently will continue down to the day of the election.” The recent decision of the Council, interestingly, was described as one in which it was “morally committed, but not legally bound to the development of [the] three sites.” As to the proposition before the voters, the text read:
Shall the city of Los Angeles incur a bonded debt in the sum of $6,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring and constructing certain revenue-producing municipal improvements, to wit: A municipal airport or airports, within or without its corporate limits, including the acquisition of the necessary lands and the acquisition or construction of the necessary buildings, structures, works, equipments [sic], appliances, apparatus, conveniences and other air-navigation facilities necessary or convenient therefor, to be maintained and operated by said city as a public utility for the use of the public as a terminal for air navigation?
The Record remarked that the text did not require the City to buy any of the locations, much less more than one, but only stipulated that funds from the bonds had to be applied to airport purposes. It was noted that the operation of any such entities would be much as the Harbor Department was run, while it was added that “it is the belief of proponents . . . that, at most, two years after the airport is in operation it will be self sustaining” and revenue to cover interest and sinking fund charges. The idea that the field would pay for itself was based on the experience of other cities.
An interesting fact was that a third of all airline travel, according to the federal Department of Commerce, took place south of Fresno in California, so advocates for the bond issue remarked that “without municipal airports to serve as terminals for mail, passenger, freight and express traffic” and lacking the proper infrastructure required “to attract airplane and related industries,” Los Angeles was simply not able “to reap the benefits other cities are enjoying.”
The following day, the Record published a piece titled “Survey Discloses Airport Features” and began by commenting that, with just 10 days remaining before the primary and bond issue election, “city officials continued their efforts today to secure options on the three sites” although “to date has entered into no options or contracts binding the owners to the price for the proposed fields.”
The article then turned to “the informative survey prepared by the bureau of budget and efficiency with the assistance of engineers, aviators and representatives of the department of commerce and this examined eight sites narrowed down from nearly 30. Eight criteria were examined with ratings assigned based on conditions of fog and wind; hazards from power lines; the sites’ physical environments; the clearing and grading of the tracts; proximity to business and residential locales; access to utilities; fire protection; and legislative authorities.
It was revealed that, while William W. Mines was the agent for the 800-acre site near Inglewood, the owner of the land was J.P. Martin, while the time of travel from the Arcade railroad depot of the Santa Fé line was 35 minutes, but, it was added, “other street projects are proposed in the area which will make the field more accessible to the center of the city.” Along the eastern boundary of the tract was the Redondo branch of the Santa Fe’s rail line and it was noted that “the L.A. street railway is a mile and one-half to the east.”
Regarding potential hazards, it was observed that telegraph and telephone lines were along the eastern limit of the property, which was denominated as “Redondo boulevard,” or commonly known as the “Inglewood-Redondo Boulevard,” or today’s Aviation Boulevard. It was mentioned that there were few trees or ditches, that winds were mild and fog similar to that of Clover Field to the north, though more than was found at either Sesnon or Vail. An advantage was that the site was said to have good drainage and did not need sewers, though “an outfall sewer [Hyperion] in the vicinity can be tapped if necessary.” Lastly, it was remarked that one mile was the maximum length for a runway.
When the conditions at Vail were discussed, with high tension wires noted as a potential problem and their removal cost-prohibitive, while drainage needed to be addressed, it was commented upon that, if the bond measure passed, the existing airport would be developed first. Sesnon, said to be owned by Benjamin F. Porter of San Francisco (Porter Ranch being named for him and his sister was married into the Sesnon family), was an hour by auto to the Arcade Depot, with street improvements underway, while rail and streetcar access was good. There were few hazards, though wind was stronger there, while drainage was excellent.
The result of the survey, the Record stated, was:
In this report, Vail and Mines fields were given the highest rating of all the sites considered, Sesnon field ranked sixth, but it was included in the favored three principally because it has a greater acreage and is priced cheaper than Van Nuys field, which is also in [the] San Fernando valley.
A map, provided by the Automobile Club of Southern California depicted the three field sites relative to major roads through their respective areas, so that the Sesnon property was bounded on the north by Devonshire Street and on part of the south by the Southern Pacific coast line track and the tract somewhat between Topanga Canyon Boulevard on the west and Reseda Boulevard to the east, but more likely between DeSoto and Tampa avenues. The Vail field was shown as north and east of Telegraph Road, near where Washington Boulevard and Garfield Avenue are now in what is the City of Commerce.
The Mines field tract is shown immediately west of Redondo, or Aviation, Boulevard, and south of San Antonio Street, today’s Century Boulevard, with El Segundo Avenue (now Boulevard) shown further to the south. The main access to and from Los Angeles seems to follow either what is now Florence Avenue or Hyde Park Boulevard northeastward to West Boulevard, then north to Slauson leading to Central Avenue and into downtown. An alternate in the article was Aviation to Manchester Boulevard, which becomes Firestone Boulevard east of Central to Alameda Street and then north. Of course, most drivers today would take interstates 110 and 105 to make that trip.
We’ll return next with part three getting us to the final stretch before the bond issue election and the results of that canvass, so check in with us for that.
Many thanks for highlighting the Airports Article by my Grandfather Bill Henry!
He wrote for the Times for almost 60 years including the 1940-1970 work as daily columnist. In the 1930s he was Sports Editor and early on had interest in aviation, helping Donald Douglas get financial help from the Chandlers. The joke is that I grew up on his By the Way Ranch in Chatsworth where the Sesnon Airport would have been!
Hi Daniel, we’re glad you found the post with your grandfather’s article mentioned. He has also appeared in posts here about the opening of Wrigley Field in Los Angeles and about USC quarterback Johnny Hawkins because, as you noted, of his sports reporting with the Times.
As mentioned in this post, the maximum runway length under consideration was about one mile (5,280 feet), which was adequate for the propeller-driven aircraft of that era. Jet aircraft, however, would later require runways nearly twice as long – often exceeding 10,000 feet.
What is remarkable is that the site ultimately selected offered not only ample land but also vast undeveloped areas around it, allowing for continuous growth and expansion through additional land acquisition. The early planners deserve credit for choosing a location with such long-term potential. That said, I doubt they were already envisioning the advent of jet-powered aircrafts, let alone the much longer runways that such planes would eventually require.
As for international air travel, they may have had some awareness after Lindbergh completed his transatlantic flight in 1927, and the German dirigible Graf Zeppelin visited Los Angeles in 1929.
So, I think it is fair to say that the success of the airport’s location resulted from a combination of good planning and good fortune.
Hi Larry, thanks for the comment and it is worth noting that the original intent was for the “close in” Vail Field in Montebello/Commerce to be the main passenger airport, but the failure of the bond issue led to what many were warning against, that is, the selection of just one “catch all” site. The distance of Mines Field, however, worked out well enough given the conditions you noted.