HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220006 700 N. Broadway Demo - SSPF Correspondence � � � � � � � �
�' � � � � � � � � O O O �
�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
L � � � c� � � V � f6 � a--� V � � �
p � ca �, 4� � � � � -� � �
v � � .� � � � � � � � � � p � O � �
� � � � cn � � � � � .v � �
,� — +� (� � N � � � .� U � � � `� � , O
+� v � � 0 � � � � � � ,� O � � � Q � �
� � cn � �
� � � � � ,� '� � � � � � � .� — � �
� '
�' � cn � � � � O � � � �, � O � L
a..�`, � ��., 0 � ~ � � �' � � � � •i O >` � �
� � � � � Qj �—�'i � i � � i � � . � � 0 � .�
Q •— � � � L � �, � O �, � ,4 V ,_, O
O � � � � a-�-' �j � (n � � � � U V 0 (� �
a--�
Q OO � � � ' � O � � j, a--+ � Q � V Q � ca �
� � �v � (� � � � �� � � i � � � O � �' �j �
� � L � � � _ � � � � � � � � � � � �
�, � � � � o .� � •� � � = o ,� � `—" �' � �
� +� � � v U � c�n � �, o � c� — 2 � p �
� — � � � � — � � � � ' � >` � � > i—�'i i
� � � � $; � � p� � � m � � � ,� � � -� � �
� cn `� � � V � L � c/� � �' 0 �1 .� � � � � �, �
O ca ca � � O c� �O ,� r� O � � ,� 0 � O .— � � O
� � � � � � � ' � � Z � � O � � � O � � v�
� � � � Q Q , z � � � � c� � m � � o .U' �
.� � �' . � � \ o � � � � � a..� o � o
. � ,U � � +� � Q V � � +_+ O U � �
,� � � Q 0 O � � � � � � �, � +� � � � � � O
00 � a--� � (� � � .— c� ra � � c� ra � a--�
� 000 °� oo o � � � � � � � � � � � •" '> .�
� '� � a.�., � � � � � � V � � � � � � � `•� � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � O � � O � � � �
V
� •� � O � � � � Q � �' � '� � `� �' � � (n �' � O
� U L � � � � Q _ u) � � � � V � � �,
._
+� � � � V � � i �� � •� � � � ~ � •L U p
� \ � c� Z ,� � � �, � � +�-+ � � i �
L �' � ra � � � '�n � � — > � uj U � � �- �
(� V �' � � � � � � c!� � O � ��1 a1 � � cn �
� � � Q � � � � � (� � � V U � U 0 O
� a--�
� � � �- � � � � U � � � v � � �, r� r� = r� � � �
� � p � � � � � i ._ � � � � � � � i
.� O
� Q � � � �' a--' � � � � � � � � V � ��--+ � � •� M � .
.
cn V ca �� � a-' O
N �
'i � � �
. � cn � ' � � � � �� � � � � � � � O Q � �' � 04 O
� � . .— .— � � �' � � �, � �' O >
v � U � � � � � 4 � � O � O .cn L �, � � � � � +�
� � � � � � V � � � � � p � � � >` � ,— �
C6 O •— � � � i � � � � _ � � �' � � � � i
� c� ��-' � > O c� � � �O � `� � � � � � `~ `� ca � � a--' L (� Z �
� �, ._ � � � � � •� � � � � O � � � � L L � � tn
L � L � � � � � � L � � 0 � � (� � L V--� � I-I � � (� Q} (� �
— c� � � p� � � � L� r� O � � O L 0 � � � > �' cn V � � � O �
.r� � � � � � O � � L .cn � � ra r� � � � L � M r�I
�--� L � � �U Q� � � � �--� .; � L Q� (�/) •� � '� � � � � Q �L •� (� •� � �
.
� 00 J � � >` a--' O � � (� � � . � �--� 00 0 I..n p
a.., � �
\ '— � � � � �, � � O O V �, � �' � � .� pC v � � , � .N c� ca � Cn � Cn I� c�
� O � � � � � � U � '^ � � •� � � � + L � � � � � � .> � �� � f�
�
� O � ca �' � � � � � � cn `~ x � � .cn � �� � O � � � p � p � cn
� � z � � � � � v � v O � � � � � � � � � a.=� v � 0 c� [6 � a--� (n �.+ �
� c,�i) p ca ca �' � � � - ca � � � � � �' � � O � c� � � � � � � N � 00 �
� � o � � �, r� r� � •— � � o � c� .� � � � � � � � � � r� c� X ra .� ra ,f �
Q oo � U � � � � � � ca ; � c� a� � � � z � Q � ra O � v� cn w v� .� cn �. �
--- � � �� '�'�II� � L�
�ui
� � -�a ' --��
'�a � -�.'=�7' : -rp „
� 4 � �' �=�l
� � � N
� � � �..,: � r ` �
ryE �I 9 , -� � +•!..
�: � r .. . N�. .'., j � ih�.8.99
� !�
.�y_�."_,.�""'""._'""_"'_..'_""_"""_�.'__�,.' - _ .� _ �o i! sARArOGA I
. ����„ ��,r
� � � � �� .. '� ' .�-" -- •_;`'y- � `s---
� �.1 ' � �-; �7":�,
�r� �.� �'�'--;� .� �i -- -�
� � I
Q �' p ��� S ��e ^
1 �3 � � ~h
� _ •�;" ,� 4 ..� i � ` Z I
; - i
r 3, . � ;� 6 I
` � �� ' ' � �:. , �
� �� ;'' d
� ` �
�- ; f--, �
:�
�,� � � � b � .�
. BRYAH ^'
� a � N I � � i
�
i C7 � � _, ,- , .,,' ,�
�
,
.� � �
� � �
2 � . � I =
�
e z i
� " r-�^ ; � � �--'Fi i
o� � �M '� � ____ �'�; �
- � � L ��
� � �' -- -"
,^l�l �' .'r �-- -' � ---...
� � ,.,.�-.� _ �
4. .�, -. . ,., c_ .. . .
�
r--+� -_' 8�t7N�WA1'�_•--•--•�crr,......._...-_-_-•••--• ~�----�
_-•__-- -----------'------------`----`-----_____—`-------•____ s-----' '--" �'•-__-
i
�
.t' __ eo i�'
C. _ r"
" r .�, -- � �,. u
R I�• pP
����� L Ajr �Q �
e .� r 1 ,� � 8� �
9 � � r i
i ` _ ,3� �
s�w a...� �
i
ai�- - � �
�
i ` "'; ' �� �
. � ,-,�� !
;�-�"' �s�� r � (� - �� `� � � �
� � ��.... ) � • � � i �
'��, ( �i `�, -� � � i
�- . 't� J � `� �
.
- i �
, 2 ;
i
I
r
, 1` � �n�'� � �
� i".� � I ,
.. _,_ _ . _ iC� ' .
32 - 9RYAN Q Q; �,
� ,i --` ------� ! .- . --� . � _ .Y-4�-�L--- - -� -
� �� � ��• � �
y � :
• . I �
`� � i � • I � i� �
� �: �, � � . ,.
_____� � .e . � � �;
I i � � _ . 0 3 --
� � � �' _ ' ' D
. � , ;f ; _�' � � "
. �� - � �� - - �i-� �
-�: _ ��
; � t
. "-�- =---- � , � �:
... �.�.__ � � � ���
h `�y C ,� � ` �1� �I � � .
r AThaR�Nf � k:l� � .
• ...:".�s......__.............---...---....._.......---...---»_... � _.�:
3` / , � A r � ���� ��
� r � � F + � I , I i � � .
� Q L;, �,� � �
�+ 4 .. �;' i ` 1 _ � , �
. '' ' __ �� � � ' — t
Y_,- � _ - � � � �
__ ,., --__ __ �% ��:�� � .'; ... , �n
_ . - �. �, : � � � ,
,
: #
_ . _____� ; � ° ► � ��� :
. ,�.: �
�1 �`� - _ � --- . � � �
MAPCf —� �
� � ---__,` ' q� _ _ �i :
• �� - -- � .
�1 . � _ .
rt�
t� � 3 r.-~� � • �--� • � ��
, � • ,
�t _ � � i � _ . • � �.
�,
� i,� � r'�• ► : , , s , ' r ► �
- _ � � �. � -
• .
� ��-- ` . i
:
I � ;
� �
I � 2
� � :'
I � �
� , , • � ,
� � _ � , ,
, . ,
� �.� h--�✓� I�""�. � ;
,
. ,. � ..� . I
'' � i ` , �__„�— + � ' ..:.-+�--'� i !
� -- �
3� �� ; � BRYAN ' F �'
M ,. _ . _ .
— ^�'j � ' .,
- , ,
.
� � ', � �-{�. � , ,
z U� � :
�i.; _ �.,.�� �
�► I � .. . I __ �_i I I 1
�i ��j � � ; , , � F
��—'!�-.I.J -- �I ' ,
.�. - — � � � �
'� � �r .. � � �J �:
� . 8 � - _ - " - -� - - -- ` ,
-;- � .,. �
I � �r`���, O _ i ' :
� v
Ia� T �
�� �'�."_�� �n�' 0 j' .1� � Q • �'a i '
� i
. n � � � � •— �#aR y , �� � .
� ��� -�.,,� �; ��+ _ �: -, � . , �
c. A +"r , / ! I , `� ; � :� !..... ; I
• ' � : ��1� . . �:
_�l � . a _ :
� �� I I :
_' - �� �f`
,, .. . :
. � - �ATNqR�k� _ • ,� ' . - - ,�` •
I � " �. � � -� � : :.•.�..... . ..... . ...� .o:
_ .�� -�.+. _a .... .___..... .......... ......_... ._.........._. �� .._;
. 32 W � _ f� � � ' � . , - � ;
� , - _�_ ,,� :
,� I � � .
► • � I �f j � •
� 4 r � �
� � � � • I � _ , �
,�� �� ; � - , �i� _
� �` '-- ! � � � 1 , , . r� ( � -- + � �
• ; � �--- --$ - -� i
--{-�� �/ : � ,� �o , � `
; - �`�' . _-�` � �y .� � � Q ��T�,
� �'�'''' �-�-- . .-.Mar�� i = - C��' � �'.
• ��.���;• _---A•_�V . _ --- � _.. � , i, .._,s.• �.. ��j
� �� !'' i`p J ~� q�1 . � ' �y �^�"�"��� �
C� � �1 � '/ • , �
. .r�.r ` _ �, _ � �
_ /+� � f�. , _ r �1Je �f'�•1-- i.. . .
�� snoAow►.r 3t7 ,._ ',_, I
'_' .. ...... ... ... . �.. ' _ ' -'..TS.''Y_
a � _ ._ .
• `:'�� ♦ - _ r _ II;
�� `� � �� �J I �-., � . I ���� ` �
� �.� � � ��
. �
� � � ; �
� . � �
. ; � � W_� � - �
� �
`_ ; I �- � ;
6 I
I
4 I r � .
� I 'r�f °.�~.__, .� . `� t'�" ..s
, ' I� � �,�< �.iH —�r�� � ., � �
�� �_. e.. �—. �. r....
• � (j'
�L Y -� �RYAN
� , r � 1 � • �] ...! :
r . ' _ •
°4 �'j� �� � " - �� � F
4 �'�� � � � �
�� � � ' �
� ' - � `� � �� � '� '�
- � .-� � � � �--� �
. � � _� .
�� � - -:.� �l � �-� , r � � �
� l
� � � �.;��� , �
� yf� ,� �+� , y. -- � �
l� ..� � � `f _ ._ � I � � ! � _� �
I��r� � ..nn � �
"�''? �et�. '�a-�Ty �� �+ yt F I ..�_� r .��__.
- °-� -x_' � F.� ���:- � t:a��
li � ,��` --�-.' fi,�ry,���h, .; �� - . �—�.
,�.
;; � t , s -
v � ;.,�'�' �P .. � -•�`T�
� " cr.-c.-_-"..�_..»_.--_•...._.........._s-.....,.................... �I
J� ' � ' ''b�* i�.� �'� �--+' .� �� � � - `_ �p
� . �� , � �
� . *•e j r`,�r : :.
, 'a'r- ---�?- i � i
- -- . ; �_ � �. �,_.--�,�_ --- � ..� [
--- + - .
� :�__� -J �
� ~ �•.a` � �` �' ,�+r �� - �f I 14- '��—
� _C3 �, �`+er--� �--� �r i i
�� �� � -� � ��� [� � � �'
. ^ . T , .� � C ;�., �� a
,Y e,� ' ��LC � Y
; � ,� �
� r�C ' . �Y . -r' - r' 1. � �1
. , !� 'I. y _,� : A' � �J f�-� '',T
' �z �L • � � �7
I A � 'r'+;,� . . . �. ' -- _ --�'" ` � .., i-
� .{ ; � . .,� , �" - --� x �,.�., # ., .
Y� t�y a � .�.�� �� f JI' f';
� � � � � � ' � �
,: � � ; ; ��� A J�, � .
• ,,••: • : j , , � � ' � . t, ' ' '��,�'M1� t� / ' ;.
..�,. ./�
, ' F � t , �
�, ' , �
�, :•,ti � J i i i �'� � � " �� .
' r', � .` ����� „ � L , ,I" ,r .
� � �" ��pt� '�'k � � +/ '. � �, � .�.,7r � .
;r F - .� � ��. ��� a� � �,'±'. . . �� � ,
� � _ ....^wc-.-a'„``r � 4 � '/ � .r
, �." _"' rt.q4. i . ' � �!`l� ///
� ,� _�p., - �� . �� ��S��Y 1 ' � ,�!',��
. �:
� "�`y`.,- _ � �_'r' ,�z .'Lq'-_ , ' � � � .
� � ; b � ` a.. � �• 4 ., i `�
� � i y� � ��,,��'r ��� - � ' � �
�.a,'.,)., �*�� � � t , �`� R �' . �.� ���9+ P � �i
�r.j �l � � __,�" �� •,:� �� l., �! " �''^s;%'�rj�.' � !-
� ����?�..� �, ��: 1�� •�' , <,� y
� �� ,�� . , i i ��' ,.
_..... - � - 5� �I�R '' � � �fiI i �
(' ...R;� •.�-.Y}�' �� a �Z � , i _... . ti.. i, ,.., ', .
i
�„..i. r.���' y,y;:. _F w._...- 4 y � � � �` 1
��_,. ��� � �' .. w
b=" �;� ' ' h r
r �.� 4 - .'�` � � t� x ' � �
� ' r
'�, ` � , �f' �,., �- ,�
,•� ' .. �'� s _ � x� . � ` '''�'� ,.�
l ,�� � � r s+,� ,.�v-- - l';
i, .'ttti �r ✓x.:, r#«�..
. x : '�'"6,,,�� �' -� ,r 1 y,�,' _ - � '��� -- i
� — �"�r. c .._ ., ,�� ' �. . ��4+� �'.
�� , �-�, d ,��. _ _ � � � ,. }� � �
�.. '"` �> --�---.— r-- ,�,
' �- '=�!�":���_�'
. �_ ., �'.,. -_ > _ ' � , ._��-=��'�...�
�
� �: ��
. ; : �
�
- '_ VN" 7 -: '1°..���� - 's'IM��� 4 �1�. -�
i • i
... _ . �_. .�- �- � - - . ._ . . .�.. .
� �
J r' ��. `� / ..
.�� ..4 R� �, I J-,.• � �-� � , ��Y'�_. . . .� 4�y 4 � 1�
;�,
�
,
`��
�'
` _�:, 1
�
.�,}�;:
�.,;,..
�� „�...
i 4. � ,�`, . �
�� �t � � � .
.� a� �y '� �• ��� �
1t,, rR'1. � ��� ��' xt `�H.
s.�� � , �', t.'w1T �� �� 4 t ��Y''#.... p -
� ��� �' �. ,�� [ Y_ .� .
i y � �
'�" ♦/ ^� �"�� �� �i'qM.. .'t� . ,
� . � L � ��� . � V i
� � � " � r I � � 't� � �
� , � �4 " , '� � �,�I�� '� J�.♦-�` f�R �. '� � �
..A' � � � l.. " � ��, `; E ' . ��{,•5„� �����i .�, � �..
.��' � s�� �� '�-'
�� ��,i ;� 4 I � ya:�� .� .�_, .
f _M. � T�
1 _ . . �^� ;/C ' a `.:�� �' �' '` t
`� .
� � � ; i a.. ' �- , /. �• � . ��
� ! }
� r �, � .� q ..
�� � ��. �� � , � �`
A�� � ;t . �s . � } �.. � 'f ...a�,,,iW
. . . � � � ; ,1�_° �� , 1 �1%r .qr.' � �► M
�. � �_ ".R `�� f � � 11 ,� ,� ` .,�� '��� �..
� R,� f .# �+� � � { � , ;,1 ' 9 � � _ �
` r + ��. . ,F� .r � � � ,� �, , � � :� .
} :�'> � . � f p i'�► , 4�,},F�",� '
1�• � �� � �, � e•' �w�:� �� s
� + � � .&:
"� Y� � Y .
� i, � � r ' � -'ti�`.
.�� I� " � � '' � � �f ,r", t.
��`� J � � � '� .� ��� v . � � � :y.s
� r • � A � • r p'kb 7I � � �
,.I ,r t ' � � �
�
+ .. , ��+ , rt 4 - , _` �. . . _�_;w�- i � w F
� ��eF � e
' � ,� � • I � r
r��.��n �9��
FOR QFFI CE �1S� ONLY
Bll f LD I !VG-STRl1CTl.1RE I NVENTQRY F�ORM
HIST. DlS7. N0 , Ifl
STRL�CTi1R� i�0 , I
�FFICE OF COMMLJNITY D�VELOPMENT NEG . NC� .
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRENGS
SARATOGA SPRiNGS, �JEW YORK 4 ,000/'I� ,000/`12 ,aoa
I DE�fTI Ff CATI ON
I . BLI I LDI NG NAM�{S) :
2 . STREET LOCATION: 700 North Broads�ra
3, OWNERSHIP : a , public 6. �riv�te X c . institutianal
4, PRESENT OWNER : Te�nman_, Jacob_S & �ADD��SS: ��34 ?�roa w�,y,., _
Alberta E.
� . LISE : Origin� l ?�a�irla�n�� . _ Present :
6 . ACCESS I B I L I �`Y �Q PllBL I (': Ex�er i or v i s i b i e from ;�uh� f i c road Yes � Na
Interior ��ccessib� e � Expl � fn
DESCRIPTION
7 . BlJ I LD I NG a . c( apboard b . stone
MA�fERiAL ; c . brick X d . b�ard and 6att�en
g . STRLICTl1RA� a , wood �Fr�me wi th i nter f ock i ng jo i nts
SYSTEM: b. wood frame with ligh� members X
( Ff known� c. masonry load bearing walls
d. metal (ex� lain�
e , other
g . CO�DITION a . exc� llent X b . good c. fa + r d . deteriorated
Describ� �
! 0 . INT�GRiTY ; a , originaf sit� X b. moved if so,. wF►�n ,_, _ _
c. I i st ma jor a i terat i or�s and dates {i f I<nown} :
700 North Broadway
II . THREATS TO BUILDfNG: a, none known�,� b. zoning c , roads
d, developers e . deteriora� ion
f, other
i2. RE�ATED 4�TBUILDINGS AND PR�P�RTY:
connect�d by caver�df
a , barn b, carriage �ouse c. garage�_
d� privy e . sh�d f, greenhouse
�. shop h . gard�ns
+ . landscape features
j . other
a3 . OTNER NOTABLE FEAT�RES OF BufLDING ANQ SI7E ( including interior
features, if kn�w����� ��pok �uns bene�tn t�e si�e and surface�
behind 658 Nor�h Broadwa,g. Th� origina� house was des�r�yed by
fire in �a52. I�s ' number was 69�. Dr. Feynman changed the
# �Q 7�Q �� �Q55 when he b�i1t the present structur�.
SIGN � FICANCE
f4. DATE OF 1Ni71AL CONSTRUCTI �N : �g�5
ARCN f TECT: ',+lilliam �oo er of A st r
BLII LDER, �'ussel� Raber°�s of Sarato a S rin 5
I .� . H i STOR f CA� AND ARCH I TECTLIRAL I MPORTANCE: ��� ob jec�iTre in �he
buil.ding of �he �ouse was to build a. hor�e tha-� was not large but
at th� sam� time would nat b� dw�rfed by �h� massi�re st�uc�ure�
on Na�th �3roadway. The �aus� is contemporary design v�rith pa�nted
��rindou�s ��hich extend the fulZ f irst storv �, includ�s the gabl�s in
I6 . SOLIRCES; �r. �acob Fe
, ,ynman, owner �.nterv�.eEa� March 30, 1a�6, the roof.
City Dirc�ctories
Chranicles -- Evel�n Bri�ten '12/7/�']
I �, FORM COMp�ETED BY : Julia Stokes — His�oy�caZ Inventory Pro�ect
Director
!r
.. .. � �`�I `4r-
694 North Broadti��ay
'15. H1S�0�'1G�1 �m�or�'ance:
A Z�.��e brick d�re�llin� 2;� s�ories w�th a irame porc� �'ron� �nd
rea� once accupied �'_�ais proper�y. Charles S. Lest�r a pra��nen�
�:�tarney practicin� t•rit� the �'irza of G.S. �. G.C. Lester , 350
�3r�ad�ra�; built and resided in the dw�lling fro� '1��84�'I�C}�.
During �he 'I°20' s and 30' s P�Iiss N_�nrietta Cram�r and M�s.
Duncan Van�?.enssel�e� Joh�?sc�n {act?ve �n Tr�,T Socinty) l�z=�d
in the nom� .
�'or a �imA in '��?`l� ;�lilliam Ed�ar i,,�ooley, one c��` t'ze
pronrietors of tre Grand �Tni.an I�ct=�l �n the Gay �;�' s liyTed
i,n the hom� .
'�he ho�e c:��,� destr_oye�. ��y .i;re in 'I°��.
t��aps: '���6 �eers - no �i��rel�in�, land o�,rned by �.:�. �'arrin��on.
'l��° S�.nborn -- a�.1 �ric'� dE��el.l.in; ��rit� frame porch.
`��Oa Sanborn -- al� br�ck dwellin� 2h story strua�ur�
�rith frame porch on .f.ron� and back sid�.
Ci�.y �Jirectories:
'1���- N e E•r '�o us e.
'1�8� C��arles S. Les�er, of C.S. °-. C.C, Lester, law�ers
360 B�oadway.
'18�4 C!�?arles Lestex� �.nd �azrid McC1.�.re o�' N.Y.
�uc+s �, T� ,," �,dvaard P�I�zrph� of Tro.y.
��.a5 �+T, Ta �� George P. Ide
'��Cj°�...��,
�t tt sr n n�� �t t�
'139�-'1�03 Charles C. �"� Cha�1.�s S. Lester
`1904 Cha��.e� S. Lest�r di�d '12/'l'�/'1��4.
'i�p� Mr�. C.�� Tester and James l�J. L�ster , lav�a.yer 350 ?3roa�way�
��0���C�oQ �r t+ sr tt n n n n
7
"I�'l0-'12 vacant - Les�ers moved to �2'i La'_�e ASrenue.
'l�'!3-'I� i�Irs. �.�. Les��:r
'��'i� vacan� - moves bacK �E3 '12`i Lake Avenue.
'I�.��-23 ,� s, o„e ��,►
'IQ24-30 ���s. Doazglas Van�'. �ohnsor�
1�;3'1-3� vacant
'Ig3'] f�7rs. Mary Cramer, summ�r residan�.
1�3a M�s . l�7ar;� C . Jahnston
'�4'1 vacant ��v"r)
��,�+��i,!��a t;{�:. � .
�.
6�}4 North Broadway
`�a44-�?6 John t�1. Jones and Mrs. Hazel W. Janes - Convalesent
f�ome.
'19�+8 4 apartments - r�irs . ��azel ��1. J`on�s
1 q54 10 �rans ient and Mrs. T-iazel I�I. Janes .
'I�?62 vacant - ci�stroyed by f��re in '1962.
'; � 'William E. Cooper
' Mz-. W�lliam E. Coaper af Amsterdam, passed away peacefully Friday, March 1,
2013 at St. Mary's Hospital in Amsterdarn_ Bill was born in Amsterdam, NY an
,� ` September 5, 1922, the son o�the late Ewart and Beatrice Finlay Cooper. He
..�,,.. was a graduate of the Wilbur H. Lynch High School.
' Bill served as a 1 st Lieutenant with the Army Air Forces Airborne Troop
Carrier Group 47, he is a veteran of W WIL He participated in the Normandy
- invasion through the flying of resupply rnissions to Sastogne during the Battle
: of the Bulge. He was awarded the Air Medal and the WWII Victory Medal.
_ ��, After the war, he entered Renssalaer P4lytechnic Institute and graduated with a
degree in Architeeture. He served as an Assistant Architect with the New York
State Department of Architecture far four years. He then returned to Amsterdam as a construction manager for
J.L. Finlay Construction. In 1956 he started his own architectural practice. One af the earliest projects was the
former Amsterdam Savings and Lvan Building on Upper C�urch Street. Successive projec�s included the Clara
S. Bacnn Elementary Schoal, Montgomery County �ffice Building, Montgomery County In�rmary,
Gloversville City Hall and Fire Station, Liberty Enterprises and the Florida Town Office Building. Bitl was
elected president of the Eastern NY Chapter of the American Institute af Architects from 198$-1989.
Bil1 enjoyed sailing on the Sacandaga Lake, playing tennis and horseback riding with friends and photagraphy.
His true passion was flying airplanes starting at the age of 65.
Bill is survived by his wife Joan Pulling Cooper, whom he w�d on January 20, 1945, a son David Cooper;
daughters Patricia Coaper and Jill Coaper Marris and her husband Daniel Morris; a granddaughter, Daria
Morris; grandsan Chad Fagan and his wife Traci; a great granddaughter Tenley Fagan. He is also suruived by his
brother and sister in law Robert and Norene Cooper.
A memorial service will be held an Friday, March 8, 2013 at 11:(}4 am at the United Presbyterian Church,
Church Street, Arnsterdam with the Rev. James McLeod Jr. officiating. Burial of Bi11's cremated remains will
take place at a later date at the Gerald B. H. Solornon, Saratoga National Cemetery with military honors. The
fami�y will receive family and friends on Thursday from 4 ta 7 pm at the Betz, Rossi & Bellinger Family
Funeral Home, 171 Guy Park Avenue, Amsterdam, IVY. In lieu of flowers memorial contributians may be made
in Bill's rnernory to an animal shelter of one's chc�iee.
. � .
• • � � �
.
- . -
� - � - .
REPORT 723
A Model for ldentifying
and Evaluating the
Historic Significance of
Post-World War II Housing
� �
�. � � :�
•E �]�x
r� ��� . ,� j ±:s_•
� V:�s.-:� � �l
��',����j.;� "_
�i �i ��1! ��' _ - . �.
� ��-
� �
� - ��
, t�� .. .�----� _
� ��� ��
� � ■ �� -
� � -
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIE$
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2012 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
OFFICERS
CHAIR:Sandra Rosenbloom,Professor of Planning, University ofArizona, Tucson
VICE CHAIR:Deborah H.Buder,Executive Vice President,Planning,and CIO,Norfolk Southern Corporation,Norfolk, VA
EXENTIVE DIRECTOR:Robert E.Skinner,Jr.,Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
Victoria A.Arroyo,Executive Director,Georgetown Climate Center,and VisitingProfessor,Georgetown University Law Center,Washington,DC
J.Barry Barker,Executive Director, TransitAuthority of River City,Louisville,KI'
William A.V.Clark,Professor of Geography and Professor of Statistics,Department of Geography, University of California,Los Angeles
Eugene A.Conti,Jr.,Secretary of Transportation,North Carolina DOT,Raleigh
James M.Crites,Executive Vice President of Operations,Dallas-FortWorth International Airport, TX
Paula J.C.Hammond,Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Michael W.Hancock,Secretary,Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,Frankfort
Chris T.Hendrickson,DuquesneLightProfessor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,Pittsburgh,PA
Adib K.Kanafani,Professor of the Graduate School, University of California,Berkeley
Gary P.LaGrange,President and CEO,Port of New Orleans,LA
Michael P.Lewis,Director,Rhode Island DOT,Providence
Susan Martinovich,Director,Nevada DOT,Carson City
Joan McDonald,Commissioner,New York State DOT,Albany
Michael R Morris,Director of Transportation,North Central Texas Council of Governments,Arlington
TracyL.Rosser,Vice President,Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.,Mandeville,LA
Henry G.(Gerry)Schwartz,Jr.,Chairman(retired),Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil,Inc.,St.Louis,MO
BeverlyA.Scott,General Manager and CEO,Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid TransitAuthority,Atlanta, GA
DavidSeltzer,Principal,MercatorAdvisorsLLG Philadelphia,PA
Kumares C.Sinha,Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering,Purdue University,WestLafayette,IN
Thomas K.Sorel,Commissioner,Minnesota DOT,St.Paul
Daniel Sperling,Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy,•Director,Institute of Transportation Studies;and Acting
Director,Energy Efficienry Center, University of California,Davis
Kirk T.Steudle,Director,Michigan DOT,Lansing
Douglas W.Stodar,President and CEO, Con-Way,Inc.,Ann Arbor,1V1I
C.Michael Walton,ErnestH. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Te�as,Austin
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Rebecca M.Brewster,Presidentand COO,American Transportation Research Institute,Smyrna, GA
Anne S.Ferro,Administrator,Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
LeRoy Gishi,Chief,Division of Transportation,Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington,DC
John T.Gray II,Senior Vice President,Poliry and Economics,Association of American Railroad, Washington,DC
John C.Horsley,Executive Director,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,Washington,DC
Michael P.Huerta,ActingAdministrator,Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
David T.Matsuda,Administrator,Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Michael P.Melaniphy,Presidentand CEO,American Public Transportation Association,Washington,DC
Victar M.Mendez,Administrator,Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
Tara O'Toole,Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S.Department of Homeland Security, Washington,DC
Robert J.Papp(Adm.,U.S.Coast Guard),Conin2andant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.Department of Homeland Security, Washington,DC
Cynthia L.Quarterman,Adniinistrator,Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Peter M.Rogoff,Administrator,Federal TransitAdministration, U.S.DOT
David L.Strickland,Administrator,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Joseph C.Szabo,Adniinistrator,Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg,Assistant Secretary for Transportation Poliry, U.S.DOT
Robert L.Van Antwerp(Lt.Gen.,U.S.Army),Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,DC
Barry R.Wallerstein,Executive Officer,South CoastAir Quality ManagementDistrict,Diamond Bar, CA
GregoryD.Winfree,ActingAdministrator,Research and Innovative TechnologyAdministration, U.S.DOT
*Membership as of July 2012.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
A Model for ldentifying
and Evaluating the
Historic Significance of
Post-World War II Housing
Emily Pettis
Amy Squitieri
Christina Slattery
Christine Long
MEAD$L HUNT,INC.
Madison,Wisconsin
Patti Kuhn
Debra McClane
Sarah Groesbeck
LOUIS BERGER GROUP,INC.
Washington,DC
Suhscriber Categaries
Highways • Public Transportation • Environment
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2012
www.TRB.org
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 723
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 08-77
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administratars and engineers. Often,highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-25853-1
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2012946553
or in cooperarion with their state universities and others.However,the O 2012 Narional Academy of Sciences.All rights reserved.
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway autharities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administratars of the Written permissions from publishers or persons who own che copyrighc co any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials p�blished or�opyrighced m�ceri�l used herein.
1n1t1ateC� 1n 1962 an ob)ective natlonal 111gllway researcll program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants perinission to reproduce material in this
employlrig moC�ern sclentlfic t2C�1n1Clues.�11s program 1s suppotteC�on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the °1derst�"ding ch�c none of che m�ceri�l�vi11 be�Sed co imply TRs,aasxTo,Faa,Fxwa,
FMCSA,FTA,or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a partic�lar product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the ,,,echod,or pra�ci�e.lc is e�pe�cea chac chose reproa��ing che macerial in chis ao��menc tor
FeC�eY31 HlgllW 3y f�C�ri11ri1StY3tlOri, UrilteC� St2teS �ep2Ytrilerit Of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
Z'Y3riSpOYt3tlOri. any reprinted or reproduced material.For other uses of the material,request permission
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited far this NOTICE
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The projecc chac is che subjecc ofchis repon was a pan ofche Nacional Cooperacive Highway
Research Program,conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn;it t1�e co�erning soard o£c1�e N�cion�l ReSe�r�h co�n�i1.
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal,
The members of the technical panel selected to inonitor this project and to review this
state and local governmental agencies, universihes, and industYy; its report were diosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
relationship to the National Researeh Couneil is an insuranee of The reporc was reviewed by che cechnical panel and accepced for publicacion according co
Ob)eCtlVlty;lt ri121rit3111S 2 ftlll-t]1Yle YeSe3TC11 C017e13tlOri St2�Of SpeC1311StS procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those who are in a position to use them.
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Resear�l,soara,che Nacional Resear�h co�n�i1,or che progran�sponsors.
by ehief administratars of the highway and transportation departments The Tr�„Spon�cion xesear�h soard of c1�e N�cion�l a�ademieS,c1�e N�cional xeSear�h
anC�by commlttees of AASHTO.Eac�l year,speclfic areas of researc�l Council,and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
neeC�s to be 1ncluC�ed 1n tlle pYoffYam aYe pYoposeC�to tlle Nat1on31 endorse products or manufacturers.Trade or manufacturers'names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are
selected from those that have submitted proposals.Administration and
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibiliries of the National
Research Council and the Transpartation Research Board.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups.The program,however,is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.
Published reparts af the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available fram:
Transportation Researdi Board
Business Office
500 Fifrh Street,NW
Washington,DC 20001
and can be ardered thraugh the Internet at:
http://www.na tiona 1-a ca demies.org/trb/bookstore
Yrinted in the United States of Ameiica
TH E NATIONAL ACADEMI ES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters.Dr.Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964,under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers.Dr. Charles M.Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences Uy its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of inedical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr.Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M.Vest are chair and vice chair,respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta-
tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,
all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S.Department of Transportation,and other organizations and individu-
als interested in the development of transportation.www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 723
Christopher W.Jenks,Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F.Jencks,Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L.Sundstrom,Senior Program Officer
Megan Chamberlain,Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P.Delaney,Director of Publications
Maria Sabin Crawford,Assistant Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 08-77 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Forecasting
Sandy Lawrence,Georgia DOT,Atlanta,GA(Chair)
Anne E.Bruder,Maryland State Highway Administration,Baltimore,MD
John A.Burns,National Park Service, Washington,DC
Richard Cloues,Georgia Department of Natural Resources,Atlanta,GA
Jeffrey L.Durbin,National Park Service, Washington,DC
Andrew C.Hope,California DOT, Oakland,CA
Dianna L.Litvak,Colorado DOT,Denver, CO
Toni M.Prawl,Missouri DOT,Jefferson City,MO
Helen P.Ross,Virginia DOT,Fredericksburg,VA
Claudette C.Stager,Tennessee Historical Commission,Nashville, TN
MaryAnn Naber,FHWA Liaison
Martine A.Micozzi,TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research report was performed under NCHRP Proj ect 08-77 by Mead&Hunt,Inc.(Mead&Hunt)
and the Louis Berger Group,Inc.(Louis Berger).Mead&Hunt served as the primary contractor for this
study,with Louis Berger serving as a subcontractor.
Amy Squitieri and EmIly Pettis served as the co-Proj ect Directors and co-Principal Investigators.Other
authors of this report are Christina Slattery and Christine Long of Mead&Hunt and Patti Kuhn,Debra
McClane, and Sarah Groesbeck of Louis Berger. Others who contributed to the project include Dusty
Nielsen,Shannon Dolan,Rick Mitchell,Sara Gredler,and Carol Roland of Mead&Hunt.
FOREWORD
By Lori L. Sundstrom
Senior Program Officer
Transportation Research Board
NCHRP Report 723:A Model for ldentifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of
Post-World War II Housing provides state departments of transportation (DOTs) with a
model for identifying and evaluating post-World War II (postwar) residences, a national
historic context for this type of development, and guidance on developing project-specific
historic contexts.This information will enable DOTs and the Federal Highway Administra-
tion(FHWA)to effectively and efficiently comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 4(f� of the Department of Transportation Act, setting out
a consistent and predictable approach for identifying and evaluating postwar residential
resources,thereby reducing costs and ensuring timely project delivery.
This report should be of immediate use to DOT cultural preservation staff responsible
for identifying and evaluating postwar residential development as part of the DOT's proj-
ect delivery process. The report,which contains numerous illustrations and photographic
examples of postwar housing,will also serve as an important reference document for cul-
tural preservation professionals.
Vast numbers of postwar houses—located in every American city,town, suburb,and rural
area—are either currently more than 50 years old or will soon become 50 years old, and are
thus potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register).
Because of the passage of time,the number of potentially eligible houses will increase dramati-
cally in the ne�t decade,presenting a major challenge to DOT decision makers and preserva-
tion planners.The sheer number and ubiquitous nature of postwar houses,which number in
the hundreds of thousands and are present in every state,presents an opportunity to develop a
national framewark for identifying and evaluating their eligibility for federal protection,thereby
minimizing the potentially significant administrative burden for DOTs and State Historic Pres-
ervation Offices(SHPOs)that would be associated with conducting the National Register eligi-
bility reviews of every transportation project with the potential to impact these houses.
Under NCHRP Project 08-77, Mead & Hunt, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin was asked
to develop a methodology for identifying and evaluating the National Register eligibil-
ity and non-eligibility of postwar single-family housing built between 1946 and 1975 that
is or is not part of a planned or unplanned subdivision or neighborhood. They were
also asked to develop a historic conte�t for postwar development at the national level, and
to field test the model historic context and evaluation methodology in Arlington County,
Virginia; Arlington, Texas; and Madison, Wisconsin. The research report also contains a
substantial bibliography, a model outline for a regional or local historic conte�t, and the
historic conte�t developed for the Arlington County,Virginia,primary test location.
In addition to FHWA, state DOTs, and SHPOs, the results of this research should be of
interest to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices.
CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Background
4 Chapter 2 Research Approach
4 A. Development of Project
5 B. Overview of Historic Context
6 C. Survey Methodology and Field Test
6 D. Evaluation Methodology and Results
7 E. Conclusion
8 Chapter 3 Guidance for Survey and Evaluation
8 A. Introduction
9 B. Project Preparation
9 1. Identify Survey Requirements
9 2. Project Scoping
9 3. Preliminary Research
10 C. Identification
11 1. Survey Methodology for Subdivisions and Neighborhoods
11 a. Recording Field Survey Data
12 b. Application of Methodology to Groupings
13 2. Selective Survey Methodology for Individual Properties
15 a. Minimal Traditional Form
16 b. Cape Cod Form
16 c. Transitional Ranch Form
17 d. Ranch Form
19 e. Raised Ranch Form
19 £ Split-level and Split-foyer Form
20 g. Colonial Revival Style
21 h. Georgian Revival Style
22 i. Storybook Sryle
22 j. Spanish Colonial Revival Style
22 k. Asiatic Sryle
22 1. Contemporary Style
23 m. Prefabricated Houses
24 3. Recording Field Survey Data
24 a. Additional Streamlined Approaches
25 D. Historic Context Development
25 1. Guidelines for Research
26 2. Guidelines for Developing Historic Contexts
27 E. Evaluation
28 1. Evaluation Methodology:Historic Districts
28 2. Evaluation Methodology:Individual Properties
28 3. National Register Criterion A
29 a. Area of Significance:Community Planning and Development
32 b. Area of Significance: Social History
34 c. Area of Significance:Ethnic Heritage
35 d. Additional Areas of Significance
35 4. National Register Criterion C
36 a. Area of Significance:Architecture
39 b. Area of Significance: Community Planning and Development
40 c. Area of Significance:Landscape Architecture
41 5. Integrity Requirements
41 a. Aspects of Integrity
43 6. Relationship Between Area of Significance and Integrity
43 7. Retention of Character-defining Features
43 8. Alterations
44 a. Individual Residences
45 b. Historic Districts
47 9. Defining Historic Boundaries
47 F. Documentation
48 G. Conclusion
49 Chapter 4 National Historic Context
49 A. Introduction to Postwar Suburbanization
50 B. Transportation Trends
50 1. Automobile Age
51 2. Interstate Highway Program
53 3. Non-interstate Freeways and Improved Highways
53 4. Urban Mass Transit
54 5. Conclusion
54 C. Government Programs and Policies
54 1. The Legacy of the National Housing Act
55 a. Federal Housing Administration
56 2. Veteran Housing Initiative
57 3. Continuation of Federal Housing Policies
57 4. Conclusion
58 D. Social,Economic,and Cultural Trends
58 1. Economic Conditions
59 2. Demographic Trends
59 a. Shifting Populations
60 b. Pamily Size
61 c. Segregation,the Civil Rights Movement,and Racial Desegregation
62 3. Consumerism and Technology
63 4. Conclusion
63 E. Planning and Development
63 1. Development Patterns
65 a. Influence of Ordinances,Codes,and Covenants
66 2. Subdivision Development
66 a. Developers and Builders
68 b. National Association of Home Builders
69 c. Real Estate Companies
69 3. Advertising Trends
72 4. Subdivision Location,Design,and Features
73 a. Location,Plat,and Layout
74 b. Inclusion of Amenities
75 5. Utilities and Infrastructure
76 a. Streets
76 b. Sidewalks
78 c. Entrances and Perimeters
78 d. Plantings
79 6. Conclusion
79 F. Postwar Building Materials and Construction Techniques
79 1. Advances in Materials
79 a. Metals
82 b. Masonry
84 c. Wood
85 d. Glass
88 e. Plastics
88 2. Mass Production,Standardization,and Prefabrication
90 3. Conclusion
90 G. Architecture,Site,and Landscape
91 1. Residential Design Characteristics
93 a. Material Use
94 b. Interior
97 2. Use of Plan Services and Architects
99 3. Popular Architectural Styles and Forms of the Period
99 a. Postwar Architectural Forms
108 b. Postwar Architectural Sryles
115 c. Prefabricated Houses
118 4. Garages and Carports
119 5. Landscape and Site Features
119 a. Yards and Fences
120 b. Patios
121 c. Driveways and Sidewalks
121 d. Family Shelters
122 H. Conclusion
123 Chapter 5 Conclusion
123 A. Expected Benefits
124 B. Dissemination of Results and Areas for Additional Research
126 Appendix A Bibliography
134 Appendix B Model Context Outline
135 Appendix � Glossary of Terms and List of Abbreviations
136 Appendix D Arlington County, Virginia,
Model Historic Context
Note:Many of the photographs,figures,and tables in this report have been converted from colar to grayscale
for prinring.The electronic version of the report(posted on the Web at www.trb.org)retains the color versions.
1
SUMMARY
A Model for ldentifying and Evaluating
the Historic Significance of Post-World
War II Housing
By 1945,the housing backlog that began in the Great Depression and accelerated during
the war years had left approximately 3,600,000 families without homes.To address this defi-
cit,new housing starts reached a total of 1,023,000 in 1946,increasing more than threefold
over the prior year.' As postwar residential construction continued, the number of new
houses built in the period from 1946 to 1975 reached over 40 million.z Many such houses
are now or will soon be more than 50 years old and may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (National Register). Pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act(Section 106),federal agencies must take into account the effects
their projects may have on properties eligible for listing in the National Register.As a result,
postwar residences are increasingly being considered as part of Section 106 compliance.
To address the challenges faced by cultural resource professionals and decision makers
when confronted with this vast number of postwar residences,an effective methodology for
survey and National Register evaluation is needed.The NCHRP of the National Academies
funded the project to assist departments of transportation (DOTs), State Historic Preser-
vation Offices (SHPOs), and the FHWA in effectively dealing with postwar resources and
fulfilling associated compliance requirements under Section 106.
This research project focused on the achievement of the project's objective of developing a
practical,consistent,efficient,and useful approach to the identification and evaluation of post-
war resources that can be used within the framework of Section 106.The main components of
this study include the following:
• Development of a methodology for identification and evaluation of the National Register
eligibility and non-eligibility of single-family housing built between 1946 and 1975.
• Preparation of a national context to understand the development of postwar housing and to
guide the evaluation of postwar residential types.
• The application and testing of the methodology and national context to three diverse geo-
graphic locations (Arlington County,Virginia;Arlington,Texas;and Madison,Wisconsin)to
demonstrate its utility.The results of this application were used to refine the methodology for
both survey and evaluation presented in this report.These results are not included within this
report,but are available on the project website.
'Joseph B.Mason,History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980(Houston,Tex.:Gulf Publishing Company, 1982),
45-47.
�U.S. Census data accessed at http://www.census.gov/const/startsan.pdf on 29 March 2011, and U.S.Census
data from 1966 in Barry Checkoway,"Large Builders,Federal Housing Programmes,and Postwar Suburbaniza-
tion,"in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 4,no.1,March 1980,23,and reprinted in Critical
Perspectives on Housing.
z
The guidance for survey and evaluation builds upon the National Register Bulletin Historic
Residential Suburbs, Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register
of Historic Places to provide efficiencies in the survey and documentation of postwar single-
family residences and address the challenges the ubiquity of vernacular homes of that era
pose to the evaluation of their National Register eligibility.The most significant component
of the survey methodology is a selective survey approach tailored for this resource type that
focuses documentation and evaluation efforts on those resources that are more likely to meet
National Register Criteria.The methodology recommends the review and documentation of
these resources first as components of a potential historic district,since most postwar houses
will not meet National Register Criteria individually. For individual resources,documenta-
tion and evaluation is limited to those examples of postwar forms and styles that stand out
among similar properties.Collectively,this results in a streamlined approach that effectively
deals with the large number of similar postwar resources.
The national historic context developed for this study is also a useful tool for state DOTs,
SHPOs,the FHWA,cultural resource professionals,and others in understanding the themes
and issues that relate to the development and construction of individual houses and postwar
neighborhoods and subdivisions. Spanning the period from 1946 to 1975,the contextual
information provides the larger national framework within which to place local residences
and subdivisions or neighborhoods as they are evaluated on a project-by-project basis.The
national historic conte�t also serves as a guide for the development of local historic conte�ts
by identifying themes to consider for local conte�t development.
The survey and evaluation methodology is applicable to postwar residences nationally
and provides the opportunity for consistency among state agencies needing to identify and
evaluate individual properties and planned subdivisions and unplanned neighborhoods of
the period.Use of this methodology by state DOTs will streamline the survey and evaluation
process with consistent results across geographic areas.If necessary,the methodology can be
tailored to meet individual state requirements while adhering to its overall intent to follow a
practical and streamlined approach that recognizes the ubiquity and homogeneity of many
postwar residential resources.
3
� HAPTER 1
Background
As soldiers returned home from World War II,started fami- The obj ectives of the research project,as stated in the State-
lies, and setded into civilian life, a burgeoning demand for ment of Work,are to:
housing could finally be addressed and a residential building
boom ensued.A significant rise in auto ownership to three out 1. Develop a methodology for identifying and evaluating the
of every four families in the 1950s that occurred in conjunc- National Register eligibility and non-eligibility o£
tion with the rise of freeway development facilitated suburban a. Postwar single-family housing built between 1946
growth away from the city centers.3 Suburban expansion and and 1975 that is not part of a planned subdivision or
home ownership continued in the 1960s and early 1970s, unplanned neighborhood,and
with 66 percent of the population owning their own homes b. Postwar single-family housing developments built
in 1970,compared to only 55 percent in 1950.4 The suburban between 1946 and 1975 as a planned subdivision or
environment that developed in the postwar period from 1946 unplanned neighborhood.
to 1975 represents the fulfillment of the American dream of 2. Develop a national historic context and a model historic
home ownership.A distinctive landscape emerged comprised context for a state or region that addresses these types of
of large-scale, self-contained subdivisions with single-family properties.
homes often aligned along curvilinear streets. Post-World 3. Apply and test the model historic context in a state or
War II (postwar) houses were also constructed on isolated region to demonstrate its utility to state DOTs and SHPOs.
lots,as infill within earlier neighborhoods,and in small cluster
developments with lesser,overall visual impact Although some state DOTs and SHPOs have begun to
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preser- address postwar residential resources through historic conte�t
vation Act (Section 106), the FHWA and state DOTs must development and evaluation for individual projects,itwas rec-
take into account the effects their projects may have on ognized that broader direction is needed to guide and support
properties eligible for listing in the National Register of His- surveys and eligibiliry assessments.The model context and sur-
toric Places (National Register). State Historic Preservation vey and evalua�ion methodology presented in this report pro-
Offices(SHPOs)are responsible for commenting on eligibil- vide a standard framework for cultural resource professionals
ity recommendations and project effects.With many postwar to use to judiciously and efficiently evaluate postwar housing.
houses and suburban developments now more than 50 years This will result in a streamlined and consistent approach to
old,or coming of age soon,they may need to be considered context development,survey,and evaluation that will benefit
for eligibility for listing in the National Register for the pur- future Section 106 compliance efforts.Adoption of the meth-
poses of Section 106. The magnitude of postwar properties odological approaches and defined standards presented herein
will increase dramatically in the next decade, presenting will result in clearer decision making and agency agreement on
a major challenge to decision makers. This vast number of the eligibility and non-eligibility of these resources.
postwar residential resources requires an effective framework The project team developed the recommendations in con-
for determining National Register eligibility. sultation with the research panel appointed by the NCHRP
that provided valuable insight, greatly informing the study.
3Peter G.Rowe,Making a Middle Landcape(Cambridge,Mass.:The The pro)eCt teanl Consists of Cultural reSourCe professionals
MIT Press,1991),5. from Mead&Hunt,Inc.(Mead&Hunt)and the Louis Berger
4Rowe,5. GYoup,InC.
4
CHAPTER 2
Resea rch Approach
The project objective was to develop a historic context for identification,evaluation,documentation,and registration
postwar housing and a methodology for identifying and eval- requirements for postwar residences.
uating the National Register eligibility and non-eligibility of • Phase III—Model context: The third phase included the
single-family postwar residences constructed between 1946 development of two historic contexts: a national historic
and 1975. This methodology is intended to provide DOTs context and a model regional context.
and other agencies with a consistent approach to evaluating • Phase N—Test of inethodology and model context: The
postwar single-family dwellings for Section 106 compliance. fourth phase was the field test of the survey and evaluation
A further objective was to find and document efficiencies that methodology and application of the model context.
could be applied to the survey and evaluation of the vast num- • Phase V—Final report:The final phase involved addressing
ber of postwar residential resources that e�st na�ionwide. panel comments,applying test results and assembling the
The focus of the project was placed on traditional and bibliography,methodology,conte�t,and survey and evalu-
vernacular postwar housing rather than architect-designed ation recommendations into the final report.
houses and subdivisions,as traditional and vernacular prop-
erties are more pervasive and pose the greatest challenge to Key components of these five project phases are discussed
cultural resource professionals.The historic architectural sig- in detail below as they apply to the development of this project
nificance of high-style postwar houses,such as those designed and the final recommendations.
by well-known architects Clifford (Cliff) May and William The context and survey and evaluation methodology were
Wurster,can be more easily recognized and available National developed to conform to the requirements contained in the
Register guidance allows such properties to be readily evalu- Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 60 and relevant
ated. However,the ubiquity of vernacular postwar housing National Park Service(NPS)guidance,including the following:
and absence of standard stylistic nomenclature or historic
conte�ts provides significant challenges to the evaluation of • How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation;
National Register eligibility for both individual houses and • Historic Residential Suburbs:Guidelines for Evaluation and
districts. Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places;
• Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that
A. DeVelOpmeltt Of P1'OjeCt HaveAchieved Significance Within thePast50 Years;
• HowtoEvaluateandNominateDesignedHistoricLandscapes;
The project included five phases that informed the final • How to Complete the National Register Registration Form;
recommendations and built upon each other,including the • How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property
following: Documentation Form;and
• Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties.
• Phase I—Literature review: The first phase involved the
development of a bibliography of sources related to post- During a crucial phase of the project,the methodologywas
war residential development. tested in three demonstration areas to identify the practicality
• Phase II—Survey and evaluation methodology:The second of its use in future day-to-day practice.In one primary dem-
phase was the development of an outline for the national onstration area,the testing included preparation of a regional
historic conte�t and the draft methodology to address the historic conte�t and application of the survey and evalua�ion
5
methodology in the field.Three neighborhoods in Arlington by suggestions received from research panel members. See
County,Virginia,were selected as the primary demonstration Appendix A for a bibliography outlining sources consulted.
area:Virginia Heights,Nauck,and East Falls Church.These Based on research and identified themes,a model conte�t
locales exemplified the challenges faced during many DOT outline was prepared to guide development of the national
projects requiring surveys of postwar residences,including historic conte�t and the primary demonstration area model
the following: historic context.This outline can guide the future prepara-
tion of local or regional historic contexts.Cultural resource
• Distribution of postwar housing within planned and professionals may use the outline as a basis for developing
unplanned neighborhoods; project-specific historic contexts to assist in the evaluation
• Pro�mity to major transportation corridors; of postwar resources in their particular project location.
• Housing variations,including a variety of styles and sizes; The model context outline is included in AppendiY B of this
and document.
• Social,ethnic,and economic diversity of the neighborhood. Following research and outline development,the national
historic context was prepared. This context compiles infor-
Additional criteria used in the selection of the primary mation about resources that share a common theme and
demonstration area included the availability of reference time period,in this case single-family residences built from
materials applicable to postwar housing in Arlington County 1946 to 1975. It provides the framework for understand-
and the cooperation of the state DOT and SHPOs. ing the social, economic, governmental, and political influ-
In order to test the survey and evaluation methodology ences on the development of these resources nationally.The
for its appropriateness nationwide,two secondary test areas national context describes the overall development of hous-
in distincdy different parts of the country were selected: ing during the postwar period and covers national trends
Madison,Wisconsin, and Arlington,Texas. Neighborhoods that influenced postwar residential development. Popular
in these two areas were selected because they also contained architectural forms and styles of the period,including their
many of the features described previously. The Madison, character-defining features,are included in this national con-
Wisconsin,test included the Marlborough Heights and Golf text.The national framework is e�pected to ease the process
Green neighborhoods and a small cluster of postwar houses of future context development at a local or regional level by
in an area of isolated rural development. The Arlington, providing the major themes, trends, development patterns,
Texas, test included the Northcrest Park and Fielder Place and architectural styles and forms of this era. The national
neighborhoods. historic context is included in Chapter 4 of this document.A
The application of the survey and evaluation methodology glossary of terms and list of abbreviations used in the context
in three geographic areas helped the project team meet the and throughout the report is included in AppendiY C.
project goal of final products that are broadly applicable to all The historic context for the primary demonstration area of
regions of the country.Information learned from the applica- Arlington County,Virginia,serves as a model for the future
tion of the methodology to the demonstration areas was used development of a local or regional historic context that
to refine the approach and shape the final recommendations. would be sufficient to guide identification and evaluation
It also provided valuable insight to the project team and panel efforts at the level that is typically expected for a transpor-
on key refinements to the methodology that allowed for fur- tation improvement project. The model context developed
ther streamlining and standardization of the approach. for Arlington County,Virginia, is included in Appendix D.
This model context presents the various types of develop-
B. Overview of Historic �ontext ers active in the county, common methods of subdivision,
and the architectural character of period resources.' The
The initial phases of the project focused on the development development and subsequent use of this conte�t assisted the
of a national historic conte�t and a regional model conte�t for project team in recognizing areas of transition between dif-
the primary demonstration area.Extensive research was con- ferent subdivisions, identifying housing forms and styles,
ducted to support the development of the conte�ts that focused and identifying alterations to individual postwar resources
on relevant themes to the postwar period,including govern- and neighborhoods.The model historic context gready ben-
ment,community planning and development,transportation, efited the field survey by providing surveyors with detailed
social history,and architecture.Primary and secondary sources
were supplemented with a review of previously prepared his-
SIt should be noted that the Arlington County context covers a large
tor1C Contexts, Natlonal Reglster Nominatlons and Multlple geographic area that e�perienced significant growth and development
Property DoCuments(MPDS),and Survey results from Studies during the postwar period. Therefore, this context is mare detailed
of postwar housing. Research materials were also informed than would be expected for a typical project-specific context.
6
background on the development patterns that occurred in Texas.The results of the application of the methodology were
Arlington County during the study period.Professionals can generally favorable; however, some areas for improvement
use this model conte�t as a guide for the future development were identified.For example,the initial survey methodology
of a local or regional historic context conducted for a DOT- resulted in the documentation of many individual resources
sponsored compliance survey,keeping in mind that the geo- that were similar in appearance and therefore did not result
graphic reach of the conte�t should be appropriate for the in a streamlined approach.In particular,the survey method-
resources that may be affected. ology led to the documentation of a large number of houses
that retained sufficient integrity to warrant survey but were
C. Survey Methodology not distinguishable from one another and had no potential to
llld Fle�d TeSt be recommended eligible for listing in the National Register.
The documentation of many similar resources did not assist
A survey methodology was developed to provide guidance in assessing their eligibilitybecause it did not allow the survey
for the identification and evaluation of postwar residences team to distinguish between examples of a particular form
and neighborhoods.Although the requirements for survey or style.As a result,the survey methodology was refined to
documentation standards vary from state to state,the meth- provide more stringent documentation criteria for individual
odology focuses on the appropriate and needed level of docu- resources. The method for documenting neighborhoods or
mentation for ubiquitous postwar residential resources and groups of related resources was not changed as a result of
is tailored to address their specific eligibility evaluation. To this test.Another improvement to the survey methodology
develop the methodology,the project team reviewed relevant was the improved definition of forms and styles,including
National Register Bulletins,National Register Nominations character-defining features and architectural elements for
and MPDs, and a variety of previously completed postwar each.The final survey methodology is included in Chapter 3.
compliance and community survey reports(see bibliography Through the utilization of the refined methodology, the
for details). These sources were used to identify successful survey team collected enough data during field survey efforts
and efficient survey and evaluation approaches that became to make informed eligibility recommendations. Districts
the basis for the recommended methodology. were considered and documented as a group of resources
The methodology addresses steps commonly completed without the need for individual records for every building.
in the efficient conduct of compliance surveys:preparation, Individual resources were selectively documented based on
identification,historic conte�t development,evaluation,and the application of the survey criteria,resulting in appropriate
documentation.It is intended to guide cultural resource pro- property records.
fessionals with survey of both individual postwar homes and
districts of related resources. The project preparation step D. EVall,lat1011 MethOdOlOgy
provides guidance for preliminary research, initial context ahd ReSll�tS
development,and project coordination for compliance sur-
veys. The identification step focuses on the reconnaissance The evaluation methodology follows the format of the
survey and field review methods for individual residences, National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs, Guide-
neighborhoods and subdivisions and the completion of sur- lines forEvaluationandDocumentation fortheNationalRegister
vey documentation.The methodology focuses on a selective of Historic Places (Historic Residential Suburbs) and provides
survey approach that includes the review of all proper�ies in guidance for how to determine if individual properties and
the field with documentation completed for those postwar subdivisions or neighborhoods are eligible or not eligible for
residences and neighborhoods that have the most potential listing in the National Register.b The evaluation methodol-
to be recommended eligible for the National Register. The ogy includes case studies to illustrate the evaluation process,
historic conte�t step addresses development of an appropri- including examples of eligible and not eligible resources.The
ate historic conte�t for use in evaluating National Register eli- evaluation methodology is presented in Chapter 3.
gibility.The evaluation step discusses application of National For the primary demonstration area and the two test areas,
Register Criteria to individual properties and potential his- individual properties and potential historic districts identi-
toric districts and assessing integrity. Finally,the documen- fied during the field survey efforts were evaluated for National
tation step outlines survey reporting procedures to present Register eligibility using the developed evaluation methodol-
historic context and evaluation results. ogy. The project team presented the survey and evaluation
The methodology was applied to the reconnaissance-level
field survey of three geographic areas,including the primary 6David Ames and Linda Flint McClelland,Historic Residential Suburbs,
demonstration area of Arlington County,Virginia, and two Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register
additional test areas: Madison, Wisconsin, and Arlington, of Historic Places(Washington,D.C.:National Park Service,2002).
7
results to the state DOTs and SHPOs following each state's The documentation of the field survey and results of the
established reporting procedures.The DOTs and SHPOs pro- application of the survey and evaluation methodology to the
vided feedback regarding the use of the methodology and the primary demonstration area and the additional test areas is
resulting eligibility recommendations.This input was consid- available online at the NCHRP proj ect website.
ered and incorporated into the final recommendations.
Through the field test and feedback from the research E. COf1C�1151011
panel,the survey team determined that the evaluation meth-
odology provided an adequate framework for assessing eli- The testing in various geographical locations and response
gibility. The team also noted that it is important to have a from panel members regarding the results confirmed the vari-
historic conte�t in which to evaluate the significance of the ability in current practices for survey and evaluation nation-
resources.This observation was based on their experience in wide.Practices vary gready from a selective survey approach
finding the developed historic context to be a valuable tool that only documents properties that meet survey criteria,as
in the evaluation of the surveyed resources.The historic con- recommended in this study,to the documentation of every
text for Arlington County,Virginia,assisted in the application building greater than 40 years old regardless of architectural
of the evaluation methodology to surveyed resources and or historical interest or integrity.Regardless,this study's rec-
informed the eligibility recommendations.For the two addi- ommended survey and evaluation methodology, presented
tional test areas,the application of the evaluation methodol- in the following chapter,is applicable to postwar residences
ogy was more challenging because of limited available historic nationally.The methodology presented herein can be modi-
conte�t information.Development of a historic context was fied or tailored to meet individual state requirements while
not part of the project scope for these two secondarytest areas, adhering to its overall intent to follow a practical and stream-
and its absence was notable.The trends and patterns of post- lined approach that recognizes the ubiquity and homogeneity
war development for these areas was not understood fully and, of many postwar residential resources.As identified in this
in both cases, a city-wide context would have allowed for a project,some states may not be initially comfortable with the
better understanding of the development patterns and com- selective survey approach and may request additional docu-
parative examples.This would have resulted in a stronger case mentation.Suggestions regarding supplemental documenta-
for evaluation recommendations and more consistent results. tion are also outlined in Chapter 3.
8
CHAPTER 3
Guidance for Survey and Evaluation
A. Introduction may include registration in the National Register if that is the
intended result).Although development of a historic conte�t
The survey and evaluation methodology for postwar single- is included within the identification and documentation steps
family residences is intended to guide state and federal agen- �,�,ithin the NPS standard,it is presented as a separate step in
cies needing to identify and evaluate individual properties, this methodology,which is organized around the following
neighborhoods, and subdivisions built between 1946 and five major steps to accomplish the survey and evaluation of
1975. Use of this methodology by state DOTs provides for a
streamlined and efficient survey and National Register eligi- Postwar properties:
bility evaluation process with consistent results across geo-
graphic areas.As many state DOTs and SHPOs have specific 1. Project preparation—Including project scoping,prelimi-
survey and evaluation requirements,this document should nary research, initial context development, and project
serve as a tool rather than a prescribed requirement, unless coordination.
approved by the project sponsor. 2. Identification—Including guidelines for the survey of
Building upon the guidance of National Register Bulle�in individual postwar residences, as well as neighborhoods
Historic Residential Suburbs, this methodology provides effi- and subdivisions and recording field survey data.
ciencies in the survey and documentation of postwar single- 3. Historic context development—Addressing development
family residences and addresses the challenges that the vast of the historic context for use in evaluating National
number of vernacular homes of the era pose to the evaluation Register eligibility; focused research is often completed
of National Register eligibility of both individual houses and at this stage.
districts.In addition to being informed by this Bulletin,the 4. Evaluation—Including applying the National Register
survey and evaluation methodology adheres to the following: Criteria to individual properties and potential historic
districts and assessing historic integrity.
• The requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regu- 5. Documentation—Including reporting procedures to pre-
lations at 36 CFR Part 60 sent the historic context and survey and evaluation results.
• Relevant NPS guidance,including:
– HowtoApplytheNationalRegisterCriteria forEvaluation, Accepted practice for transportation compliance projects
– Guidelines forEvaluatingandNominatingProperties that adds a preparation step at the front end of the methodol-
Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years, ogy to coordinate with and address project sponsor needs;it
– How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed HistoricLand- also typically excludes registration as an end result.For effi-
scapes, ciencies created by focused research and reporting,as well as
– How to Complete the National Register Registration practicalities of scheduling,historic context development for
Form, a compliance project usually occurs after the identification of
– How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property properties in the field.
Documentation Form, and Although this methodology is intended for survey and
– DefiningBoundaries for National Register Properties. evaluation of postwar resources for transportation-related
projects,it may also be applied to other survey efforts address-
The NPS guidance recommends the following standard ing single-family residences from this era.It should be noted
process:identification,evaluation,and documentation(which that subdivisions and neighborhoods may contain multiple-
9
family residences and non-residen�ial properties, such as coordinate with the project sponsor to determine the Area
schools and churches,which should also be considered for of Potential Effects (APE),which will assist in defining the
survey and evaluation as components within the subdivision survey area.
or neighborhood.The national historic conte�t included in Once the APE is established,it is important to review aerial
Chapter 4 will assist in understanding such properties;how- and street maps,often available online,to orient and under-
ever this report as a whole,as well as the specific methodol- stand the overall spatial relationships of properties within the
ogy,is directed toward postwar single-family residences. APE and the immediate area.This review will help to identify
potential historic resources, groups of buildings, street and
development patterns, and subdivisions or neighborhoods
B. PI'O�eCt PI'epal"a�1011 that may extend beyond the APE. The APE may be refined
1. Idelltlfy SuYvey ReC�ulYements in the field, when considerations such as deep setbacks,
viewsheds,topography,and the overall setting are taken into
Prior to commencing fieldwork efforts,it is important to account.However,any refinements to the APE should be con-
review surveyparameters and required survey documentation firmed with the project sponsor.
with the project sponsor.For the purpose of this document,
the project sponsor is considered the lead agency responsible 3. P1'ellmindYy ReSedYCh
for fulfilling the obligation of compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act(the implementing Once project scoping is complete and before commencing
regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations field survey,it is important to conduct preliminary research.
at 36 CFR Part 800). For most transportation-related proj- Having an understanding of the general history and develop-
ects,the proj ect sponsor will be the state DOT. The SHPO ment patterns of the survey area,as well as the historic and cur-
and/or FHWA may have oversight of the project depending rent boundaries of neighborhoods and subdivisions,is critical
on a state's delegation arrangements.Many DOTs and SHPOs and will inform survey efforts. Research prior to fieldwork
have survey manuals that prescribe survey methodology and may also reveal potential National Register Criterion A asso-
documentation standards and some may have specific guid- ciations,such as postwar industrial expansion that resulted in
ance applicable to postwar resources.Accepted methodolo- large-scale housing developments or groupings of prefabri-
gies within a state and the needs and requirements of the cated residences constructed in a community.Municipalities,
project sponsor should be considered in determining how to universities, state and local libraries, and historical societies
apply the guidance provided in this document. may have digitized information that is available online.Other
For example,DOTs and/or SHPOs may require surveyors sources of information may include the following:
to create or modify e�sting database records for surveyed . DOT project files,including survey reports for similar or
properties or prepare inventory forms following a set format. comparison properties or survey areas.
Surveyors shouldwork with the project sponsor to obtain the . SHPO site files,including records for previously surveyed
required inventory forms or database,confirm how the final properties,historic contexts,maps,and photographs.
survey data will ultimately be delivered,and understand the . Historic and current maps and aerial images of the survey
requirements for any supplemental materials, such as maps area,which may be used to identify development patterns
and photographs. Although the NPS offers digital photo- and subdivision dates.A comparison of historic and cur-
graphic guidance,photograph requirements for survey proj- rent aerial images can show changes in land use and infill
ects still vary between states. Surveyors should coordinate development.
with the project sponsor to determine digital photo standards, . TaY parcel information on the assessor's website,including
including image quality and size,and how to submit files.In construction dates,names of builders and/or developers,
some cases,black-and-white photographic prints may still be and plat maps,which may focus future research efforts.
required,and coordination with the project sponsor should . County and community histories and information on
occur to identify a qualified film processor. Understanding local neighborhood associations.
these project sponsor survey requirements will allow survey- . Available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data,
ors to gather necessary and relevant data in the field. which may provide a predictive tool for the field survey.
For example, a review of available data may determine
2. P1'OjeCt SCOping concentrations of modern infill development that may be
eliminated from consideration for survey.
Prior to undertaking a survey of postwar residential prop-
erties,it is important to review the project area and gain an Preparing a research design can help set the objec�ives and
understanding of potential resources. It is also important to goals for the survey.The research design may vary based on
10
the requirements of the project sponsor,but at a minimum, planning trends of the postwar period in the greater Lan-
should include the following: sing area,particularly because the subdivision was not fully
executed as planned and infill development has occurred
• Purpose and goals of the survey; throughout the plat. Other planned neighborhoods in the
• Description of the APE and survey area; area better represent this trend in postwar residential devel-
• Summary of preliminary research results for the proj ect opment.As a result,it is not eligible for listing in the National
area,with preliminary conte�t statement including poten- Register and intensive-level survey and evaluation were not
tial Criterion A associations; necessary.Figure 1 shows one of the Harnischfeger homes in
• Identification of any previously surveyed and/or evaluated the subdivision.
historic properties;
• Survey methodology,including documentation standards e. IdelltlflCat1011
and deliverable requirements;and
• Project schedule. The period between 1946 and 1975 was the most produc-
tive period in American history in terms of overall housing
Some states require the project sponsor to approve aresearch construction. Various architectural forms and styles were
design.The results of the preliminary research,including the introduced and utilized in this period.In some cases the post-
research design, serve as a basis for focused research that is war house is defined by its form alone,and in other cases it is
completed after field survey efforts. See Section D for guid- better described and classified by the style applied to the form.
ance regarding focused research efforts. In this report,the term"form"refers to the overall house type
The following case study demonstrates how preliminary as defined by its massing,layout, and shape,while the term
research and review of historic plat maps assisted with iden- "style"refers to the decorative elements and materials that are
tification and subsequent evaluation of a postwar neigh- applied to exemplify a particular architectural style. House
borhood of prefabricated homes in Mason, Michigan. The forms may or may not include stylistic details.The national
Northbrook Farms Subdivision,platted and developed by the historic context in Chapter 4 discusses architectural forms
Kessler Construction Company in 1959 and 1960,was iden- and styles and their character-defining features,and provides
tified during reconnaissance-level survey efforts for a trans- more detailed information regarding the forms and styles
portation compliance project.Twelve homes were adjacent to discussed in this methodology. These classifications inform
the proposed transportation project and 38 e�tendedbeyond the survey methodology as they help to identify postwar resi-
the APE.Review of historic neighborhood plat maps and tar- dences for field survey.
geted preliminary research indicated that the subdivision was Reconnaissance-level survey,also referred to as a Phase I sur-
originally planned to include 260 prefabricated Harnischfeger vey,records proper�ies at a base-level without intensive-level
homes built in increments of 50 units,a shopping center,ciry research.The majoriry of data collected at the reconnaissance-
park,and neighborhood swimming pool.However,only 50 of level is from field review of property e�teriors.Reconnaissance-
the homes were erectedby Kessler,and the shopping center and level survey records properties that are representative of
other subdivision amenities were never executed.Although �e period and provides a context for the overall types of
the existing homes retain many of their character-defining resources in a community.Reconnaissance-level survey is not
features,research efforts determined that the subdivision,as limited to properties that meet the National Register Criteria
a whole,is not a significant representation of the community but should be informed by an understanding of these criteria.
This section provides guidance for conducting a reconnais-
�` �� ���'�. ��'"'`'r ° °` �� ��''�� sance-level survey. Intensive-level survey, also referred to as
� �,���'' � . �� � Phase II Evaluation or a Determination of Eligibility,involves
� � ����'��,,,,;_��` - �� � - �' more in-depth review and research and typically results in a
' '�` �� � - recommendation regarding the National Register eligibility
of an individual property or grouping of related resources.'
,��,
Section E provides guidance for evaluating National Register
� � � �_ � eligibility.
- �:.:�. �--�- �_ ��
Two approaches are provided to streamline the reconnais-
;�F�, `��...,, ,
'�"'� sance survey process.The first approach consists of document-
`; _.,_ - -, ��.;
Figure 1. A prefabricated Harnischfeger residence �Although eligibility recommendations are often made by the surveyor,
erected c.1960 in the Northbrook Farms Subdivision the eligibility decision is made by the project sponsor or lead federal
in Mason, Michigan(Mead&Hunt photograph), agen�y.
11
ing concentrations of similar properties as a single group or a. Recording Field Survey Data
potential district. This approach works best in an area that
developed as a planned subdivision or within a neighbor- To complete a reconnaissance-level survey of a group-
hood where homes were constructed during the postwar ing of postwar homes,surveyors will need to document the
period and display similar forms,massing,and materials.The overall characteristics of the subdivision or neighborhood,
second approach is the selective survey of individual proper- as well as representative examples of properties within the
ties that are not part of a grouping and have the most poten- overall grouping.This methodology provides a way to clas-
tial to be eligible for the National Register.This methodology sify and document the variety of architectural forms and
for individual properties allows for selective documentation styles present in a neighborhood or subdivision. The fol-
of properties that meet a minimum threshold,which is based lowing options may be used to identify resources for clas-
on the e�erior appearance and retention of a degree of integ- sification purposes:
rity and character-defining features.This selective approach
works best in areas that did not develop as a single planned • Forms/styles—Classification by architectural style or form
subdivision or neighborhood,including infill development �'orks well in areas where a variety of styles and forms are
in older neighborhoods,postwar neighborhoods with lit- present. This allows for the documentation of represen-
de or no architectural cohesion, and isolated rural postwar tative examples of styles and forms along with providing
residences.Section C.1 provides the survey methodology for general information related to the overall number and use
documenting neighborhoods and subdivisions. Section C.2 of materials.The guidance in the selective survey approach
provides the survey methodology for documenting indi- for individual properties in Section C.2 may be used to
vidual properties, as well as recommended approaches for assist in identifying examples of styles and forms that
documenting properties in the APE that do not meet the retain a degree of integrity as well as character-defining
selective survey criteria where required by a project sponsor. features, which would serve as representative examples
It is important to confirm these methodologies with the proj- �^'ithin the grouping.
ect sponsor. • Variations within forms/styles—In areas with a large num-
ber of homes representing a single form or style,variations
within the form or style may allow for classifying resources.
1. Survey Methodology for Subdivisions For example,in an area with a high concentration of two-
dnd NelghbOrhOOds story Colonial Revival homes,properties could be classi-
To streamline the survey and documentation process, fied by e�terior cladding materials, such as clapboard or
concentrations of similar properties identified during pre- brick veneer.In the case of similar Ranch homes,the roof
liminary research efforts should be surveyed as a group form(side gable or hip)or exterior cladding could serve as
rather than as individual resources since they are recom- a distinguishing factor. In this case,representative exam-
mended to be evaluated collectively as a potential historic ples of these variations should be documented.
district. • Prefabricated models—In subdivisions or neighborhoods
Reviewing aerial photographs,plat maps, and taY parcel comprised of prefabricated homes, identification of the
data gathered in the preliminary research phase will assist housing model allows for a way to classify these resources.
with the identification of these groupings and delineation For example,many prefabricated home companies pro-
of boundaries for survey. For example,review of a subdivi- duced a variety of floor plans and exteriors. In the case
sion plat or aerial photograph may assist in determining if of Wisconsin-based Harnischfeger Homes, two standard
properties within the APE are located within a large planned models were available in a 1955 catalogue: the side gable
development or unplanned neighborhood that experienced model and the hip roof model.� Although both models
slow development.A review of the plats and aerial photo- allowed for variations in the interior floorplan, square
graphs may also help determine if a large portion of a sub- footage,and exterior materials,the exterior roof forms are
division was not developed as originally planned, modern an easy way to classify these similar prefabricated homes
development has occurred within the initial plat, or com- for survey and documentation purposes.
munity resources of the postwar period, such as a park or
public pool,are no longer extant.Understanding the e�tent During field survey efforts, surveyors will collect data to
of the original plat or neighborhood development patterns support evaluation and documentation efforts,which are out-
will assist in identifying if the field review will need to extend �ed in Sections E and F of this chapter.At a minimum,the
beyond those properties in the project APE to identify and
document the full extent of the overall grouping,which may �p&H Homes,Plans for Better Living...P&H Homes(Post washing-
comprise a potential historic district. ton,Wis.:Harnischfeger,1955).
12
following should be recorded in the field for a concentration A postwar neighborhood in St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
of postwar residences,including subdivisions and neighbor- includes appro�mately 350 Minimal Traditional and Transi-
hoods that are being documented as a group: tional Ranch homes constructedbetween 1945 and 1950.The
neighborhood is comprised of several 1910s and 1920s plats
• Overall architectural styles and forms,construction dates, that were not developed until the community e�perienced
materials,setbacks,and distinguishing features identified rapid growth beginning in 1945 due to its pro�mity to the
in the grouping; this could also include identification of city of Minneapolis.A large number of small-scale developers
representative examples of styles/forms and variations or purchased lots and constructed modest homes,using similar
models,as described herein. forms and materials. Although not a planned subdivision,
• Circulation patterns,including streets and sidewalks. the neighborhood developed within a fairly short period on
• Green spaces,vegetation, and landscape features, or lack the traditional grid layout,with homes that display similar
thereof. forms,massing,and setbacks.Lot sizes and layouts are similar
• Associated resources, such as parks, pools, community throughout the neighborhood and it is not possible to dif-
buildings, schools, churches, and commercial areas, or ferentiate between the plats in the field.
lack thereo£ Appro�mately 100 homes are located immediately adja-
• Representative photographs of residentialproperties,street- cent to a transportation corridor and within the project
scapes,and associated resources to convey styles and forms, APE. Rather than conducting an individual survey of these
setback, cohesion,landscapes, and other distinguishing 100 homes, surveyors should apply the methodology that
elements. allows for documentation of the overall neighborhood as a
• Preliminary recommendations for contributing and non- grouping. One record that documents the group should be
contributing status,which will assist in determining if a prepared rather than individual records for the 100 resources
grouping may qualify as a historic district. This may be in the APE.This streamlines documentation efforts and allows
presented in a table format with additional information, for evaluation of the group as a potential historic district.
including addresses and construction dates. Because two popular postwar forms are represented, the
• Preliminary subdivision/neighborhood boundaries based documentation should identifyintact examples of these forms.
on aerial photographs,plat maps, and field observations In addition,variations within the Minimal Traditional form,
(see Section E.9 for more information regarding defining such as different roof forms, are present. Figures 2, 3, and 4
historic boundaries). depict the different forms identified in the APE.The represen-
tative examples of Minimal Traditional and Transitional Ranch
Due to the relatively recent construction dates of postwar homes should be discussed in more detail in the survey doc-
residences, property owners may be familiar with the con- umentation,with photographs keyed to maps. In addition,
struction history of the neighborhood.Fieldwork may offer an
opportunity to discuss the properties with owners(to confirm � � -( ' �;_ '
the construction dates);builders,architects,or developers;and '� --..;� '" 4, �v, �_
' .� r .�.' F � �,.
associations with historic events or trends. ,, : � _ . ,,�
Within potential historic districts,surveyors may also elect �,.�i 1
r ,� ?
to apply the selective survey methodology(described in more � � �
detail in Section C.2 to individual ro erties within the lar er �-� 1
) P p g �—
group, allowing for more detailed documentation of the - � ''�
most intact examples in the larger grouping.This combined _ �
�.`,
approach would allow for documentation of the group and � ;� M
those individual properties that retain both integrity and �� �
character-defining features and may be considered for indi- � _� ��_ -
vidual National Register eligibility. ~��`"'"� : � '--""""`' ��� _-_ � _ -� -�;=�
Figure 2. Intact c.1945 house in the postwar St. Louis
b. Application of Methodology to Groupings Park, Minnesota, neighborhood. This residence
represents the Minimal Traditional form with a side
The following case studies showhow concentrations of post- gable roof and prominent gable above the entrance.
war homes within an unplanned neighborhood and a planned The house retains the original footprint, wood shingle
subdivision,which are located in the APE for a compliance siding, and double-hung windows(Mead&Hunt
project,should be surveyed and documented. photograph).
13
x ,,n^� r. . r�
�� 1� _ �\ .� � y �r,;,'r �,�� �-�� -
� . ` � � Sf �I � u I .��:-..' _
.. \� } 1 1 �y' 1 �
,� r - -_- ��� �-t1 � ay, Pr`�f+ :'�� �
'�-4 1'!.�-� \ \ � ' `f•. � ;�. �i .
� _ � .
-- �_�� _ ;.�.
_ _ _ � �
�` _�� ., _..._-, .� � �: r ..
i`� 1,1 ,� ^'.+"
�' ��'°- - � � �
-----, � f . ���'" "��''�.�'� �;� `;�, �'�`�r ��� �i �� �-
� , � �,� , �
_ � � - � P ^���wr�� ."�' �. .■ n --� - -���
� `I t i �
- �
�� -
�_ Figure 5. Streetscape image showing a number of
�� _. � - . : , _. Minimal Traditional homes in a postwar neighborhood
� ��'�� r �� y „ , '- �' ;�� '�� �. in St. Louis Park,Minnesota. This image should be
'� `~ � y-a �,..s #` R�����' �!.`'�
_ ,�., ,� Y,, .��_ , --- „ ,r.� incorporated into survey documentation to show the
overall similarity of the resources massing,setback,
Figure 3. /ntact c.1945 house in the postwar St. Louis and materials(Mead&Hunt photograph).
Park,Minnesota,neighborhood. This residence
represents the Minimal Traditional form with a side
gable roof. The house retains the original footprint, form and massing,but a number have experienced alterations,
wide-lap wood siding, and double-hung windows including additions,replacement siding,and altered fenestra-
(Mead&Hunt photograph), tion,such as downsized and replacement windows.
Fifteen homes are located along 40th Street,adjacent to a
surveyors should record data on the overall neighborhood for �ghwayimprovementcorridorandconsideredtobewithinthe
use in the evaluation and inclusion in the survey documenta- project APE.Rather than individual survey of these 15 homes
tion,including the presence of schools,parks,or other ameni- in the APE,the survey methodology allows for documenta-
ties.Streetscape images showing the general setback,massing, �on of the entire plat as a grouping,including those proper-
and relation between the houses should be incorporated into �es that extend beyond the APE.This eliminates individual
the documentation(see Figure 5). documentation efforts and provides a single survey record
The Maenner South subdivision in Omaha,Nebraska,was and streamlines the effort to evaluate the grouping as a poten-
developed by Theodore H.Maenner, a prominent developer, ���storic district.
between 1953 and 1955.Figure 6 is the original subdivision plat As the homes are prefabricated rectangular side gable resi-
filed in 1953.The 641ots in the addition feature prefabricated dences with minimal fenestration variations, no particular
Gunnison Homes(see Section G3 in Chapter 4 for more infor- form or model stands out and documentation may be lim-
mation on Gunnison Homes). The homes display the same ited to those properties that retain the original massing and
exterior materials.In this case,surveyors should select those
homes that retain massing,siding materials,and fenestration
°'- for documentation.An example of one such house is depicted
�=�`��� � _� �_ in Figure 7. These properties should be discussed in more
�`e^y - detail in the survey documentation,with photographs keyed
_"`w �.� � +��� to maps.The documentation should also include a discussion
� J ���� �� - of alterations within the district,including specific examples
' r' �i __ __ " ^-� ` illustrated with images.In addition,surveyors should record
- - �� - � � � �� � data on the overall neighborhood,including schools or green
��� � '`"��' � -� "���� � spaces,for use in the evaluation and inclusion in the survey
ti, '�" � +�r�� � ' documentation.Streetscape images showing the general set-
�t
� �� . : �,i�`° ��.��r����'x �°-�-.� �'�`� back,massing,and relation between the houses should also
Figure 4. Intact c.1950 house in the postwar St. Louis be incorporated into the documentation(see Figure 8).
Park, Minnesota, neighborhood. This residence
represents the Transitional Ranch form. The house 2. Selective Survey Methodology
retains the original footprint, wide-lap wood siding, for Individual Properties
and double-hung windows, which are partially
obscured by modern storm windows(Mead&Hunt The selective survey methodology of individual postwar
phoi'ograph), residences allows for a streamlined identification process by
14
- N
� ��,� �
_ .�'� `
°rr_ I ,1� �
, fi-z T--������t,-�� ,,
f/ g 7 6 5 4 ' 3 2 .`
� }
/ i= �
1
f% � +, � ti �
� �� ;�
i �o ' s3�i�� r ',
�: - �Qf�iNU , } �
� � �
I I I '�.� � I$ �9 � ��„ ,.�;5�.t
� � I7 1 ,.,.
, �� . ,
� « �� 2e �o t
�' �4 '�� 2 2 ;
� � �,,,.
�, �� '� ', 23 -- -
� I� ���— -
� � 2 4 ��
ti �.
>::. � _ },.. .
- ``,., 25 ;%f . ' ��x''," � �l
� 'jf < - ! . � `` �
,�,, 26 .,,�y �,C �„f � --
''"' 2 7 '\ i' "��.`��'� 1: 2 5 -1 s
/'. ..,/ � �r`
� �� j� .'i�
! � Z� ' 2b
,t 2� ; �;: 2� �t
�°��,.. / ' 2p . 2[ '`i
I� �9 i �`�, �`:.\I� , 2: ;`
/ i ,l ' f8,`` E7 `,1
f: t- 1,,� +6 2 8 �
fy:. �Q �� , s f�c�`r ' � �1
� 1 � � 15 �9 - �11
�rR��r �:J " �: � �
� � z � �. �'��,� �� �p �� , . .
� � i f_ � , � `E= '�t � . _. . -
� l 13 31
J, �.
I 3 $ � � 32. '"`
j.. ��F,._' I 2 `
'\
,, ,r � 2 ,�
- • _-_h+. r _ 3 3. , . .
" ' 9 hfl II `�
- I � 34 , I
!. . _z___—��------- --------�.--�—,,��,�.�
Figure 6. Maenner South Plat, filed by T. H. Maenner, Inc, in August 1953
and recorded by the City of Omaha,Nebraska,in September 1953(available
at http://webarc.co.douglas.ne.us/Plat-new/PLAT 00067987.pdf).
documenting only those examples of postwar residences that best for areas that did not develop as a single planned subdivi-
retain a degree of integrity and display character-defining sion or unplanned neighborhood,such as infill development
features, thereby having the potential to be eligible for the in older neighborhoods,postwar neighborhoods with little or
National Register.This eliminates blanket survey of numerous no architectural cohesion,and isolated rural residences.
resources that do not display historic integrity or characteristic The selective survey approach requires all properties within
features.As previously stated,this selective approach will work the APE to be surveyed, or looked at,in the field. However,
15
. � ��yA`�` � imal Traditional, Cape Cod, and Transitional Ranch forms
;
� ��'. � ' � � and prefabricated houses, in addition to character-defining
�. �
,�T � t �,
,, , �`,�,.4� ,a �:y£ _ features,a minimum number of architectural elements should
.� '^ ��� ��,b, �� �� - ' ` - be present for a resource to be surveyed. As a general rule,
' ' - three architectural elements are recommended.It should be
- � noted that the lists of architectural elements included in this
��'� �� ��� �� ��� _ ; �� � �� � methodology are not inclusive and addi�ional elements may
_ � ��� „� be identified during field survey efforts. Surveyors should
_ _ +rr � ;�"��
`= adhere to this guidance but also exercise professional judg-
._�...,.—.,.... -
_ � - � ment during field survey efforts,so documentation is limited
. to intact and dis�inguishable examples of postwar style and
forms. For example, surveyors may choose to document a
Figure 7. Gunnison house in the Maenner South Ranch house that does not display the recommended mini-
Addition in Omaha,Nebraska.As one of the most mum number of three architectural elements if it stands
intact of the similar prefabricated c.1955 homes in out among other properties in the survey area. Likewise, a
this addition, it serves as a representative example surveyor may elect not to document a Split-level house that
for the survey documentation(Mead&Hunt �splays several architectural elements if it also has several
photograph).
minor modifications that cumulatively diminish the historic
integrity.
Surveyors may not always be able to determine if exterior
only those individual properties that meet the criteria out- materials are original during reconnaissance-level field sur-
lined below are documented as a result of the survey effort. vey efforts and should rely on their professional judgment
Properties that display significant e�terior alterations may be When selecting properties to document. Simulated stone,
excluded from documentation because they do not retain the including Permastone,asbestos shingles,and aluminum sid-
historic integrity necessary to convey significance.Likewise, ing may be original siding materials for the styles and forms.
individual properties that do not possess character-defining As a result,they may not detract from the historic integrity.
features may be excluded from documentation because they properties with replacement materials may be documented
do not have potential to be eligible for the National Register. if they appear to be compatible with the historic fabric. In
Thesurveycriteria,outlinedhereinandorganizedbyforms �most all cases, narrow-gauge modern vinyl siding is con-
and styles,was developedbyidentifying the exterior character- sidered a non-compatible cladding material. A discussion
defining features and architectural elements of common post- of siding materials developed during the postwar period is
war residential forms and styles. Character-defining features included in Chapter 4.
are defined as prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or The survey criteria are organized by the popular forms
characteristics of an architectural style or form that contribute and styles of the postwar period. Properties should meet
significantly to its physical character.Architectural elements �e following minimum survey criteria to be documented
are defined as decorative exterior features that are commonly individually.
applied to the styles and forms.With the exception of the Min-
a. Minimal Traditional Form
;:` � �� .� ' Y,� � '� � };: The simplicity of the Minimal Traditional form is con-
� ` �� � � �°��� ��� �,� ; sidered its primary character-defining feature. Therefore,
~`' `-- -a �,� � , . � - *,�` large alterations to the footprint,such as additions that alter
. . *. �
� �� � � �`� �� '�� � s� � - '�;� the front facade or modify the roofline,should be consid-
P p •f '.i} `i
� � ���� ' '"""� � �� � �'�����+� � � ered significant and disqualify the property from individual
- `��� ���� � � -�` ' � —��"�'��'�""""'� documentation.Because the Minimal Traditional form dis-
�� ��� �-�—=� _ � plays few architectural elements, it should retain original
Figure 8. Modified Gunnison houses in the Maenner features,including siding,doors,and windows.It is impor-
South Addition in Omaha, Nebraska. This streetscape tant to note that simulated stone,asbestos shingle,and alu-
documents the similar form and massing and setbacks minum siding may be original cladding materials.Minimal
within the addition (Mead&Hunt photograph). Traditional homes typically do not have attached garages
16
�,� y - , ,: � ,,, � .
; ' , , -
: ,t � ;, �
i'
� 1 ��4 ,R .�. /�. % � � _
' ". P� Y ' • r . .. _
T;!`�
- _ ti f I �, �ty� �
1... 17 � , � .�.. �
•f � '�
y� -- � r.:aq.�yf" "^l�y�t.'" - - �.�l:fi
�. M: _. .. - '- � x - f
'' - –— �4 �'l c
` f � � = � .�'�::'�� - � � .�� � Qr� � =�'
� � _ ��I' a � ' ,A,�,"�Pe r �I t..y.
C � �I� � �
= + x.. �, �
` � -- "� -
- Figure 11. Cape Cod house in Madison, Wisconsin,
Figure 9. Minimal Traditional house in Omaha, constructed c.1945,retains its original massing,
Nebraska, constructed c.1945, retains its original siding, windows, and entrance, and thus meets the
siding, massing,simple entrance,and windows, survey criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph).
and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt
photograph).
• Retain original roofline (incompatible dormers and sec-
ond story additions are not acceptable).
or carports.If these are present,they should have minimal
alterations. Figures 9 and 10 show examples of Minimal b. Cape Cod Form
Traditional houses.
To merit individual documentation,a Minimal Traditional As a subset of the Minimal Traditional Form, Cape Cod
residence should: houses should meet the criteria outlined for that form. Fig-
ures 11 and 12 show examples of the Cape Cod form.
• Retain original massing,and additions,if present,do not
detract from the historic appearance; G Transitional RanCh Form
• Retain original exterior siding materials, or materials
appear original; The Transitional Ranch house shares the Minimal Tradi-
• Retain original doors and windows;and tionaPs compact floorplan but has an exterior appearance that
;�
�"r �. - -'r�� �
-�. 'E' t �e'.
� �d�'
# �n*� � Q �,,F •,� �
� �'"', �� y:
_ _� � �y � �.�
i�''_ ',,IT � .�� � _ w.�i �... `' x
�
-- �i � -���� �� I �� �
-�-�� �� �•.— � • �� --� ��r '�,�`��
-- � --� , . - _ ,
- ,, , - �,f ; ��1 `';
. ,. �� ���� ; _ � t ���:�� ,� �� �" -
- .��,,;�;�
- - _ _ _ __-_ _� : . _ �..,�
Figure 10. Minimal Traditional house in Prince Figure 12. Cape Cod house in Fairfax County,
George's County, Maryland, constructed c.1945, Virginia, constructed c.1945, with exterior cladding
with non-compatible vinyl siding, replacement altered to create a Tudor Revival appearance,
windows, and a modified stoop.As a result, it replacement windows and door, and altered
does not meet the survey criteria (photograph stoop. As a result, it does not meet the survey
courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway criteria (photograph courtesy of Anne eruder,
Administration). Maryland State Highway Administration).
17
or side eleva�ions that is not compatible in material or
� � =, � � �-� ' appearance is considered unacceptable);
_��� ` s.= �- _ �
�,r �' �_� *' `'�s - • Retain original massing,and additions,if present,do not
_-���'"���- " ---~----- _� :� - detract from the historic appearance;
-,��,,. '' _"- - .
� Retain original doors and windows;
,�z1�� � � ,�_ '� °� I • Retain the original porch or entry stoop;
6, � ' i�t�i
��- „ , ,�, }- -,� - - ; • Retain the original roofline;and
�
�c� � "� � ,A= :,�`� �•m .� _ � ��`--' �-�� � • Display minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if
+1�,:•� �.��'� , • -�. ;�:
� r��. , � A ,� ''` �+, attached.
k- �•
�.. �
__ - L r.'���'' �'",'H�
Figure 13. Transitional Ranch house in Madison, d. Ranch Form
Wisconsin, constructed in 1949, retains its original
siding, windows, and entrance with a decorative The Ranch was the most popular architectural form con-
support,and thus meets the survey criteria(Mead structed during the postwar period,and vast numbers e�st
&Hunt photograph), in urban and suburban communities nationwide.Therefore,
the Ranch house should retain character-defining features(as
discussed in Section G3 of Chapter 4),as well as architectural
resembles the Ranch form,with one-story horizontal mass- elements and a degree of historic integrity,to merit individ-
ing,a shallow roof pitch,and overhanging eaves.As with the ual documentation.Figures 15 through 20 present examples
Minimal Traditional form,the simplicity of the Transitional of the Ranch form.
Ranch form is considered its primary character-defining To meritindividual documentation,a Ranch house should:
feature. Therefore,large alterations to the footprint should
be considered significant and disqualify the property from . Retain original e�terior materials or have replacement
individual documentation. Because the Transitional Ranch materials that are compatible with the original materials
form displays few architectural elements,it should retain the (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non-compatible
original features,including exterior siding, doors,and win- due to the change in material and appearance);
dows. Figures 13 and 14 show examples of the Transitional . Retain original massing,and additions,if present,should
Ranch form. not detract from the historic appearance;
To merit individual documentation,a Transitional Ranch . Retain original door and window openings;
residence should: • Have replacement windows,if present,with a similar sash
configuration to the original windows;
• Retain original exterior materials, or materials appear • Retain original roofline and eave overhang;
original(replacement siding limited to the side gable ends • Display minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if
is acceptable; however, replacement siding on the facade attached;
r � , , .�< °_'• �r �
�' ty'.;'i, ',��'�� - '� w �' +� 1�
�y ;: <.�. ' �1e. y:
� :r� . ��. � .� ��^�d �.� __
_ �F_Y - _ � _` � �1£_ — �" _ �=���.
_ i q
- ��
�: _-__' �.l. .
_ + '
t_ . _ —_ --___ _ —. . __ • . � . �, Y — . .
� � � � � � � .,, � . - ' . '
# '� p � _ _ ,�" f
��r � � � � - '�
- ;t; _ - =
-- - _____ Figure 15. Ranch house in Omaha, Nebraska,
`�"°��� � —"�`�`'�`` constructed c.1955,retains multiple architectural
Figure 14. Transitional Ranch house in St. Louis Park, elements, including accent brick veneer,prominent
Minnesota, constructed in 1953, does not meet the wide chimney,integrated planter,and wrought iron
survey criteria due to the replacement vinyl siding support,and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead
and windows(Mead&Hunt photograph). &Hunt photograph).
18
.��t!.� _ E -- . r , . - �,�� -
� ���. .� .4 �
' . .. � ��f �.f. �� -��� � . � . �
. � .'. .<
� '�+ T� 'R_��.. •..y �riL �'R- t
� �_P���'�_• � � ..r'�'"e_� < "y��� y �::r+
_ .
. _ .
; .
F� � �.,, a� il� � �* 1 �,t : � �,{1,�b � . � I�,!
` . . . �°� 1R N
�1 "
.A 1
G: . _ • '.. �F'�l�.• _ _ .�.
' � � _ `�`s 7P'"_ ~ �: �'� � �tl
� � l ��° �`-:���[`�" -- ,.
�- � ,�_� __ �.� - � � �:� -
_ _ � . r �:� ��.
� - � -- _ -
_ - _ ��
Figure 16. Ranch house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Figure 19. Ranch house with Colonial Revival
constructed c.1960,retains multiple architectural influences in Arlington, Texas, constructed c.1965,
elements, including accent wood shingle siding, that does not meet the survey criteria due to the
prominent wide chimney, and corner windows, large second story addition that detracts from the
and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt historic appearance(Mead&Hunt photograph).
photograph).
� �� � • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements,includ-
` ��� ing,but not limited to:
�"'" ��� ��� � — Wide or prominent chimney;
��, b
� � . .
�
- ' y . � — Combination of siding materials or accent siding materi-
� .
al h a rick r ne ven r r x red ri kw rk•
s suc s b o sto ee o te tu b c o
� > >
. ���i Y ' ■ � � !� -�' I i�" r' — Lar e ex anses of windows,comer windows,bands of
"`� � l�11 �i � �� ._. � _. , � � g p
�"�i� �=� windows (ribbon windows),or clerestory windows;
�++- ���+����r�� -- �� Integrated planters;
��" - �`'''' — Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade
ornamentation(a simple railing near the entrance is not
considered an architectural feature);
Figure 17. Ranch house in Madison, Wisconsin, — Decorative porch/entry supports;
constructed in 1958,retains its original massing, — Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with
siding, and window configuration but does not "prowed"eaves,eave cutouts,or exposed beams;
display three architectural elements and does not — Unaltered breezeway;
meet the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph). _ patio (front patios are most visible during field survey;
however,side and rear patios are common);
�: �'i'"`' �� �'_ .�''.� �
w�„ i
�. �." �f. �',�'_.. � � •,�, '�� - � ]L a�`�:f} �. �
� "� � . .. � t�� �at
.. .. ,+�! �k- ��`.r� � ���5-, . �#�
r. _ .
�� R
�ry. � � . �. ��' .�t/1" �': _ :* � �.t 1� ��
�., �� .�^�` -'f' 4. .'/a.. - l�n ..J� � �.r�� . _
y�,.u..[ . � ��.C' � _ �_ � 4S .l�ii4` y�. i Jl
YM1
'r # :
y , w
.. .- .��� � .�� R`'e � �a
� , � ... — ..��' .
�# �!I -^ '� .7 � _ "_ ,1�� rt
��[��a S . !*' 'C, '.�� �'�i:1� .n � "��' '('i�� ,��*`i - _
�� 1 .� � � � � � �'` �_ �: _�„' � � _��_�,�a�
� "
�t '�'' ` �} _ � .rr p �` ! ��
� - - �-
�
� - .
Figure 18. Ranch house in Grain Valley,Missouri, Figure 20. Ranch house in Arlington County,
does not meet the survey criteria due to absence Virginia, constructed in 1959 that does not meet the
of architectural elements and altered attached survey criteria because the multi-light, "cottage-
garage that has been converted into living space style"replacement windows are non-compatible.
(photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl,Missouri In addition, it does not display three architectural
Department of Transportation), elements(Louis Berger photograph).
19
f. Split-level and Split-foyer Form
_ ; ,���
, The Split-level and Split-foyer are simple forms that were
i
constructed in large numbers during the postwar period.
�° a Therefore,the Split-level or Split-foyer house should display
� � �� character-defining features, as well as architectural elements
����� � �,�1 ,y and a degree of historic integrity,to merit individual documen-
�� tation.Figures 23 through 26 show examples of these forms.
�� To merit individual documentation, a Split-level or Split-
� ��� � foyer residence should:
� �-�.�.� -�-�_ - -- • Retain original e�terior materials or have replacement
Figure 21. Raised Ranch house in Parkville, materials that are compatible with the original materials
Missouri, displays only one original architectural (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non-compatible
element—the combination of board and batten due to the change in material and appearance);
and clapboard siding—and as a result does not • Retain original door and window openings;
meet the survey criteria (photograph courtesy • Have replacement windows(if present)with a similar sash
of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of configuration to the original windows;
Transpori'ai'ion). • Retain original massing,and additions,if present,do not
detract from the historic appearance;
- Colonnaded porch along the facade that recalls the"cor- • Retain original roofline and eave overhang;
redors"of nineteenth-century Californian and Me�can • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if
Ranch house antecedents; attached;
- Integrated wingwalls;and • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements,includ-
- Original applied stylistic features (i.e.,Colonial Revival ing,but not limited to:
or Contemporary details). - Wide or prominent chimney;
- Combination of siding materials or accent siding materi-
als,such as brick or stone veneer or te�tured brickwork;
e. Raised RanCh Form - Large expanses of windows,comer windows,bands of
windows (ribbon windows),or clerestory windows;
To merit individual documentation, the Raised Ranch - Integrated planters;
form should meet the criteria oudined for the Ranch form - Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade
and retain an elevated or partially elevated basement story. ornamentation(a simple railing near the entrance is not
Figures 21 and 22 show examples of the Raised Ranch form. considered an architectural feature);
� � �- �a
. �, '�.�� � '� .
� y��';'i --- , � I '
�
- �y^ +�+�
� �� ����� x I � R�.- - p� - ��
� ��Eli�• �..x.� F f fr+ �i
___ _ ���� . i-=-- .
��..� . .� ''if� �.-_.�. _ " �
� � _, - ti;-, ,�� -
f --- ---�='_�-� .�..__
t Figure 23. Split-level residence in Omaha, Nebraska,
Figure 22. Raised Ranch house in Hennepin County, constructed c.1965,retains its original form, doors
Minnesota, with non-compatible replacement wood and windows,and displays multiple architectural
siding and only two architectural elements:accent elements, including accent stone veneer, wrought
brick veneer and the prominent chimney.As a result, iron support, and prominent front entrance.As a
it does not meet the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt
photograph), photograph).
zo
� ("'�' ~ — Decorative porch/entry supports;
,� � — Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with
'
,� ���`�;�'���,_ , � `'�'��� f "prowed"eaves,eave cutouts,or exposed beams;
� �� ��� i � — Prominent front entrance that could include twin doors,
� �j __ { ,� �� �. ,�,c�' transoms,decorative lighting,or an exaggerated height
� � � to depict multiple stories;and
'C'� ,��" .
'1 ss. Fl -- _��--,� _
�,Q� �,;� � ���� � � �� �.� — Original applied stylistic features (i.e.,Colonial Revival
+�� �,�� � �, _, or Contemporary details).
� �4�
_,�-_
g. Colonial Revival Style
Figure 24. Split-level residence in Richmond
Heights, Missouri, retains its original form, and Postwar examples of the Colonial Revival style are com-
displays multiple architectural elements, including mon and should display character-defining features as well
accent board and batten siding,prominent chimney, as architectural elements and a degree of historic integrity
and bands of windows.As a result,it meets the to be considered for individual documentation.For example,
survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, a large modern addition on the front facade would disqual-
Missouri Department of Transportation), ify a property due to lack of historic integrity. Replacement
materials are acceptable if they replicate the original siding
� p� *�,. - „��. ,� materials and do not detract from distinguishing architec-
�f ` �V�-� +.°•. a�,� :�
� Y ,�- s ,..-R,: tural elements.It is important to note that aluminum siding
� " � � ��'�� � may be original.Figures 27 through 29 show examples of the
`� � � ��-� Colonial Revival style.
'' � y �fi Yr' .
To merit individual documentation, a Colonial Revival
����'�� residence should:
� � _ ,. . .�: ..r d �
''' • Retain ori inal e�terior materials or have re lacement
,_ . g P
�— -" �'" + � materials that are compatible with the original materials;
• Retain massing and symmetrical proportions;
Figure 25. Split-level house in Madison, Wisconsin, • Retain original door and window openings,including sash
constructed in 1960, retains its original form but only configuration;
two architectural elements:colonnaded porch along the • Retain the original door surround;
facade and accent brick veneer.As a result,it does not • Retain the original roofline;
meet the survey criteria(Mead&Hunt photograph).
.>.
k��� '� :�� ` �. , � �
- . � ,� . i ,,;� .., * ,��
<.�§'- .�/ .���� ' t �.tn �''�r'tB �'`.''
�y.- 4 +a� `" "II� 'L.,F^�} •a *'s..'...e y . .
.�Lt �� zG'-. a. . 4 4 y y. .y�� �. :.
�
- � � i`�^y ..� f.' ���I: �;.��',�:
'r �V���_ ' 2� , ,�� �
- ��� � �`"`'� ��� � �I �
� ..y: �� � � . �_
� � � _ �.� �
_ _ .�� n�,_ .,
- - - - __ � � -_ - �
�� ,'��_ � q�'} � I ��� ,.�
�,�u^' � :#FiA.�� .�-s„�wW3F���' .�r.� "
•n� • - - . � � .
P� .�f''� ' Figure 27. Colonial Revival in Arlington, Texas,
Figure 26. Split-foyer house in Arlington County, constructed in 1967,retains its original materials and
Virginia, retains its original form but features only massing and displays multiple architectural elements,
one architectural element:applied Colonial Revival including a decorative door surround,projecting
details.As a result, it does not meet the survey front gable, and compass vent.As a result, it meets
criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph), the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph).
21
h. Georgian Revival Style
�y Postwar examples of the Georgian Revival style should
;�:. display character-defining features as well as architectural
� ----�, elements and a degree of historic integrity to be consid-
_,�t - - r
; , r.. �_ �. �. :—� �` � ered for individual documentation. Similar to the Colonial
� �— � '= -- --—� -- Revival style, a large modern addition on the front facade
�,�,._ _ -`" , would disqualify a property due to lack of historic integrity,
_ _ - ��-�;�,�� and replacement materials are acceptable if they replicate the
- ����'� � ' ~ original siding materials and do not detract from distinguish-
,� �='��' -
_,y�'� ing architectural elements. Figure 30 shows an example of
r � - � this style.
---;--.��_
To merit individual documentation, a Georgian Revival
Figure 28. Colonial Revival house in Arlington residence should:
County, Virginia, does not meet the survey criteria
because it has replacement siding and does not
feature three architectural elements(Louis eerger • Retain original e�terior materials or have replacement
photograph), materials that are compatible with the original materials;
• Retain massing and symmetrical proportions;
• Retain original door and window openings,including sash
configuration;
• Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport,if attached; . Retain the original door surround;
• Retain a minimum of three architectural elements,includ- . Retain the original roofline;
ing,but not limited to: • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if
— Overhanging second story (referred to as a jetty or attached;and
garrison); • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements,includ-
— Frieze or cornice boards; ing,but not limited to:
— Decorative door and window surrounds; — Decorative door and window surrounds, including
— Pedimented or projecting front gable; sidelights;
— Compass (round)window or vent in the gable end; — Colonnaded porch or portico;and
— Pent roof;and — Other decorative details, including pilasters, quoins,
— Other decorative details,including quoins,jack or flat and pediments.
arches,cupolas.
. . ,� , __� �`�' { .. ._ -
F ,� '�: �����. � y ��
�� ��,.. �. ,�' �"� �(5��, ' ::k "-q- ' ��. �
. �~ t�� ! - �,..� _
- �t ,F _ .. .�.
. ��� '�� � -.r�` . . _
�.
` i�:...,
� � . � . � 'r■� _ .
. � � .
_ _ Figure 30. Georgian Revival house in Fairfax County,
- `'� Virginia, retains the original materials and massing;
Figure 29. Colonial Revival house in Arlington displays multiple architectural elements, including
County, Virginia,has an altered front portico and a colonnaded portico, quoins,and door surround.
modern side addition.As a result, it does not meet As a result,it meets the survey criteria (photograph
the survey criteria due to lack of historic integrity courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway
(Louis eerger photograph). Administration).
zz
,". ��f j. Spanish Colonial Revival Style
� �-;
The Spanish Colonial Revival style,also referred to as the
,� - Spanish Contemporary or Spanish Eclectic style,was com-
" ���� monly applied to popular forms during the period.Figure 33
� � ��� --�1'� `'� �+:' , �'�� presents an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
p��- �� � � '-- To merit individual documentation, a Spanish Colonial
:� - c� � Revival residence should retain its form,massing,and mate-
�'"'�-' ��� rials as well as feature architectural elements of the st le,
�'����` - - --- - ---- ----- Y
� °L��-"�' � - including the following:
-�_�-��
Figure 31. Storybook style house in Los Angeles, . Adobe,adobe-type brick,or stucco exterior cladding;
California, constructed c.1958, retains its massing
and materials and displays multiple architectural • Red tile or built-up roofs;
elements, including sweeping gables,scalloped • Arched entrances and windows;and
bargeboards,and diamond-pane windows.As a • Decorative wrought iron details.
result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt
photograph), k. Asiatic Style
The Asiatic style is most commonly applied to the Ranch
i. Storybook Style form,but may also be applied to other forms from the period,
The Storybook style is most commonly applied to the Ranch including the Split-leveL Figure 34 shows an example of the
form but may also be applied to other forms from the period. Asiatic style.
Figures 31 and 32 show examples of the Storybook style. To merit individual documentation, an Asiatic residence
To merit individual documentation,a Storybook residence should retain its form, massing, and materials and feature
should retain its form, massing and materials and feature architectural elements of the style,including the following:
architectural elements of the style,including:
• Exaggerated eaves or upturned corners and gable ends;
• Fanciful details; • Vertical wood latticework or Shoji decorative screenwork;
• Scalloped or shaped bargeboards; • Red or persimmon front entrances;and
• Sweeping gables; • Asian-inspired exterior hardware.
• Diamond-pane,decorative leaded,or stained glass windows;
• Decorative window trim and shutters;and l. Contemporary Style
• Planter boxes or shelves below the windows.
Contemporary style residences should display character-
defining features,as well as architectural elements and a degree
_�f � -. e,�'� �, . �,, �„�a. �• �
� , .
r - �'�. � �, --;;. ' ' '�';�_,, �{ �� ��.,� �
� � -:*'-�•- `, �-�;: A _,,' ' �� _�w'��
f,.�. � -�=' . `� �„?- � ,�� .
_ �'� ".� � _ , r',�°�.r � -t'" ^ ..:_�•`M ��_ _ � -
-_ - -s:�� � _ `��,�„�;��`
�- �..z {
�� r � �
' _ _ _ 4 ''�' x ��c �
'9� 4 �• ,.�� y '�
, �e� �,. -.r
Figure 32. Storybook style house in Omaha, �"°'� � "'''} �' '
Nebraska (locally referred to as a Chalet Ranch), Figure 33. Spanish Colonial Revival house in
constructed c.1950, that has sweeping gables and Arlington, Texas, constructed in 1968, retains its
non-compatible replacement vinyl siding and form, massing, original cladding, arched porch and
windows.As a result, it does not meet the survey windows,and decorative wrought iron details.As
criteria due to the lack of historic integrity(Mead a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt
&Hunt photograph), photograph).
23
�'��'���j'' �'�'� -,,�. � .
��!±`�yy,,�,�,��, � ��n, �,� .
-� .-5-. �'' r � �+r�c�.+, ,��4+'l'.,_�'�"�"' F.i""►:�1. J ���� f
� y� �� �� , �� .5� w� r�f
���S � � ^� � ��, + ' 4 � 0� T
r + -� �'�
;���'� { _ Y� *�
_ .�.h.-� . .-- - �a. -..- n
��
'�`�'� ('ry ' .3R ' — .. . . ._ —�s �.
. 1� : ,
Figure 34. Asiatic residence in Fullerton, California, Figure 36. Contemporary house in Arlington, Texas,
constructed c.1963, retains its massing and materials constructed in 1967,retains its original massing
and displays architectural elements of the style, and displays three architectural elements:bands of
including upturned vertical wood trim on the facade vertical windows, wrought iron ornamentation on
and latticework.As a result,it meets the survey criteria the facade, and Spanish Eclectic stylistic influences.
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans). As a result,it meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt
photograph).
of historic integrity,to merit individual documentation.Fig-
ures 35 and 36 show examples of the Contemporary style. — Large expanses of windows,bands of windows (ribbon
To merit individual documentation,a Contemporary resi- windows),or clerestory windows;
dence should: — Integrated planters;
— Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade
• Retain original e�terior materials or have replacement ornamentation(a simple railing near the entrance is not
considered an architectural feature);
materials that are compatible with the original materials; _ Decorative porch/entry supports;and
• Retain original door and window openings; — Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with
• Retain original massing,and additions,if present, do not "prowed"eaves,eave cutouts,or e�posed beams.
detract from the historic appearance;
• Retain original roofline;
• Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if m. Prefabricated Houses
attached;and Due to the simple nature of prefabricated housing units,it
• Retain a minimum of three architectural elements,includ- is generally recommended intact examples be considered for
ing,but not limited to: survey documentation.Any alterations to the footprint,such
— Wide or prominent chimney; as additions, or replacement materials,including siding and
— Combination of wood,brick,or stone cladding materials; windows,that are not consistent with the original materials
should be considered significant alterations and disqualify
„ ..
the property from individual survey.Figures 37 and 38 show
�'' `} � •" � "� examples of prefabricated houses.
• �"�.4 _ '. '�� _� � ,, ' �
.� �� � 1� �... However,due to the relative rarity of Lustrons,they should
' ` ° �� �' �+: be documented regardless of alterations.This is also the case
; " ,,,;. ,. ,
� � � , ,� � with examples of other rare local or regional prefabricated
' � � ��`�� houses. Figure 39 shows an example of an altered Lustron
. ,� .
w�� ���'E- �'"'~��'�^ House that should be documented for survey.
To merit individual documentation,a prefabricated resi-
-_ , . __ __ _ --�__ dence that is not rare should:
Figure 35. Contemporary house in Madison, Wisconsin,
constructed in 1963,retains its original massing and • Retain original exterior materials or have compatible replace-
window configuration and displays three architectural ment siding (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non-
elements:combination of wood and brick siding, compatible due to the change in material and appearance);
wrought iron ornamentation at the front entrance,and • Retain massing,without additions;
prominent roof cutout.As a result,it meets the survey • Retain original door and window openings;and
criteria(Mead&Hunt photograph). • Retain original roofline.
24
�' � -� 3. Recording Field Survey Data
-� -
,- _
; t� � . To support documentation efforts, surveyors will collect
� � data for individual properties in the field that meet the survey
� criteria.At a minimum,the following should be recorded in
��-��`� ;��_ti the field for individual properties:
�� � �``
����� .. I � . � y� . . r -�
� f , � • Architectural form and/or style;
- �����IT�i� r • Construction date,or appro�mate construction date;
� J.t ���F
� �a.1� • Exterior materials;
_ -�Y=.= � . � � I_ _ -��r • Window type and configuration;
r � ��• � • Character-defining features and architectural elements,
� • — � �-="`�� including those not clearly visible in the photographs;
Figure 37. Prefabricated U.S. Steel home in Omaha, • Alterations;
Nebraska, constructed in 1955, retains its original • Associated resources,such as garages or carports;
footprint, windows, and cladding materials, and thus • Associated landscape features,such as retaining walls and
meets the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph), fences;and
• Photographs of the property,its setting and landscape,and
��%; ,� �' • �' 9 '�4�: ' ` � associated resources.
�' .�° ��:
;�� •�'. . � a ,. , .
r. s, ' .
�- � +� ��• ��'� Due to the relatively recent construction date of postwar
- �. : ._
,.
- _ � � � ��� residences,property owners maybe familiar with the construc-
- �-==_�____:_ .-
-�r-�E z _ tion history of their property or neighborhood.Fieldwork may
.-�.,r__�s-�__
� `� -__ _____ offer an opportunity to discuss properties (and confirm the
-- y construction date) with the owners; the builder, architect,or
r _` .
� � �� developer;and associations with historic events or trends.
�
� �■ � --a
w'���� � . a. Additional 5treamlined Approaches
iPF
-_: .a� � _ ���;,� ..�-
_ , � � ��, . �'� �`"` - In instances where the selective survey approach for indi-
- �- - .
-� `���`.,� . vidual properties is not accepted by the project sponsor,
� additional approaches may provide the necessary level of
Figure 38. Prefabricated National Homes residence documentation while still streamlining the survey process.
in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed c.1951,retains its The following options are examples and cultural resource
massing and roofline,but is clad in non-compatible professionals and/or project sponsors may identify addi-
narrow-gauge vinyl siding.As a result,it does not tional options.
meet the survey criteria (Mead&Hunt photograph).
Selective Survey and Supplemental List of Non-
_ ���`�'��_ `� documented Properties. The selective survey documen-
_ _, ,
-y� tation may be supplemented with a table or list of properties
� � ` in the APE that did not meet the survey criteria and were
- � - � not documented. Information on properties that were not
�'��a� documented could include the address,style or form, and a
��'j�� � � � �� �� � ��� brief statement regarding the alterations or lack of character-
� R � �`' defining and/or architectural features and why the property
'�V�'�`F"r" �" � ',�- ,� ,,��� did not warrant documentation. Properties may be illus-
�-- -c. ,_
_ - trated with photographs and keyed to a map.This approach
����`�-; '4�`'� � - may also be used to document modern properties within the
�`-''�` '''� '�����s'�`' �� APE that fall outside the postwar study period.Table 1 pres-
Figure 39. Although this c.1950 Lustron house in ents an example of this type of documentation,which could
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, has replacement casement be incorporated into the survey report.
windows and a large modern addition,it should
be surveyed due to the limited number of Lustrons Single Record for Collection of Non-documented
constructed nationwide(Mead&Hunt photograph). Properties. In cases where the majority of resources are
25
Table 1. Example: properties in APE that do not meet survey criteria.
Brief description/ Map
Address Form/Style Date Photo
explanation code
_.
Replacement vinyl r�'x
123 Main Minimal siding, replacement ` �
Street Traditional windows,and altered c.1945 1 ���� ��� � �
�"
entrance. ��--.�.�.�- _,
'����
Replacement vinyl -i+�'=°.• , �. r
456 Main siding and E � � y •
Ranch 1954 2 � � .. ���r .
Street replacement
�++•,�'�
windows. „�
>-.
.�_ , �,, . 1,�.� : , �
Does not display
789 Main Ranch three architectural 1g5g 3 � �� �!' ` � c`
Street _ ' ��"�
elements.
_-�,
r
���� _
similar in size and scale but do not meet the selective survey 1. Guideline5 fOr ReSearCh
criteria due to alterations or lack of character-defining fea-
turesorarchitecturalelements,theymaybedocumentedwith In conducting project-specific research, repositories and
a single record that includes a narrative statement regarding resources that should be consulted may include:
the overall number of resources,styles and forms represented,
and alterations or lack of character-defining features and/or ' Collections of state and local libraries;
architectural elements.The record may be supplemented with ' Collections of the SHPO,including architect and property
representative photos or streetscapes. site files;
• Prior DOT compliance surveys and Certified Local Gov-
Management Summary for Overall Survey Area. The ernment surveys in the area and region;
selective survey documentation may be supplemented with • Local taY assessor records (often collected in a database
a brief narrative that outlines why properties did not meet �at maybe available online),which may provide informa-
the survey criteria.It may be illustrated with representative tion on dates of construction,dates of additions,builder
photographs and statistics regarding the overall number of names,subdivision plat maps,and information regarding
properties in the APE and number of properties that meet local developers and deed restric�ions;
and do not meet the survey criteria. • County or local government records, especially for GIS
mapping and property data;
• City directories,which may provide information on the
D. Historic Context Development
occupa�ions of residents;
• Historic photographs and aerial images;
After completion of fieldwork,more detailed research and • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Sanborn Fire Insur-
analysis should be completed to develop a historic context ance Maps;
for use in evaluating the National Register eligibility of indi- • Newspaper articles, including real estate advertisements
vidual properties and potential historic districts identified for subdivisions and neighborhoods(newspapers from the
as groupings. The research will build upon the preliminary recent past are often indexed to assist with focused research
research efforts and field observations and should focus on efforts);
the history and development of the community or region, • Clippings files at local libraries or historical societies,
especially within the project's survey area. which are often organized by subject or theme;
26
� ---I d.y
� , �,,,,�`^
— ,-�`�
195D•7856 1pG(1�19fi4 �No+ghbprVlootl Ba�udary .
,t'
_1955•4959 -1985-19�9 - - '��
! "'.� �r"
��; ...�� �`Y'r�„. _ ,=�i�•.
__-_ r. M1� , ,;..
I" ��f �
Y 5 I --� { � ' ,�
' ._..�z
I ��� !. � ��` _. -.... '�
�� ^� I I ( �� � .
k
_ � �
� �� t�t �
- ��'� ��.t. .
��4 �
-'�..6�,' .
a.�, _ "._�rt:
_� �� '��
_ ¢
h - _ 4 � :
� � - - ��
� ; , ..�f�`� - - -�-��'` -
, 1 �. � � : �
Figure 40. Example of GIS-based map identifying construction dates in the Hill Farms Neighborhood in Madison,
Wisconsin (prepared by Department of Planning and Community&Economic Development,Planning Division:
June 28,2010;courtesy of the City of Madison).
• Promotional materials for real estate developers and incorporated into the historic conte�t and assist in the evalu-
builders; ation of individual properties and potential historic districts.
• Promotional materials for prefabricated home manufac-
turers,especially to identifybuilding types,forms,models, Z, Guidelines fOr DevelOping
original materials and character-defining features,and con- HIStOPIC COntext5
struction dates;
• Oral interviews with residents,if applicable;and It is important to develop an appropriate local or regional
• National Register Nominations,especially historic district historic context to evaluate the significance of subdivisions
nominations and MPDs for the subject period. and/or neighborhoods and individual resources when apply-
ing the National Register Criteria.The National Register defines
Where available,GIS maps and data are informative tools a historic context as follows,explaining its purpose:
that can facilitate development of tlle historic Conte�t. GIS � organizing structure for interprering history that groups
analysls Can 1ndlCate housing ConStruCtion trends and Clevel- information about historic properties that share a common theme,
opment patterns, especially where it includes tax assess- commongeographicalarea,andacommontimeperiod.Thedevel-
ment records with construction dates (see Figure 40 for an opment of historic contexts is a foundation for decisions about the
exanlple).Some muniCipalities may record the original Con- planning,identification,evaluation,registration,andtreatment of
struction date,as well as the dates of maj or alterations.These histaric properties,based upon comparativehistaric significance.y
tools can help researchers identify development patterns over Development of a conte�t specific to the study area should
time,both geographically and descriptively;determine build- be sufficient to guide identification and evaluation efforts to
ing construction and alteration dates; and identify"typicaP'
features such as garages or carports,number of rooms,size of 9National Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
parcels,and average square footage.This information can be Evaluation,National Register Bullerin,59.
z�
a level typically e�pected for a DOT-sponsored compliance to by the NPS as an intensive-level survey, and in compli-
survey.The context should identify postwar residential devel- ance projects as either a Phase II Evaluation or a Determina-
opment trends in the region and allow for them to be placed tion of Eligibility.It involves more in-depth field review and
within the broader context of postwar development.Based on research and typically results in a recommendation regarding
the e�tent of postwar development in the survey area,the con- the National Register eligibility of an individual property or
te�t may illustrate local and regional influences,such as plan- grouping of related resources as a potential historic district.
ning and zoning regulations;the work and influence of local To undertake this step,the following guidance provides for
architecture firms, builders, or plan services; and regional the evaluation of postwar residences, neighborhoods, and
variations in building types and styles.Although this meth- subdivisions under National Register Criteria A and C.These
odology focuses on residential properties,the conte�t should criteria are most likely to be applied to postwar proper-
recognize that postwar subdivisions and neighborhoods often ties.10 The evaluation methodology is based on the following
include schools,churches,parks,and other resources that are National Register Bulletins:
integral components of the historic area.The written historic
context is incorporated into the survey documentation and . Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and
used to evaluate the significance of individual properties and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places;
potential historic districts in the evaluation phase as described . How to Apply the National Register Criteria of Evaluation;
herein. • How to Complete the National RegisterRegistration Form;and
The national conte�t for postwar residential development . How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property
(see Chapter 4) frames overall residential development dur- Documentation Form.
ing the postwar era,as well as the predominant architectural
forms and sryles.A model context outline,which follows the As outlined in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin,
organization of the national context, is provided to guide defining significance under National Register Criteria A and C:
the development of a location-specific historic conte�t that
would be e�pected for a transportation compliance project. requires a close analysis of information about the develop-
Th1s outline is inCluded in AppendiY B. The hiStoriC Con- ment and design of a particular historic neighborhood and an
understanding of local,metropolitan,and national trends of sub-
text developed for Arlington County,Virginia (the primary
urbanization.The property is viewed in relationship to the broad
demonstration area used to test the survey and evaluation patterns of suburbanization that shaped a community,state,or
methodology for this project),may also serve as a guide for the narion and to determine whether the area under study meets
professionals who are developing a location-specific historic one or more of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
context. This context is included in AppendiY D. Keep in The same is true of individual properties.The historic con-
mind the length and level of detail of the context should be
informed by the geographic area,identified postwar themes, text should support significance under one of the criteria for
the scale of the project at hand,and the number and type of a property to be considered individually eligible for listing in
potential historic properties affected. the National Register.The particular guidance in this meth-
Approaches to the development of a historic context differ odology is beneficial because it improves the understanding
from state to state. Some agencies suggest or require that the of the postwar period, which in turn informs evaluations
historic conte�t be developed prior to commencement of field and ultimately contributes to the achievement of consistent,
survey activities.The Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin also objective results.
suggests that the historic conte�t statement be developed prior Specific guidance is not included for determining the
to the survey efforts.It is important to understand the require- period of significance for eligible properties since this process
ments of the project sponsor prior to commencing research does not differ from that for properties that pre-date the post-
and fieldwork activities and note that preliminary historic �^'�'Period.NPS guidance is outlined in the National Register
conte�ts should be refined following fieldwork as additional Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration
research and site observations can improve the document Form. As defined in the Bulletin,the period of significance
and enhance resource understanding.The efficiencies created is the"length of time when a property was associated with
by focused research and reporting,as well as practicalities of
scheduling,can also dictate the timing of conte�t development.
10Evaluation under Criterion B is less dependent on the nuances of the
postwar period because of the narrow requirements of this criterion
E. Evaluation that restrict it to a property that best Illustrates a person's significant
achievements.For the evaluation of properties that may qualify under
Upon completion of the field survey and historic conte�t, Criterion B,please refer to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply
documented properties should be evaluated to determine if the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
they meet the Na�ional Register Criteria.This step is referred "Ames and McClelland,94.
zs
important events,activi�ies,or person, or attained the char- • Period of significance;
acteristics which qualifyit for National Register listing"'�The • Narrative statement of significance, including a historic
period of significance is called out as a"benchmark"against conte�t that conveys the importance of the district at the
which resources should be compared to determine whether local or regional level,and discussion of comparison dis-
or not they contribute to a neighborhood's history and,thus, tricts,if necessary;
its integrity. • Narrative statement of integrity;
• List of properties and contributing or noncontributing
1. Evaluation Methodology: status;
HIStOY1C DIStY1Ct5 • Narrative description of historic boundary,including jus-
tification;and
The evaluation of a planned subdivision or neighborhood • Map delineating historic district boundary.
as a potential historic district builds upon the information
collected during the field survey,research efforts,and devel- Z, EvdludtlOn MethOdOlOgy:
opment of the historic context.This information is analyzed �ndividual Properties
against the National Register Criteria,resulting in an eligibil-
ity recommendation.If the district conveys significance under As with historic districts,the evaluation of an individual
the National Register Criteria and retains historic integrity,it resource builds upon prior information from the field sur-
is considered eligible for listing in the National Register. vey,research,and conte�t development.This information is
The evaluation requires that properties within the dis- analyzed against the National Register Criteria and results in
trict be classified as contributing and noncontributing,which an eligibility recommendation. If the resource conveys sig-
assists with the assessment of integrity.Buildings,structures, nificance under the National Register Criteria and retains
objects,and sites within a district are classified as contributing historic integrity, it is considered eligible for listing in the
resources if they were built within the period of significance National Register. See Section E.5 for more information on
and possess historic integrity.Resources built or substantially integrity.
altered after the period of significance are classified as non- An eligibility statement should be prepared that articulates
contributing. To be considered as contributing, properties the evaluation process and eligibility recommendation;it is
should generally retain their overall form and massing and included in the overall survey documentation(see Sec�ion F).
not detract from the sense of time and place.See Section E.S. The eligibility statement for an individual resource should
for more information on integrity. include the following:
To be considered eligible,the majority of properties in the
district should retain a degree of integrity and be consid- • National Register area of significance (e.g., Criterion A:
ered contributing.Coordination with the project sponsor is Community Planning and Development);
recommended to identify the level of documentation neces- • National Register level of significance: local, state, or
sary to detail this status.In many cases,the documentation national;
includes a listing of properties within the potential district • Period of significance;
by address along with their contributing or noncontributing • Narrative statement of significance, including a historic
status. context that conveys the importance of the resource at the
An eligibility statement should be prepared that articu- local or regional level,and discussion of comparison prop-
lates the evaluation process and eligibility recommendation; erties,if necessary;
it is included in the overall survey documentation (see Sec- • Narrative statement of integrity;
tion F).The eligibility statement for a district should include • Narrative description of historic boundary,including jus-
the following: tification;and
• Map delineating property boundary.
• National Register area of significance (e.g. Criterion A:
Community Planning and Development); 3. NdtiOndl Register CPitePiOn A
• National Register level of significance: local, state, or
national; As defined in the National Register Bulletin, Criterion A
relates to the association with events or trends that have made
a significant contribution to the broad historical patterns of
''National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
tration Form,National Register Bullerin,42.It is important to note that the country,state, or region. There are many influences on
far postwar properties the period of significance may extend beyond national trends in housing,including government legislation
the National Register's 50-year guidance. and loan programs,social history,and community planning
29
and development, that may relate to the development of a the National Register. The historic conte�t developed for an
neighborhood, subdivision, or individual property during area will assist in identifying the history and important themes
the postwar period. and events that may be associated with a neighborhood or
In accordance with the Historic Residential Suburbs in the individual residence.
United States, 1830-1960 Multiple Property Document (His- In addition,the house or neighborhood should be differen-
toric Residential Suburbs MPD), Criterion A applies when:13 tiated from other similar examples. Not all postwar houses
and neighborhoods can be significant examples of the response
• A neighborhood reflects an important trend in the devel- to housing needs following World War II.It should be under-
opment and growth of a locality or metropolitan area; stood and demonstrated that an individual residence or district
• A suburb represents an important event or association, is an important example representing the area of significance
such as the expansion of housing associated with wartime if there are similar properties or groups in the area.To iden-
industries during World War II,or the racial integration of tify rela�ive importance among similar properties,refer to the
suburban neighborhoods in the 1950s;14 historic context and consider whether the neighborhood or
• A neighborhood is associated with the heritage of social, property is:
economic,racial,or ethnic groups important in history or
a locality or metropolitan area;and • One of the firsts of its type;
• A suburb is associated with a group of individuals,includ- • A model that influenced other property development;
ing merchants,industrialists, educators, and community • A subdivision that introduced a new concept;and
leaders, important in the history and development of a • Distinctive from others and why.
locality or metropolitan area.
A number of National Register areas of significance under
Although the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD only dis- Criterion A, as identified in the National Register Bulle-
cusses the application of Criterion A to suburbs constructed tins, may relate to residential postwar housing.Eligibility is
through 1960, the same criteria can readily be applied to a derived from a demonstrated significance at the local,state,
more defined and expanded period of postwar housing devel- or national level,to one of the identified National Register
opment,from 1946 to 1975,for neighborhoods,subdivisions, areas of significance.It is common that more than one area
and individual residences. of significance related to Criterion A may apply to a neighbor-
To be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, a hood.It is e�pected that neighborhoods or groups of houses
direct and significant association with one or more National are more likely than individual residences to be found eligible
Register areas of significance should be established for an indi- applying Criterion A, as groups of houses are more likely to
vidual residence or a grouping of residences (neighborhood demonstrate the areas of significance. Individual residences
or subdivision). Postwar housing is a significant national may be eligible under Criterion A, but it is often more chal-
trend in housing; however, mere association with this time lenging for a single property to demonstrate a trend or pattern
period is not sufficient to meet National Register Criteria.For of association.To be eligible,a property should demonstrate
example,the fact that a house or neighborhood is associated the area of significance and also retain sufficient integrity to
with the postwar period because it was constructed following represent the area of significance(see Section E.5 for further
World War II does not provide enough conte�tual informa- discussion on integrity).
tion within which to evaluate its relative importance, even Areas of significance most likely found to be applicable
at the local level, or to demonstrate significance under Cri- to postwar housing are oudined in the following sections,
terion A. The building or neighborhood should demonstrate with specific examples of properties that have been listed in
a particular and significant aspect of the postwar housing or determined eligible for the National Register.Additional
themes as identified in the historic conte�t to be eligible for areas that are less likely to apply are also identified.
13Linda Flint McClelland,David Ames, and Sarah Dillard Pope,His- a. Area of Significance: Community Planning
toric Residential Suburbs in the United States 1830-1960,National Reg- aI1C�D2V2/Op11721�t
ister Multiple Property Document,F-58,F-59.The Historic Residential
Suburbs MPD was developed in tandem with the Historic Residential Community Planning and Development is defined in the
Suburbs Bulletin.The MPD provides the framework for listing proper- National Register Bulletins as"the design or development of
ties in the National Register. the physical structure of communities:'�'It is further defined
'"Note that the example of association with wartime industries dur-
ing World War II pre-dates the study period for this report However,
housing associated with industries during the 1946 to 1975 study 'SNational Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
period may be significant applying Criterion A. tration Form,40.
30
in the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD as an area of signifi- � ��-=`"�' "`"�"��
^� a ;:1
cance that: , �_.��-� ti�� �'
4�� T __—__ �
___�
...recognizes the contribution a neighborhood makes to '!?""�'� �� �''P`��� ��
the historic growth and development of the city,far example,by 'A'� � "�"'�
� ,
providing much-needed housing to serve a local industry or by --� '�•''�
introducing a concept of community planning that influenced � - - �-W
subsequent patterns of local or metropolitan development.'� h ...,,r ��
., �•
��•
The area of significance under Criterion A includes the - �'�` � � ���-�=-a
influence of developers or municipalities on subdivision � �%"'�� �" �
planning and land use, such as the developer's initiation of Figure 41. Ranch and Split-level houses in the
an important trend that led to the growth of a locality or National Register-listed Collier Heights Historic
suburban area.It should be noted that Community Planning District in At/anta, Georgia (photograph courtesy of
and Development is also an area of significance under Crite- Georgia Depari'ment'of Nai'ural Resources, Historic
rion C,which"applies to areas reflecting important patterns Preservation Division).
of physical development,land division,or land use:'�'Under
Criterion C, it is manifested more in the design aspect and
physical layout of a development(see Section E.4).
Community Planning and Development as an area of Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia.
significance is often interrelated with another area of sig- The Collier Heights Historic District (see Figures 41, 48,
nificance: Social History.Both areas of significance relate to and 53) demonstrates significance in the area of Commu-
neighborhood planning principles that influence residential nity Planning and Development for its neighborhood layout,
growth and human lifeways.These two areas of significance including"all the prevailing suburban amenities including
are most frequently applied to residential neighborhoods and single-family Ranch and Split-level houses,large and infor-
subdivisions of the postwar period and cited in National Reg- mally landscaped lots, subdivisions with curvilinear streets
ister Nominations. and cul-de-sacs, nearby neighborhood services including
When considering the application of Criterion A: Com- schools, churches, and parks, and restrictions on through
munity Planning and Development, the following questions traffic and incompatible land uses."19
may assist in determining if a property possesses significance
related to this theme:l� North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa,Iowa. The
North Fellows Historic District(see Figures 42 and 60)is eli-
• Is the subdivision or residence important in the devel- gible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A
opment of the community or region as an innovative or "as a good example of the residential building boom that
trendsetting response to community planning? occurred as World War II veterans returned to their com-
• Did an important local or metropolitan trend in subdivi- munities,married,and started families:'20 The North Fellows
sion development originate in the subdivision? Historic District was one of the first two developments in
• Did a particular subdivision develop in response to hous- the city built following World War II.
ing shortages following World War II and introduce new
planning ideas,or did it influence other developments or Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah,
community planning? Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District
• Was the subdivision associated with a particular industry (see Figures 43,51,and 63)is listed in the National Register
during its development or was it associated with a signifi- under Criterion A "as the first mid-20th century suburban
cant local event? residential development intended for middle-to-upper mid-
dle class white homeowners outside the Savannah city limits
The following National Register-listed and -eligible dis-
tricts and individual properties demonstrate the application
of Criterion A:Community Planning and Development: 19Richard Cloues, Collier Heights Histaric District National Register
Nomination,8-27.This district is significant in multiple areas of signif-
icance under Criterion A:History and under Criterion C:Architecture.
'�McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-59. 'OMolly Myers Naumann, North Fellows Historic District National
"McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-60. Register Nomination,8-4.This district was identified as eligible in an
'�Some questions adapted from Dianna Litvak,Post World WarII Resi- intensive survey and a nomination was prepared;however,the nomi-
dential Development Abutting the US36 Highway Corridor,Addendum nation has not yet been accepted by the NPS.This district is also sig-
Report(Colorado Department of Transportarion,2009),29-30. nificant under Criterion C:Architecture.
31
- � ,�� � ���.,�� � .
. -� * � »� ..�
,�'� �� '� � �
� y� .��.. �� a�T.:
' .;�,_e
� � :� � . � •;� � r ,.. '�
. �._�fi,,� ��':.�' �?��.Pti' F .=':. , �-�N� . � lr- �, ,
j � �!�, � _ d�o -�;t�� s � "1� �
:k.� i.. �.�--7� . ., .. . .�,�' _
_—�r
i ... ,, ... � .�t - i
..
I ,
._ .
. . . .
Ai
'?es,- � .,,,r"_ � . - �� _
,. . ��. .ri�-.4 � .. _ .
� , .` _ � _' W+,�'4F' :�J.7- I
��^-� _ � . . .
Figure 42. Minimal Traditional houses in the Figure 44. House in the Virginia Heights Historic
North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, lowa, District in Arlington County, Virginia, that reflects the
constructed c.1945(photograph courtesy of Molly response to the demand for postwar housing in the
Myers Naumann and the State Historic Preservation washington, D.C, area (Mead&Hunt photograph).
Office of the lowa Department of Cultural Affairs).
r� � �*�:�� : ,,,., ���
�M ��.
x , ,� j . :�.�,�`` � �� •_
� , ;� � -�� '�* �
�, �
�; ` . -� *" ` . -
� ;� ^ `1 7 � ,�pv
i. ,:V iP �' � r) � S F ..
� ��r' , �.-"i��'a� �. .. �'�;.
�^�, j=�. ~� l-r,. ,Yfi , 1+ .
r;s '-�+1��•, �rY � � r� y g � � �
e'�' lf� � � '� �a� � �� �', 1� � � ��i
_ ��� , ,r , __ , `�,.
=�-�_� � �.�,. ,�- ti
i . - _ _ _ �- � - � �C��f ��i � L
1� �' - � �
- � � F
=v '� � +�-
":=�__ �_�..� ' � _ - . -- .
. „ _ , � �-�
Figure 43. Ranch and Split-level house in the Fairway „�,�„ �_
Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah,Georgia �
(photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Figure 45. Claremont Historic District in Arlington
Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). County, Virginia.Although some of the homes have
replacement siding and windows,as a collection, the
featuring the new-to-Savannah curvilinear street layout with district is able to convey significance as a planned
cul-de-sacs and irregularly shaped wooded lots"21 neighborhood of afifordable housing(Mead&Hunt
photograph).
Virginia Heights Historic District in Arlington County,
Virginia. The Virginia Heights Historic District (see Fig-
ure 44) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: promoted by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)in
Community Planning and Development as"a planned neigh- addition to house setbacks.
borhood of affordable housing that was a direct response to Claremont Historic District in Arlington County,Virginia.
the large number of returning veterans to the Washington, The Claremont Historic District (see Figure 45) is listed in
D.C., area after World War II"�� The cohesive plan of four �e National Register under Criterion A: Community Plan-
small subdivisions incorporated garden city planning ideals, ning and Development"as a planned neighborhood of afford-
such as interconnecting curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, able housing that was a direct response to the large number of
retuming veterans to the Washington,D.C.,area after World
21 Richard Cloues and Robert Ciuecevich, Fairway Oaks-Greenview War II:'23 Although the neighborhood planning follows many
Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-15.This district is
also significant under Criterion C:Architecture.
�'-EHT Traceries,Inc.,Virginia Heights Historic District National Reg- '-3EHT Traceries,Inc., Claremont Historic District Narional Register
ister Nomination, 8-32. This district is also significant under Crite- Nomination,8-104.This district is also significant under Criterion C:
rion C:Architecture. Architecture.
32
t- �� � ' 4 i '�a � � .
r ' � 1� � 7� 'i r� , C.�.:`���.�
� � L '` � " - . . ,
+ y� � �� r `; e ' � ��' {. X+'
� ,
t
F
.
. .. , �
� r
" � — '9 `� � ' `r y t f � ..i: � w y
� ._ a��. _ * � � . ,� .� ,,, �I 1�+�►��`
� �����
�i � ?,� -� �Mri�-�``, ` -.�� , � ,
� �. -_ t . e }� �' -�RAtI��l�,R,falirR�
� � 4� [� � �
a.���� 4 ;5��.�-% � {''F"�
i
_ � � _�►� ' . � �
- - - _ _ _ -_. f ,
�� ' 4_�.' Y 1_F� y„ `�, ����
w.P��..� .� �J,.+vk� l i � "
Figure 46. Postwar Ranch residences in the Indian
Village Historic District in Fort Wayne, Indiana Figure 47. Harold and Marion Ruth Residence in
(photograph courtesy of Margaret E. Caviston, eillings, Montana, as it appeared c.1965(photograph
ARCH, Inc.), courtesy of Jon Axline, Montana Department of
Transportation).
of the FHA standards,the exclusion of amenities, such as
shopping centers and schools, demonstrates the housing the automobile allowed for an exodus to rural areas,and the
shortage following World War II and efforts to keep up with Ruth Residence demonstrates this new trend in suburban
demand. development outside the traditional urban area in Montana.
Indian Village Historic District in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The Indian Village Historic District (see Figure 46) is listed
b. Area of Significance: Social History
in the National Register under Criterion A:Community Plan- Social History is defined in the National Register Bulletin
ning and Development"as a significant example of a revolu- as"the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society;the
tionary period in 20th century subdivision development that history of society and the lifeways of its social groups:'�' It is
demonstrates the national policy shift to the support of home further defined in the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD as an
ownership for the middle class, the federal government's area of significance that"recognizes the contribution of a his-
establishment of minimum standards for small homes, the toric neighborhood to the improvement of living conditions
emergence of construction techniques such as prefabrication through the introduction of an innova�ive type of housing
and site fabrication, and the growth of the automobile sub- or neighborhood planning principles,or the extension of the
urb:'24 Although platting of the district began in the 1920s American dream of suburban life or home ownership to an
with some residential construction,the majority of homes in increasing broad spectrum of Americans:'��This area of sig-
the district(95 percent)were built from 1945 to 1960.�' nificance may also demonstrate trends in choices of residential
location and demographics.Residences developed to respond
Harold and Marion Ruth Residence in Billings,Montana. to changes in lifestyles and family needs following World War II
The Ruth Residence(see Figure 47),constructed in 1956 and may be eligible under Social History.As an area of significance,
listed in the National Register under Criterion A:Community Social History often overlaps with another area of significance:
Planning and Development, is "representative of a process Community Planning and Development(see above).
where people increasingly moved from the city into the sub- �en considering the application of Criterion A: Social
urbs and oudying areas around the city as economic pros- History, the following questions may assist in determining if
perity and improved transportation allowed them to relocate a property possesses significance related to this theme:29
to areas of their choosing:'26 This economic prosperity and . Does the subdivision or neighborhood demonstrate the
accomplishment of the American dream of homeowner-
24 John Warner, Indian Village Histaric District National Register S�Ltp fOY a C11ShnCt gYoup Of]nCllvldua�s?
Nomination,8-17.This district is also significant under Criterion C:
Architecture.
�sWarner,7-2 and 7-3. �'National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
��Jon Axline,Harold and Marion Ruth Residence National Register tration Form,41.
Nomination, 8-1. This house is also significant under Criterion C: ��McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-59.
Architecture. �y Questions adapted from Litvak,29-30.
33
fi. :, �,�,,r.�� r �, r..
'i��'i` � � �.f, �� �,�� '�
�* �- '� �a-- �� 6„ +
,�+��c'' � _ �^:.'�f'"��' �- -„�.�^� ��l� � � *�� r ���+�.
hl�i
.�;f � _ . ��^"- �T . 1 X �s
.. , .r. .., . _
� �� �-, . _.,� .
' - ` .r - . .. . . .
' � "� �' Yi�d�F.,.�� ' . 1�a y4i.�. � _
` �`. �.�y �•'.iE ' ,y, N +. ,�•.
� �. *f _�Hs��r� 4�.j Y . �. 4 '�:.q,'F'.0 "� "'.ty.
,� � � -� �. "�, '� t�..r...��.��� ' ' _ `�'�k 7.� . };
��� — - . � � �� �'.
� _ __- 4 1^ ... �{��
- ' ����: � . � �
y'�
'+�':C
Figure 48. Hermann J. Russell Ranch house, - ,
constructed in 1963 and/ocated in the National � ��
Register-listed Collier Heights Historic District in Figure 49. Postwar residences in the Arapahoe Acres
Atlanta, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Historic District in Englewood, Colorado(photograph
Department of Natural Resources,Historic Preservation courtesy of Diane Wray Tomasso).
Division).
CT M �.. ���i� `� . �, � ',F.d � �
• Does the subdivision have a model or housing type con- ��_,���� �� ��,� :;� � �1; ,�
:�: �� �, -
sidered to be locally,regionally,or nationally innovative in _
improving living conditions? �s , ``� ' f �i"..
• Was the neighborhood associated with important local �; ,� , � � ` �..-
events that have an important role in suburban growth !�, ,�� � ��� ` � ;, fi..
and development? � ��. �:�-�� ���.��� `�
�. -r'� . ! ' . ;fk
The following National Register-listed and-eligible districts �: -
and individual properties demonstrate the application of Cri- �,.. � .. �., - _ -- � �� � �� �' -�-� -_���
terion A:Social History: ` �
Figure 50. Residence in Greenbelt Knoll Historic
Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia. District in Philadelphia (photograph courtesy of the
The Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta(see Figures 41, Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office).
48,and 53)is also listed in the National Register under Crite-
rion A in the Social History area of significance.Intertwined
with the theme of Ethnic Heritage, the residential Collier in the post-war years,providing homes in a variety of sizes
Heights Historic District represents the area of Social History and purchase prices to produce a more diverse community
when"the way in which the newly emerging and economi- for families of varying size and financial resources."32 In addi-
cally empoweredAfrican American middle and upper-middle tion,"as an alternative to traditional architectural styles and
classes at mid-century developed their own version of the sub- plans which dominated the post-war home buying market,
urban American Dream:"30 The nomination recognizes the Arapahoe Acres illustrates the nationwide struggle to success-
uniqueness of the development of this residential subdivision. fully achieve full FHA/GI Bill funding for homes designed in
modern styles,revealing the influence of the Federal govern-
Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood,Colorado. ment in suppressing modern residential design in post-war
Arapahoe Acres in Englewood,Colorado (see Figures 49 and America"33
62),built from 1949 to 1957,is listed in the National Register
under Criterion A"for its social history,displaying new pat- Greenbelt Knoll Historic District in Philadelphia,
terns of residential development which emerged in response Pennsylvania. The Greenbelt Knoll Historic District (see
to the family housing needs of hundreds of thousands of mil- Figure 50)is listed in the National Register under Criterion A
itary personnel resuming civilian life after the war."31 The dis- "for association with the development of integrated housing
trict also"reflects a new class egalitarianism which emerged in Philadelphia during the post-World War II period:'34 This
3oCloues,8-27. 32Tomasso,8-49.
31Diane Wray Tomasso, Arapahoe Acres Historic District National 33Tomasso,8-49.
Register Nomination,8-27.This district is also significant under Crite- i4 Charles Fuller and Art Friedman,Greenbelt Knoll Historic District
rion C:Architecture. National Register Nomination,8-7.
34
.�� ti � �' ' ���"r '�= _r .� �,x �'� � ' � R ;;.
-��►� ��: a �� :'w� �
..; : y�r � �'� ��� *s ,��� ''� - _ - .��' -
,� . _` ♦. —��_. �!, � _ I�.k ,3` -t,,' .,�.,'� fi . :� _. . - "
�"
�'= -•.. � ��', '1� *�,m'�� -�r�' —,�� - ,�,�;�,
�-� � r� '_���" j����# - � r� .�� ` ,� �-;
- `',,'y,l _� � r' ��; �fF�!.,�`��1 *•,M,"�':
��,s }�d;;� «.�.�, r-. .�� 5 ��
�,� _ _ E�� :�.-��:�' •'�'`��
. _ 4�r•.�,°9�.y'1. _ � `_ � .� '� ���„�
�- .n a.
r �' + 7
•- �.. �_ -. _ . _ .��.�",�*;,3,� : , -
Figure 51. Early 1960s Ranch houses in the Fairway ' "
Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah,Georgia Figure 52, eishop Family Lustron House in Glenville,
(photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of New York,erected in 1949(photograph courtesy of
Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). Kimberly Konrad Alvarez,Landmark Consulting LLC/
NYS Lustron Project Coordinator).
neighborhood was the second of a regional developer's inte-
grated housing developments. It was one of a few success-
ful housing developments to integrate working and middle c. Area of Significance: Ethnic Heritage
classes and one of only eight mentioned in a 1960 national Ethnic Heritage is defined in the National Register Bulle-
study on privately developed interracial housing.35 tins as"the history of persons having a common ethnic or
racial identity."39 It is further defined in the Historic Residen-
Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, tial Suburbs MPD as an area of significance that"recognizes
Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District the significant association of a historic neighborhood with a
(see Figures 43,51,and 63) is listed in the National Register p�.�cular ethnic or racial group:'`�' The significance may be
under Criterion A:Social History for the Fairway Oaks Asso- seen in trends in racial,ethnic,or religious segrega�ion through
ciation,which was among the earliest non-profit neighbor- restrictive covenants,sales,or financing.
hood organizations to be founded in the city and the state. �en considering the application of Criterion A: Ethnic
The association funded improvements within the subdivi- Heritage, consider the following question to determine if a
sion,including a sewerage system,street paving,and a neigh- property possesses significance related to this theme:41
borhood park with a clubhouse.3�
Bishop Family Lustron in Glenville, New York. The ' Does the neighborhood,subdivision,or residence dem-
Bishop Family Lustron House in Glenville (see Figure 52) onstrate an association with an ethnic group and dem-
onstrate a response to segregation,restrictive covenants,
is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Social or other issues with financing or home ownership?
History for its"direct linkage to the Town of Glenville's tran-
sition from farming community to thriving suburb in the The following sections discuss National Register-listed dis-
post WWII period"37"The house is a reflection of the social tricts that demonstrate the application of Criterion A:Ethnic
attitudes and aspirations of the emerging middle class:'3� Heritage.
It is recognized as the best surviving Lustron in the Town
of Glenville and one of the best preserved Lustrons in the Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta,Georgia. In
state. the area of Ethnic Heritage, Collier Heights (see Figures 41,
48,and 53)"is a premier example of such a mid-20th century
35The nomination states that it was not possible to identify all eight suburb built to meet the rising expectations of an emerging
housing developments menrioned in the book.Eunice Grier and George and eConomically empowered middle and upper-miCldle Class
Grier,Privately Developed Inter-Racial Housing.•An Analysis of Ezperi- of African Americans eager and able to fully participate in and
ence,Report to the Commission on Race and Housing(Berkeley and Los benefit from new lifestyle opportunities in suburbia."42 The
Angeles:University of California Press,1960).This district is also signifi-
cant under Criterion B:SignificantPerson and Criterion C:Architecture.
3�Cloues and Ciuecevich,8-15. 39National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
37Daniel McEneny, Bishop Family Lnstron House National Register tration Form,40.
Nomination, 8-1.This property is also significant under Criterion C: 40McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-59.
Architecture. 41 Question adapted from Litvak,29-30.
3�McEneny,8-4. 42Cloues,8-27.
35
"'�"r"" d. Additional Areas of Significance
; `'�
`' Other areas of significance may apply to postwar resi-
- �. - � dential housing on a more limited basis.Again,the specific
- � historic context must support significance in order for a
�_ � `� ���,,�_1�-�� � ,ryT, property to be considered eligible for listing in the National
°""� ' �" Register.These areas include:
�
�'•�k' . �f�' °
�""` � • Transportation—housing related to important advances
� � � in transportation.
'�' �t • Government—housing related to government financing,
'' , adherence to government standards,or the institution of
zoning by local governments.
Figure 53. House in the Collier Heights Historic . Economics—postwar building boom affected social his-
District in Atlanta, Georgia (photograph courtesy tory and economics.
of Sandy Lawrence, Georgia Department of . Education or Medicine—housing built to accommodate
Transpori'ation), an educational institution or medical facilities.
• Industry—housing built to house workers or developed in
Y' ���.�' : , response to a housing need caused by industry.
� � • Natural Resources—housing that relates to available water
'�' i �� x ' �F�•'� and rela�ionshi to rior land use such as the conversion
"t � , � �s'�"': P P � �
_ ��t ,��'� '' �.���� of a farm/ranch to a subdivision).
� � �..,..
_�
r4Y ,
� , � � 4. National Register Criterion C
�. �_ _
� , � As defined in the National Register Bulletins, Criterion C
relates to the physical design or construction of a property.
Figure 54. Bennett Avenue Historic District in For a property or district to be considered eligible for the
Richmond Heights,Missouri.Although some of the National Register under Criterion C,it must meet one of the
homes display exterior alterations, as a whole the 44
district is able to convey significance(photograph following criteria:
courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of
Transportation). • Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction;
• Represent the work of a master;
nomination recognizes the uniqueness of the development of • Possess high artistic value;and
this residential subdivision. • Represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction (historic
Bennett Avenue Historic District in Richmond Heights, districts).
Missouri. The Bennett Avenue Historic District (see Pig-
ure 54) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: As outlined in the National Register Bulletins,distinctive
Ethnic Heritage. It contributes to St.Louis County's African characteristics are the"physical features or traits that com-
American history as a neighborhood that"was established by monly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of
and for African Americans during the 1940s-1960s as a mod- construction.To be eligible, a property must clearly contain
ern suburban development. Today the neighborhood sym- enough of those characteris�ics to be considered a true rep-
bolizes the struggle for fair and equal housing in St. Louis resentative of a particular type, period, or method of con-
County,Missouri—one that continued well into the twenti- struction:'4' It is not necessary for properties to represent
eth century."43 high-style forms or the work of noted architects. Rather,
44National Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
43Ruth Keenoy and Joellen Gamp McDonald, Clayton Park Addition Evaluation,17.
Historic District [Preferred Name-Bennett Avenue Histaric District] 45 National Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
National Register Nomination,8-13. Evaluation,18.
36
postwar properties may be eligible as intact examples of post- local,state, or national level.To be eligible,a property must
war architectural styles and forms if they meet the criteria serve as an important example within the context and retain
and integrity requirements. sufficient integrity to represent the area of significance (see
Criterion C is the most likely criterion to be applied to Section E.S. for further discussion on integrity). Due to the
individual postwar residential resources and subdivisions. ubiquity of posiwar residential architecture, properties will
Although architect-designed and high-style examples of typically be significant at the local level;however,some prop-
postwar residences may qualify as the work of a master or for erties may also have significance at the state level.
high artistic value,the majority of traditional and vernacular Eligible properties should retain historic integrity,character-
postwar residential properties will be significant for embody- defining features, and architectural elements (as defined in
ing distinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of Section G.3 of Chapter 4)that characterize the style or form.
construction.Groups of postwar properties that lack individ- Not all intact postwar residences are significant either indi-
ual distinction yet represent a significant and distinguishable vidually or collectively as examples of architectural forms
entity may be eligible as a historic district. and styles from the period.Conversely,within a specific geo-
In accordance with the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD, graphic area, more than one posiwar residence or district
Criterion C applies when:46 may be eligible for the same area of significance.It should be
understood and demonstrated that an individual residence or
• A collection of residential architecture is an important district is an intact and distinguishable representation of the
example of a distinctive period of construction, method historic context and period of significance.
of construction,or the work of more notable architects. The three areas of significance most likely to be found to
• A suburb represents the principles of design important in be applicable to postwar housing are outlined below,along
the history of community planning and landscape archi- with specific examples of properties that have been listed in
tecture,or is the work of a master landscape architect,site or determined eligible for the National Register.
planner,or design firm.
• A subdivision embodies high artistic values through its a. Area of Significance:Architecture
overall plan or the design of the entranceways, streets,
homes,and community spaces. Architecture is defined in the National Register Bulletin as
"the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and
Although the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD only dis- structures to serve human needs:'4�As an area of significance
cusses the application of Criterion C to suburbs constructed under Criterion C, Architecture applies "when significant
through 1960,the same criteria can readily be applied to a qualities are embodied in the design,style,or method of con-
more defined and expanded period of housing from 1946 struction of buildings and structures:'49
to 1975. To be individually eligible,postwar resources should embody
More than one area of significance may relate to indi- a distinctive characteristic of a type,period,or method of con-
vidual properties or historic districts. For example, a sub- struction.To demonstrate significance,individual properties
division that resulted from the collaborative efforts of real should retain enough distinct characteristics to be considered
estate developers, architects, and landscape architects may a true representative of a par�icular type,period,or method
have significance in the areas of Community Planning and of construction.Properties may be significant as an example
Development,Architecture,and Landscape Architecture.47 In of the popular architectural sryles or forms from the postwar
addition,individual properties and historic districts may also period if they display key character-defining features and if
meet National Register Criterion A areas of significance (see �ey are important within the context of the community or
the Criterion A discussion in Section E3). region (see Section G3 in Chapter 4 for a discussion of archi-
Three National Register areas of significance under Crite- tectural styles and forms).A comparison with similar postwar
rion C,as identified in the National Register Bulletins,typically properties within the community is necessary to determine
relate to residential postwar housing:Architecture,Commu- if the individual property is a distinguishable example of the
nity Planning and Development,and Landscape Architecture. type,period,or method of construction.
Eligibility is derived from demonstrated significance at the Early postwar properties that influenced residential archi-
tecture within a community or region and properties that
represent the innovative use of designs or materials from this
4�McClelland,Ames, and Pope, F-60.Although properties may meet
Criterion C as the work of a master,the properties covered under this
methodology are vernacular or traditional in nature and not designed 4�National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
by recognized architects. tration Form,40.
47McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-60. 49Ames and McClelland,99.
37
'+� ,� � �
period of residen�ial development may also meet Criterion C: f�� ,� . ,;. ;_
Architecture. To convey that a specific property influenced � -��� .� ��iy��, ; �`��;� '��� � •;�;
�y�,�. � q�,
postwar residential architecture or represents an innovation r .�,,�..� �s�,* , _ �' ��.�- '- _ �.��`
��:�; - = �<a= �>�,
in design or materials,a historic context should be developed r:�'`� � - --� -� '.x�� ;
and used to clearly link the property to such influences or � - - �
innovations. � � �
t�:.�-L`�` �19} mll
Severalprefabricatedhousingcompaniesexperiencedgreat �i,� � N!1! ' IDII
success in the postwar era,with thousands of their homes . ,;; �� Gl11 �� �lil'rl, :r
erected across the country. Some of these companies relied ������
on standardized construction materials (e.g., dimensional _
lumber) that were developed and widely accepted prior to
the postwar period.The stressed-skin plywood construction
methods utilized by Gunnison Homes and National Homes Figure 56. Lustron House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin,
exemplify a standardized system employed in large numbers erected c.1948(Mead&Huni'photograph).
throughout the country both before and a$er World War II.
As a result,an individual Gunnison Home or National Home
residence is not an important example of prefabricated hous- tions.Collections of prefabricated houses that are significant
ing during the postwar period(see Figure 55).Other prefab- �,vithin their context should be considered as potential his-
ricated companies were innovative,yet less proliferate with toric districts.
their standardization methods,and had only a limited num- Collections of properties that represent"a significant and
ber of homes produced. For example,the Lustron Corpora- distinguishable entity whose components may lack individ-
tion erected appro�mately 2,500 houses nationwide during ual distinction"may also meet Criterion C:Architecture as a
the brief time the company was in operation.An intact Lus- historic district 50 As is the case with an individual property,
tron may be significant for representing the relatively rare groups of properties must stand out amongst other examples
and innovative system of panelized prefabricated housing within the community or region to be considered eligible.
using steel framing and porcelain enamel coated steel panels Due to the large number of postwar subdivisions and neigh-
employed by the company during the postwar era (see Fig- borhoods found in many communities nationwide, they
ure 56).Individual examples of prefabricated housing from should be compared with other subdivisions and neighbor-
local or regional companies may also be considered signifi- hoods to determine if they are important within the conte�t
cant within the local conte�t.Likewise,an individual house of postwar residential architecture in the community or
that was used to test the development of a prefabricated region. The historic context should identify local develop-
housing system in the postwar period may represent innova- ment patterns,which will provide guidance for determining
significance under this criterion.
It is unlikely that vernacular or traditional postwar resi-
• � � _ ��� � , �� � ��� r �,� dences will meet Criterion C:Architecture as the work of a
�; ��� ��`� �'' -�� . 7'' �� � • _ master or for possessing high artistic value. However,indi-
_���� � -� � '' �`����' vidual residences or subdivisions may have significance as the
� "��� �,��- ,�`� - _ work of a noted architect who is significant or influential in
3 '
�. � ��� ' � the community or region.As outlined in the National Reg-
�'�:-. " ister Bulletin, to meet the Criterion C the property should
]� ��;������ � � reflect a particular phase or aspect of an architect's work or a
� � particular idea in their theme or craft.Mere association with
��'� _ � � � � �'� a recognized architect is not enough:' Research efforts and
- _� - � the historic context should identify if individual properties
� _�. _ _ �"� or subdivisions are associated with significant local architects
'� �. - � � � _. _ - � and if the properties are important examples of their work.
Figure 55. Prefabricated Gunnison Homes residence
in Omaha, Nebraska,erecfied c.1955, fihafi individually soNational Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
does not represent innovations in postwar residential E„aluarion,i�.
prefabrication since the construction materials were 51 National Park Service,How co Apply the Nacional Register Criceria for
already widely accepted(Mead&Hunt photograph). Evaluarion,20.
38
.�� . � - .� { ,.a�...� .
�� `�. �' }� F� . �., ,� '�• �
,.. � � �"�, .° tF ��
��v; - �- '' , ' '` y r :r �
` �ti ��^ ���f` ,��r`•'iC�ti t 4�'t
y, � Sr5' y,��� I e:� 'er�.r��!�'• T �., . r�+4,��.'�� 7 �• ' .
.t,�.`, �� �. .Y. '"n'a-_,
r "y�3� '.w!�� . �F 1 r �q�.' � ' _ ' ���G .H- -
� � .. ^ 4 a.y 1 � � a .
�
� � �.�s��t�. .t��ti-f� _
�� " r a_" , � d y� �� -��� � _ ..'
. �;►� .a;;.< ' ` ����
- 3..:. — -. !� . � �:�e-� �_
� .+ _� ��
_ , __
_°� w , .� �;. ,, . ; � - �,;
__ - _ ___.�.�,�_ "ai: �' : � � �
�� i _ - :,�r;-
_ _ � �""A� - ' Figure 58. Contemporary style Russell and Jeanette
Williams House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, constructed in
Figure 57. Joseph and Mary Jane League House in 1955(Mead&Hunt photograph).
Macon, Georgia, constructed in 1950(photograph
courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, e r ,� ,.,. .,� , f ,..,�, -
Historic Preservation Division). �` $F -�� �.`'�` •� ' � �� -
� s� *�� _ �.
--'�r�.=::�' n'��
, .> _
The following sections discuss National Register-listed, ., � ;,� ,_ `�.,—.�.. � -
-eligible, and -evaluated districts and individual properties = �
that demonstrate the application of Criterion C:Architecture. _ --
Lustron House in Oshkosh,Wisconsin. This Lustron Figure 59. Ranch dwellings in the Eastridge Historic
house (see Figure 56) is eligible for listing in the National District in Lincoln,Nebraska, constructed c.1953.
Register under Criterion C:Architecture as an intact example Carports are located prominently on the front
facades(Mead&Hunt photograph).
of this prefabricated house type,which represents significant
innovations in prefabricated housing in the postwar era.'�
Erected c1948,the house illustrates the distinctive features Figure 58)is eligible for listing in the National Register under
of the property type, including the enameled steel exte- Criterion C:Architecture.'4 Constructed in 1955, the house
rior panels,roof panels,"modern"windows, and recessed is an intact example of the Contemporary style and displays
entrance. several distinguishing features that set it apart from other
Joseph and Mary Jane League House in Macon,Georgia. Contemporary homes in the community. These features
The Joseph and Mary Jane League House (see Figure 57)is include the low-pitched roof with a deep eave overhang and
listed in the National Register under Criterion C:Architec- exposed beams, large picture windows that dominate the
ture as an early and exceptional example of a Contemporary front facade,stone veneer accents,wide e�terior chimney,and
style residence.Its low form,H-shaped footprint,zoned inte- attached breezeway and garage.
rior,open-space plan,building materials,and integration of Eastridge Historic District in Lincoln,Nebraska. The
indoor spaces with outdoor landscaping all reflect up-to-date Eastridge Historic District(see Figure 59)is eligible for list-
Ranch-house design nationally and,along with a small group ing in the Na�ional Register under Criterion C:Architecture.
of similar houses in Atlanta,set precedents for mid-twentieth- The neighborhood includes a concentration of architect-
century Ranch-house design in Georgia.'3 The house also designed residences known as "Trendhomes" that were
has significance in this area as the work of an accomplished developed based on studies of what local homeowners
Georgia architect. wanted in a modern home. This concentration of Ranch
Russell and Jeanette Williams House in Oshkosh, and Split-level homes reflects the innovations in residential
Wisconsin. The Russell and Jeanette Williams House (see architecture developed by Lincoln builders and architects
to meet the needs of Lincoln residents in the years follow-
ing World War II."
s�Mead&Hunt,Inc.,Historic Resources Survey, City of Oshkosh, Ws-
consin(Prepared for the City of Oshkosh,Wis.,2006),33.
s3Richard Cloues and Leslie N. Sharp,Joseph and Mary Jane League 54Mead&Hunt,Inc.Historic Resources Survey, City of Oshkosh, Wis-
House National Register Nomination,10.This house is also significant consin,36.
under Criterion B:SignificantPerson for its association within the con- ssMead&Hunt,Inc. Survey Findings Report Eastridge Neighborhood,
text of Women's History in Georgia and Criterion C:Architecture. Lincoln,Nebraska(Prepared for the City of Lincoln,Neb.,2006),6.
39
_� 'Y.;��j;}�,��/�,y d ,�.F' �!� �+��'1� _ ^-� � + ��' a-X � �S
� A� W M�� ;P ��y �.i s_$., "� Y - q J.. �`� t
' "..y �.� • �� - i }`1. 11: ''n
'� . �:��
' �..'� n �..aF
- ryyF ``.}� _ -`+w'`ti.+� �� `- - - __ --_"
�� 'P • � �.I � � * �
���-�-- �- � �� � ,. �
1 j;��i� l � �
if.�� `� -�`�
�_ v. .
:��.a i r°
Figure 60. Minimal Traditional houses in the
North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, lowa, Figure 61. Harnischfeger house in the elackhawk
constructed c.1945.Although some of the homes Park Historic District in Madison, Wisconsin, one of
display exterior alterations,as a whole the district 145 prefabricated homes erected between 1950
is able to convey significance(photograph courtesy and 1951 (Mead&Hunt photograph).
of Molly Myers Naumann and the State Historic
Preservation Office of the lowa Department of
Cultural Affairs), b. Area of Significance: Community Planning
and Development
North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, Iowa. As previously discussed in the section on Criterion A,
The North Fellows Historic District (see Figures 42 and 60) Community Planning and Development is defined in the
is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C:Archi- National Register Bulletin as "the design or development
tecture. It is a collection of modest brick houses that typified of the physical structure of communities:'� It is important
the"minimum"house type developed and promoted by the to note that Community Planning and Development is also
FHA during the 1930s and into the postwar period.Overall, an area of significance under Criterion C.As oudined in the
the homes retain a high degree of integrity and are eligible Historic Residential Suburbs MPD,Community Planning and
for representing a distinguishable entity whose components Development may apply to residential historic suburbs under
lack individual distinction.As stated in the National Reg- Criterion C that reflect"important patterns of physical devel-
ister Nomination,"This`minimum house'concept allowed opment,land division,or land use:''9 Postwar proper�ies that
millions of people to attain the American Dream of home meet Criterion C:Community Planning and Development will
ownership"56 likely be grouped within subdivisions and neighborhoods that
Blackhawk Park Historic District, Madison,Wisconsin. are able to convey patterns of land use and development and
The Blackhawk Park Historic District is eligible for listing are better evaluated as districts.It differs from Criterion A,
in the National Register under Criterion C:Architecture as �^'�ch emphasizes the trends in development and subdivision
a good example of prefabricated homes erected during the planning,as opposed to the physical features.
postwar era(see Figure 61).The district contains a collection �en considering the application of Criterion C:Commu-
of 145 modest single-family homes produced by Wisconsin- nity Planning and Development, the following questions may
based Harnischfeger Homes,Inc.,and erected by a local devel- assist in determining if a property or district possesses signifi-
oper between 1950 and 1951.They were intended to provide cance related to this theme.60 Research and the historic con-
rental housing during a time of housing shortages in Madi- text must be used to convey this significance and determine if
son,and the majority of units were occupied within months other properties or districts better represent this theme.
of construction completion.The district retains a high degree
of integrity and all of the original homes remain as single- • Does the subdivision, neighborhood, or residence con-
family dwellings.'' vey historic design principles related to community
development?
56Naumann,8-4.
s'Elizabeth Miller, Blackhawk Park Historic District Determination of s�National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
Eligibility. Unpublished document prepared for Wisconsin Depart- tration Form,40.
ment of Transpartarion,2010,n.p.Available at the Wisconsin Depart- 59 McClelland,Ames,and Pope,F-60.
ment of Transpartation Environmental Services Section. 61Litvak,30.
40
i'" ' � s`����'�
i. ����;,�'1� �` . .Y . .�.,_���r.. f �y
4 N T ' y�'1 �� 7.��" p ,�I c."' x t "fir�i`
. �., ��� i I � . ���4 .-a �_J I .J•"IC ,1Yj` '�.
y �,�y �� l j�.j.��
. —�l� � �1 . . e ip �@r��*' iy �1�'. � �^.� n .�. /��"�t������,n
i}f�y y � M' . � q�„y'; � .. � � .M�'ti5 l� � �5�:
t �, 11..r . i . °'�.�. ,►y �u� ��� '�.'�"�` ;,
p.�. 1 �,.4y}���Wf r,�� �• � ,.,,��•
�t.� �"' _ ! ,���i�'`'Gi.�'&."�.:: a�€� . 'r'�.f.
.� �'� Y� .f � .
�' _ �t � ��.#', x �l: � �. �
�{r �� .'�T� � �'� �� � -
7 '� 4 R�� L "�`� .4
'��� �
_ _ " _ � �w�'� -- .. r � �I i,.'I 1��\
_'_____ ' �. _`�� w�5'i4,��_,�.A��
Figure 62. Contemporary style house with an . � �" �
integrated carport in the Arapahoe Acres Historic �_
District in Englewood, Colorado(photograph
courtesy of Diane Wray Tomasso). Figure 63. Entrance sign at the Fairway Oaks-
Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia
(photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of
• Does the subdivision or neighborhood plan reflect impor- Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division).
tant advances,established principles,or popular trends in
community planning? the first Savannah subdivisions"to break with the traditional
• Did the subdivision, neighborhood, or residence win an �pre-war'mode of planning and to adopt all the elements of the
award or receive recognition from professional, trade, FHAs preferred pattern of residential development:'62 As it was
architectural,or housing research organizations? laid out in 1950,the neighborhood broke from the standard
• Did the subdivision or neighborhood introduce patterns grid system with uniform lots to include a series of curvilinear
of subdivision design, housing, financing, or building streets and wooded lots of varying shapes and sizes.
practices that became influential in the local community
or regional area?
c Area of Significance: Landscape Architecture
The following listed National Register districts demonstrate Landscape Architecture is defined in the National Register
the application of Criterion C: Community Planning and Bulletins as"the practical art of designing or arranging the land
Development: for human use and enjoyment:'63 As described in the Historic
Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood,Colorado. Residential Suburbs Bulletin,it"applies when significant quali-
The Arapahoe Acres Historic District(see Figures 49 and 62) ties are embodied in the overall design or plan of the suburb
is listed in the National Re ister under Criterion C: Commu- and the artistic design of landscape features such as paths,
g roadways, parks, and vegetation:�4 Neighborhoods and/or
nityPlanning and Development.It is significant for"displaying subdivisions may have significance for Landscape Architecture
important modern concepts in residential site development �'they have special features that reflect design of the period,
and neighborhood planning"61 The subdivision layout broke including tree plantings,street lighting,landscaped yards and
from the established traditional grid pattem in the commu- open spaces,scenic vistas,roadways and entrances,or conser-
nity and was designed to include curvilinear streets that fol- vation of natural features.Although it is most likely that Land-
lowed the e�sting grade of the land.As a result,lots varied in scape Architecture significance will apply to historic suburbs
size,and the individual homes were oriented for privacy and and districts,it may also apply to individual postwar residences
to take advantage of e�sting mountain views. that retain a designed landscape from the historic period.
Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Individual properties and subdivisions may also have sig-
Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District(see nificance for an association with a noted landscape architect
Figures 43,51,and 63)is listed in the National Register under
Criterion C:Community Planning and Development.It is one of
��Cloues and Ciuecevich,17.The district is also significant under Cri-
terion A in the area of Social History and under Criterion C in the areas
of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.
�'Tomasso,8-27.The district is also significant under Criterion A in the �3 National Park Service,How to Complete the National Register Regis-
area of Social History and under Criterion C in the areas of Architec- tration Form,40.
ture and Landscape Architecture. 64Ames and McClelland,99.
41
who is significant or influential in the community or region. a. ASpeCtS of Integrity
The property should reflect a particular phase or aspect of a
landscape architect's work or a particular idea in their theme Within the concept of integrity, the National Register
or craft.Mere association with a recognized landscape archi- Criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that,in various
tect is not enough.bs Research efforts and the historic context combinations,define integrity.To retain historic integrity,a
should identify if an individual property or subdivision is Property should possess several, and usually most, of these
associated with a significant local landscape architect and if aspects. Due to the ubiquity of postwar homes, a higher
it best represents that architect's work. degree of integrity should be required for individual resi-
The following section discusses a National Register-listed dences and historic districts to differentiate those resources
district that demonstrates the application of Criterion C: that are able to convey significant historic associations or dis-
Landscape Architecture. tinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of con-
struction.The seven aspects of integrity are the following:
Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood,
Colorado. The Arapahoe Acres Historic District (see Fig- 1. Design—The combination of elements that create the
ures 49 and 62)is listed in the National Register under Crite- form,plan,space,structure,and style of a property.
rion C:LandscapeArchitecture.It is significant for"integrating Z• Materials—The physical elements that were used in the
the landscape and environment to create a neighborhood of original design and construction.
remarkable visual continuiry."66 Rather than re-grading the 3. Workmanship—The physical evidence of the crafts used
lots within the subdivision,the landscape architect retained in the construction of a property.
the e�sting grade and the"community was designed so that 4. Location—The place where the historic property was con-
the landscape is integral to individual homes,joins multi- structed or the place where the historic event occurred.
ple homes with shared landscape features, and unifies the 5. Setting—The physical environment of a historic property.
123 individually designed homes into a visually cohesive, 6. Feeling—An expression of the aesthetic or historic sense
park-like whole:'67 of a particular period of time.
7. Association—The direct link between an important his-
toric event or person and a historic property.
5. Integrity Requirements
The following sections discuss in more detail the seven
After determining if an individual property or historic dis- aspects of integrity as they apply to individual postwar resi-
trict has significance under the National Register Criteria,it dences and potential historic districts.
is necessary to assess whether the property or district retains
sufficient historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing. Design. Integrity of design is revealed through the com-
The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Reg- bination of elements that create the form, plan, style, and
ister Criteria for Evaluation defines historic integrity as"the spatial organization of a property or district. In a historic
ability of a property to convey its significance."6�The evalu- subdivision or neighborhood, the arrangement of houses,
ation of integrity can be a subjective judgment,but it should lots, yards, and streets comprise the design. Street plant-
be grounded in an understanding of a property or district's ings,parks,and other open spaces may be present as design
physical features and how such features relate to significance features within a historic district. The Historic Residential
as established through the historic context. The following Suburbs Bulletin notes a distinction between planned subdi-
guidance provides for the integrity evaluation of individual visions and unplanned neighborhoods:
postwar residences and residential historic districts in a con-
Design may have resulted from conscious planning decisions
Sistent manner. set farth in the histaric plat,project specifications,building con-
tracts or deed restrictions, or it may be the result of the per-
sonal tastes and individual efforts of homeowners to shape their
domestic environment69
�s National Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation,20.
�6 Tomasso, 8-27.As previously mentioned,the district is also signifi- Changes to the size of housing lots and additions or altera-
cant under Criterion A in the area of Social History and under Cri- tions to individual houses can affect the integrity of design.
terion C in the areas of Architecture and Community Planning and Street pattern and land use changes can also alter the design
Development.
67Tomasso,8-50.
��National Park Service,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation,50. 69Ames and McClelland,103.
42
of a historic subdivision or neighborhood.The extent of such � ,:;; � '
changes,and their cumulative effects in the case of a district, '��` '-+� �'�' � �
needs to be weighed. For example, a subdivision that has '�" �� . � � � �� '-'�� �. t ,
experienced alterations to the original street patterns, sub- � �i ��'� � � -��.����'� ��- ��,r
� '�� i` ... �
divided lots,and infill development within the original green �
spaces no longer retains integrity of design. �. _.
_,�—��•_-----
Location. Location is the place where the historic prop- �� � �� I�� ��� '"' �� ���� �� ����. ��
erty or district was constructed or the place where the historic - - ��
event occurred.For a planned subdivision,integrity of loca- "����
a
tion requires that the boundaries that historically defined the � �� '���,.,�.�_� _• �__ _
area remain intact.The size of lots and placement of streets
and open space should also remain unchanged.In general,an Figure 64. Minimal Traditional house, constructed
individual residence that was relocated to a new site no longer in 1950, with wide-lap replacement vinyl siding
retains integrity of location. that visually imitates original materials in the
National Register-listed Virginia Heights Historic
Workmanship and Materials. These two aspects of District in Arlington County, Virginia (Mead&Hunt
integrity recognize the physical elements used in the origi- photograph).
nal design and construction,and the physical evidence of the
crafts used in construction.Workmanship reflects the labor
and craftsmanship skills of artisans.With the increasing stan- As outlined in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin,
dardization and industrialization of design and construction houses may be considered contributing to a historic district
during the twentieth century,the use of crafts became rare "�'here new siding:(1)visually imitates the historic material;
and is unlikely to be a significant aspect of integrity for prop- �Z) has been thoughtfully applied without destroying and
erties of the subject period.Construction materials vary from obscuring significant details;and (3)is not accompanied by
those that are man-made and used in buildings,roads, side- other alterations that substantially or cumulatively affect the
walks,and fences to the natural vegetation planted in yards, building's historic character."70 However, in a historic dis-
terraces, and gardens.Workmanship can be evident in how trict significant under Criterion C:Architecture,the majority
materials have been used to create a landscaped setting,such of houses should retain the original exterior construction
as planters and pathways,or architectural elements. materials.'�
Residential construction materials include those used for For example, several Minimal Traditional homes within
exterior walls,fenestration,roofs,and architectural elements. the National Register-listed Virginia Heights Historic District
Cladding is the primary visible construction material and a in Arlington County,Virginia,have replacement siding that
distinctive feature of many postwar residences.It is also one replicates the original clapboard siding and original double-
of the most common e�terior alterations to postwar houses. hung windows have been replaced with modern windows
The original cladding materials used on many postwar homes, that retain the original size and configuration(see Figure 64).
such as asbestos-based siding that was discovered to be unsafe, ��ough these properties do not meet the integrity require-
were commonly removed or encapsulated.Although installa- ments to be listed in the National Register as individual
tion of modern siding materials,such as horizontal vinyl,has properties,they retain enough integrity to contribute to the
less adverse effect when it visually appro�mates the house's overall historic district.
original material and design,replacement of historic siding Setting,Feeling,and Association. These three aspects of
with modern materials gready diminishes the integrity of integrity can often be reasonably assessed together. Setting
materials.For example,an individual postwar residence that refers to the physical environment of a property and the char-
has had the original wide-lap clapboard replaced with narrow- acter of the place in which the property or district played its
gauge vinyl siding no longer retains integrity of materials. �storical role.The aspect of feeling results from the presence
It is important to note that aluminum siding was developed of physical features that,taken together,convey the property's
and heavily promoted during the postwar period and may be historic period of significance.A property or district retains
original to the property.In this instance it should not be con- integrity of association if it continues to convey the important
sidered as a loss of integrity.Other non-compatible replace-
ment siding materials may include replacement cedar siding,
vinyl shingles, and modern stone veneer, such as lava rock, �o�es and McClelland,106.
that is inconsistent with the historic appearance. ��Ames and McClelland,104.
43
event or acti�ityto an observer.Continued residential use can 7. Retention of Character-defining Features
contribute to integrity of association. Historic subdivisions
or neighborhoods often have a semi-rural character that is An important part of establishing integrity is determining
reflected through their combination of urban amenities,like �^'hether a property or district retains the essential physical
streets and sidewalks,and natural features,including private features that are considered character-defining and enable
yards and public parks.When present in a historic district, it to convey its historic identity. Character-defining features
the retention of such a semi-rural character contributes to the of postwar residences are described in detail in the national
integrity of setting,feeling,and association. historic conte�t,included in Chapter 4.The process of estab-
lishing integrity involves the following steps (1) defining the
essential physical features related to significance,(2)determin-
6. RelatiOnship Between Area ing if the features are retained and visible enough to convey
Of SIg111fICa11C@ a11d 111t@gPlty significance, and (3) determining which aspects of integrity
Different aspects of integrity affect the eligibility of a are important to the property's significance and if they are
property or district in different ways, depending on how present.That is,the amount of change to a property or district
each relates to the property's significance.For example,since �i.e.,its loss of integrity) needs to be weighed against its his-
Criterion A relates to significance gained through historical torical significance in making eligibility recommendations.In
associations,the integrity aspects of location,setting,feeling, general,a postwar house that possesses integrity would retain
and association weigh more heavily in evaluating a property all its important aspects of integrity. For an individual prop-
or district.Generally,historical associations are absent when erty significant under Criterion C:Architecture, this should
a property is moved from its original location. Integrity of include original exterior materials, architectural elements,
design,workmanship,and materials are also important,but and massing;original configuration of doors and windows;
alterations that affect these aspects may not result in the same and spatial relationships within its lot and to the street.A
level of diminished integrity for structures found to be sig- district significant under Criterion C: Community Planning
nificant under Criterion A. Since Criterion C relates to the and Development should retain its overall layout,landscape
architectural significance of a property or district,the integ- features,and circulation patterns,and include a collection of
rity aspects of design,workmanship,and materials are typi- buildings that convey their original character.
cally more important when evaluating a property or district
under this criterion.These features allow a building to char- 8. AlteYdtlOns
acterize its type,period,or method of construction.Location
and setting may be important under Criterion C when the �terations to a property or district are weighed against
its character-defining features and significance to determine
design responds to the immediate environment. historic integrity.Using the period of significance as a bench-
The presence of certain physical features may be more mark for evaluating resources and historic districts, altera-
important than others depending on the reason for a prop- tions introduced after the period of significance are generally
erty or district's significance. The Historic Residential Sub- considered to negativelyimpact historic integrity.For a prop-
urbs MPD notes the link between integrity and significance erty to retain physical integrity,its present appearance should
as follows: closely resemble its appearance during the time the property
Where the generalplan of development has importance,integ- derlved 1ts slgnlficance.For postwar resldences,alteratlons to
rity should be present in the original boundaries,circulation pat- materials, scale, and massing are often observed. Note that
terns of streets and wallcways,and the division of housing lots. not all alterations will result in a loss of historic integrity
Where architectural design is of great significance,integrity will as e�plained through the lists and examples of alterations
depend heavily on the design, materials and workmanship of included herein. However, due to tlle large number of resi-
individual houses.Elements such as roadways,the arrangement dences constructed during the postwar period,the integrity
of house lots,walls,plantings,walkways,parlcland,ponds,statu- requirements for an individual property should be more
ary,and fountains may likewise contribute strongly to impor-
tance in landscape architecture'' stringent than for homes that pre-date this period of rapid
residential e�pansion. In addition, the Secretary of the Inte-
In general,the loss of important aspects of integrity would rior's Standards for Rehabilitation may provide additional
render an individual residence or district ineligible under guidance when evaluating how alterations impact integrity.
Criteria A and C. Postwar houses, although often designed to be small and
compact,have often been enlarged with garages,family rooms,
porches, or additional bedrooms. Large-scale additions to
��McClelland,Ames and Pope,F-65. houses that resulted in additional stories or substantially altered
44
footprints diminish historic integrity.Additions that are modest r ; ' ,, 'l,'
in size have less effect on integriry,especially if the alteration is �' '_� ��y�� � ' �'��
- �s. � 1� _ "� � �
not visible from the primary elevation or is made to a house that - ti "
contributes to a historic district rather than one considered for ,� �
individual significance.73 For properties within potential his- � �'
toric districts,the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin recom- � , �
�. �
mends the following:
,a
When evaluating the extent to which the addition changes - =�` " __ _
the dwelling's individual character and the character of the .:-z�-:_=`-.�,=�? ���..
streetscape of which it is a part,it is impartant to consider the
size,scale,and design of the addition as well as its placement Figure 65. Contemporary house in Omaha,
on the house lot.inforrnation su�h as original setba�k require- Nebraska, constructed c.1960, with a modern garage
rnents, histori� design guidelines, and deed restri�tions rnay door replaced in-kind;it retains enough integrity to
also be useful in assessing the effect of additions on historic be considered individually eligible under Criterion C:
integrity.%� Architecture(Mead&Hunt photograph).
When evaluating a historic district,the ultimate decision
as to whether or not it retains sufficient integrity depends
upon the district's overall condition and continued ability ' Replacement windows that match the original size and
to convey significance.For historic districts,the presence of configuration;
features from outside the period of significance or absence of • Addition of features that are easily removed,such as shut-
features from within the period of significance are additional ters or awnings;
alterations to be considered.Alterations to the spatial orga- • Addition of ramps and decks,especially at the rear of the
nization of lots and neighborhoods, circulation elements house;and
and patterns,and landscape features can affect the integrity ' �teration of the original landscape,including plantings
of a district.'' and trees,modern decks and patios located on the side or
The following sections provide guidance on alterations rear of the property,and playground equipment or swim-
to individual residences and potential historic districts.Sur- ming pools (see Figure 66).
veyors should use professional judgment in evalua�ing each
resource and district. It should be noted that several non-compromising altera-
tions may have a cumulative effect and result in the loss of
integrity.For example,a house with a small addition,modern
a. Individual Residences garage door, and replacement windows is no longer able to
Because they represent a property type with many similar convey its significance and is considered not eligible for list-
examples in almost every community nationwide, postwar
homes should be critically assessed for historic integrity.It is
recommended that integrity requirements be stricdy applied � - _ �� '�''� ��� �� �
whereby a loss of the aspects of integrity that make the prop- � �� ����,� , �, �
erty significant may render an individual property ineligible. �� � -� � �����r�, _
' rr
Alterations That Do Not Compromise Integrity. Com- " � - ' �I
mon alterations that typically do not result in diminished � �� _ -
integrity for an individual residence include: � � ' �: +'��1�
��,�,4.._.. . , � � � �,
• Small-scale additions, such as modest porches, detached � �-:=� _ - � � `�"-��
--.. - -�-----��--�,-
garages,or garages attached to the rear of the building; � ���� _�_" ��
• In-kind replacement of entrance doors and garage doors �
(see Figure 65); Figure 66. Contemporary house in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, constructed c.1956, with an altered door
and landscape and modern pavers and plantings;
�;�es and Nt�Clelland,io6. it retains enough integrity to be considered
i4�es and Ivt�Clelland,io6. individually eligible under Criterion C:Architecture
'sAmes and McClelland,107. (Mead&Hunfi phofogl'aph).
45
� � ,' ` ��r � •, ' � � .r , �� } b t � .- �
►,''f'` '�� • f� ,�`,�"' ,� .� #�,"'�'-
'•� ;�E�"� �- �E .,
� �.
� .i �i r,x �,' ti� �, '��� �H�,, ';P 1 -a
�t ��
. 'n� � �� �+ '� �
. _ �; - =� I �
"' �' — �
.
" �.�- . • .�� ' ,
� -_7, _ 3 _
� x
..eY a � i�i�Vq��� j �. - ..� � i �
n ., "'' '� � ' ��1 F, t dl � , ��� ��.`
,M .`'{ `.%R � � _ �_ � .��
;fR�i �+ �
k` �Y
�-.+�-� .' .. " +i_ !'. _
� _ _ d,.
����:�- � 1 r L` ..' . � - S�.f�� f... -� f�
'�.
Fi ure 67. Contem orar house in Oshkosh, -
9' p Y
Wisconsin, constructed c.1960, with cumulative
alterations, including vinyl siding, and an altered Figure 68. Ranch house in Arlington, Texas,
patio;it is not considered individually eligible under constructed c.1965, with a modern shed dormer
Criterion C:Architecture(Mead&Hunt photograph), that alters the roofline and results in diminished
integrity;it is considered not individually eligible
(Mead&Hunt photograph).
ing in the National Register as an individual property (see + ,���
Figure 67). .< '� - ��-�'' ', � j_
` =s f
�.f,lM q �..
Alterations That Compromise Integrity. Common '� � . ��s� �
alterations causing the loss of integrity through diminishment � _� �
of character-defining features and therefore significance of an -- . ���� - �� �� � �
__ R '-'.
individual residence include: '� -� �. �
• Removal of house from original setting; - � �^�;
• Large-scale additions that substantially add to the mass of � '^'�'�'
a historic house,including attached garages that are prom- � ''' � " '
inent on the front fa�ade; Figure 69. Contemporary residence in Omaha,
• Additions that alter the spatial relationship between the Nebraska, constructed in 1954, with a modern
house and street; three-car garage that replaced the historic carport;
• Installation of modern siding materials,such as vinyl; this alteration compromises the integrity, and the
• Alteration of window and door openings that are inconsis- property is considered not individually eligible
tent with the original size and configuration; (Mead&Huni'phoi'ograph).
• Reconfigured front entrances, including the addition of
entrance vestibules and porches; b. Historic Districts
• Altered roof lines, including added dormers and second
stories (see Figure 68); The Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin describes the
• Loss of character-defining features,such as deep eave over- special considerations for assessing the historic integrity of a
hangs and exposed beams; historic subdivision or neighborhood:
• Addition of incompatible architectural elements that
detraCt from the original Style or form, SUCh as Colonial Weighing overall integrity requires a knowledge of both
details on a Contemporary residence;and the physical evolution of the overall district and the condition of
• EnClosure of Carports or inCorporation of garages into its component elements,including the design and materials of
houses,the character of streets,and spatial qualities of commu-
interior living SpaCe(See Figure 69). nity parks and facilities.Those making evaluations should take
into consideration the extent to which landscape characteristics
It is important to note that Surveyors ShoulCl use prOfes- remain intact or have been altered.They shonld also be prepared
sional judgment and evaluate alterations,including unsym- to assess the cumulative effect that multiple changes and altera-
pathetic additions,on a case-by-case basis.In some instances tions may have on a neighborhood's histaric integrity.76
the alterations listed may not rule out a property for indi-
vidual eligibility. '�Ames and McClelland,101.
46
��F'44 .., ,�- - ' �,- x �; _.;r�,
_�
�.
, � ,
, :� �--rl1R e - ^ _. ._.:'
, �i'
� �k-r � �.. � '+K...� ' .
4• .-, �
` y�-- i. �{ .�..�-t: , _.-
� h .:� . . . ��f t� � � .�� �.y � '�.
�� ,� . ...� :��k� � - P 1 �� e ,.
�• _ � � �_I r 1,
.', . ��, r" ���4 ,
_.., - �:•_.�'' f�.- �=_ — ,.;•�,.
Figure 70. Although these 1950s Ranch houses in �'` --
Lexington,Nebraska, have modified windows and
garage entrances, they are considered contributing in Figure 71. Ranch house in National Register-eligible
a potential historic district(Mead&Hunt photograph). Eastridge Historic District in Lincoln,Nebraska,
constructed c.1953;one of several homes with an
a/tered garage that is considered contributing
A historic district should retain"the spatial organization, (Mead&Hunt'phot'ograph)
physical components,aspects of design,and historic associa-
tions that it acquired during its period of significance.""The
period of significance is called out as a"benchmark"against . Loss or relocation of a historic transportation system that
which resources should be compared to determine whether supported the genesis of subdivision;
or not they contribute to a neighborhood's history and,thus, . Loss of original plant materials, especially where vegeta-
its integriry. tion of a similar scale and visual effect has been retained;
Alterations introduced after the period of significance are . Maturation of trees that obscure original vistas;
generally considered to negatively impact historic integrity. • Loss of a small number of features within a historic dis-
As explained in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin, trict, which may include residences, ancillary buildings,
alterations or additions made after the period of significance roads,or parks;
can affect a house's contributing status.Houses with modest • Maintenance of streets,paths, and sidewalks,including
additions that have litde to no effect on the original design can in-kind replacement of materials;and
still be classified as contributing. The size,scale,and design • Small number of noncontributing properties.
of the addition,as well as its placement on the lot,should be
considered.'�A residence with replacement vinyl siding may As with individual residences,it should be noted that sev-
be considered contributing if no other alterations are pres- eral non-compromising alterations may have a cumula�ive
ent and it still conveys the original appearance. Cumulative effect and result in the loss of integrity for a historic district.
alterations for an individual property will generally result in For example,a district with several residences that have e�te-
noncontributing status within a historic district.In general, rior alterations,in addition to infill construction and loss of
at least half of the properties in a historic district should be the original transportation system,may no longer convey its
considered contributing for the district to be considered eli- significance and would be considered not eligible for listing
gible for the National Register. in the National Register.
Alterations That Do Not Compromise Integrity. Com- Alterations That Compromise Integrity. Common
mon alterations that typically do not result in diminished alterations causing diminished integrity to a historic district
integrity in a historic district include: include:
• Exterior alterations to a small number of properties within • Changes to the size of housing lots through division or
the district,including siding and alterations of garages and consolidation outside the period of significance;
carports (see Figures 70 and 71); • Multiple infill properties that detract from the size and
• Subdivision of a small number of lots within the district; scale of buildings within a district(see Figure 72);
• A small amount of infill construction,especially if similar • Loss of entire sections of a planned neighborhood;
in scale; • Cumulative alterations and additions to a large number of
houses (see Figure 73);
• Large number of noncontributing properties;
��Ames and McClelland,lol. • Alteration to an internal road network or access roads
��Ames and McClelland,106. resulting in changed circulation pattems;
Figure 72. Large infill house under construction
in Arlington County, Virginia, that detracts from
the size and scale of the 1950s Transitional Ranch
neighborhood (Mead & Hunt photograph).
• Redesign of park landscape and circulation features; and
• Widespread changes to land use.
9. Defining Historic Boundaries
The National Register Bulletin Defining Boundaries for
National Register Properties provides guidance for establish-
ing historic boundaries for individual properties and historic
districts. This Bulletin, along with specific guidance from the
project sponsor or SHPO, should be referenced when defining
historic boundaries for postwar resources. When establishing
boundaries for postwar residential districts, it is important to
note the following:
The extent of the original subdivision or neighborhood
plat(s) and associated additions and/or re -plats, which
may assist in identifying boundaries;
Figure 73. Collection of c. 1950 Minimal Traditional
and Transitional Ranch homes in Madison, Wisconsin,
with substantial alterations to the majority of
properties, including non -compatible siding,
replacement windows, and altered entrances and
carports (Mead & Hunt photograph).
47
• Historic land use within the original subdivision or neigh-
borhood, including schools, churches, commercial nodes,
formal recreational areas, and green spaces;
• Concentrations of noncontributing properties, which may
influence where the boundary is drawn;
• Fieldwork observations, including changes to the land-
scape, setting, and circulation patterns; and
• Defined perimeters (e.g., signs, fences, and other
boundaries).
F. Documentation
In this final step, the survey results, historic context, and
eligibility evaluation are incorporated into final survey docu-
mentation that meets the requirements of the project spon-
sor. These requirements should have been identified during
the project preparation phase to inform the data collected
during field survey and research efforts. Otherwise, missing
data may need to be gathered at a late stage, creating ineffi-
ciencies and possible delays in submitting deliverables.
The survey documentation should provide clear and con-
cise information regarding properties in the APE, including
a National Register eligibility statement for properties that
required evaluation due to their potential for eligibility. The
final survey documentation should include a written report,
inventory forms and/or database records for documented
properties and neighborhoods/subdivisions, photographs,
and maps. Coordination with the project sponsor is neces-
sary to determine the preferred format for inventory forms
or database records and confirm that single inventory forms
or database records may be prepared for subdivisions or
neighborhoods that were documented as a single grouping.
Based on the requirements of the project sponsor, documen-
tation may also include a database and/or GIS shapefiles and
attributes.
At a minimum, the survey report should include the fol-
lowing sections:79
• Description of the APE;
• Description of the survey methodology;
• Historic context, illustrated with relevant historic and cur-
rent photographs and maps;
• Summary of survey results, to include architectural
descriptions, eligibility statements, and photographs;
• National Register eligibility statement(s)—if evaluations
were conducted; this may be omitted if a report only cov-
ers reconnaissance -level survey;
• Bibliography; and
19 The documentation should focus on the survey and evaluation; how-
ever, an effective recommendation under Section 106 may be incorpo-
rated into the report based on the requirements of the project sponsor.
48
• Map(s) of surveyed properties showing relation to project
activities.
Inventory forms or equivalent database records for docu-
mented individual properties that met selective survey crite-
ria should include the following:
• Property name;
• Location;
• Construction date;
• Architectural elements;
• Alterations;
• National Register eligibility recommendation;
• Photograph(s); and
• Tables or lists to supplement streamlined survey approach,
if required by sponsor.
For groups of properties documented as a potential historic
district, the following details should be discussed in the survey
report and illustrated with representative photographs:
• Discussion of overall architectural styles and forms, con-
struction dates, materials, setbacks, distinguishing fea-
tures, and alterations;
• Circulation patterns;
• Green spaces and landscape features;
• Associated features, such as parks, schools, churches, and
community buildings;
• Representative photographs; and
• Lists of properties with contributing or noncontributing
status.
G. Conclusion
The survey and evaluation methodology provides guid-
ance for how to determine if individual properties and sub-
divisions or neighborhoods of the postwar period are eligible
or not eligible for listing in the National Register. It follows
and builds upon the guidance of National Register Bulletin
Historic Residential Suburbs, with supplemental guidance
provided to address the challenges that the large number of
vernacular homes of the postwar era poses to the evaluation
of National Register eligibility of both individual houses and
districts. This methodology is intended to offer a streamlined
approach as well as consistency in regards to documentation
standards and National Register eligibility recommenda-
tions. Use of this methodology by state DOTs provides for an
efficient survey and evaluation process that can be expected
to yield consistent results across geographic areas. As previ-
ously noted, many state DOTS and SHPOs have specific sur-
vey and evaluation requirements; therefore, this document
should serve as guidance rather than a prescribed require-
ment, unless approved in advance by the project sponsor.
The national historic context included in Chapter 4 provides
the historic themes and framework for understanding such
properties.
CHAPTER 4
National Historic Context
A. Introduction to Postwar
Suburbanization
The post -World War II period was a boom for single-
family residential construction, suburbanization, and the
American dream of homeownership. More than 13 million
homes were built across the country between 1945 and 1954.
A comparison of housing starts before and after the war
shows the dramatic increase of residential construction in the
1950s (see Table 2).80 The largest increase in housing was in
metropolitan areas, with the majority (80.6 percent) of new
houses built in the suburbs while only 19.4 percent were in
the central city.S1 Accompanying this was the increase in sub-
urban population, which more than doubled between 1950
and 1970 from 36 to 74 million.S2 The legacy of the postwar
housing boom continues to be reflected in the urban land-
scape more than 60 years later, as evidenced by the distinc-
tive pattern of suburbs found nationwide. These suburbs are
comprised of self-contained subdivisions with single-family
homes constructed in small- to large-scale developments.
Another phenomenon still visible today is the large number
of isolated individual homes built on the edge of older com-
munities or as infill within established neighborhoods.
This historic context tells the story of postwar housing
across the United States, beginning with the end of World
War II in 1946 and running through 1975. The historic con-
text includes the evolution of new housing styles and forms,
patterns of development, and influences on this era, as well as
social and economic trends.
80Michael Bennett, When Dreams Came True (Washington, D.C.:
Brassey's Inc., 1996), 287.
"U.S. Census data in Checkoway, "Large Builders, Federal Housing
Programmes, and Postwar Suburbanization" in International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 4, no. I (March 1980), 23.
82 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the
United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 283.
49
The prewar demand for suitable housing intensified at
the end of World War II as housing construction had been
constrained by the focus on war needs. In 1944 the National
Housing Agency (NHA) estimated that for the first 10 years
following the war, 12.6 million non-farm dwellings would
be needed. The agency's report went on to state that "the
great majority of these should be provided through new
construction, the remainder through conversion of exist-
ing structures." 83 Housing legislation enacted by the fed-
eral government in the 1930s, which focused on stimulating
the economy and encouraging home ownership, came of
age and influenced residential housing in the postwar era.
The government's efforts, largely seen through the work of
the FHA, paved the way for many Americans to purchase
their own home while providing incentives and reduced risk
for developers.
The subdivisions and single-family homes that were built
across the country between the late 1940s and early 1970s
were influenced by standards developed by the FHA, as well
as other commonly followed industry standards and local
ordinances .14 These standards, which generally favored new
construction, addressed a variety of topics applicable to
single-family homes, including street orientation and lot size,
room layout, and overall form and style, to ensure that invest-
ments were financially sound. As a result, much of the postwar
suburban landscape was standardized and repeated over and
over outside large and small communities across the nation. As
merchant builders became more prevalent and other smaller
"The NHA used an arbitrary 10 -year period from January 1946 to
December 1955 to estimate the need for housing. National Housing
Agency, National Housing Bulletin 1: Housing Needs a Preliminary Esti-
mate (Washington, D.C., November 1944), 5.
14 Grace Milgram, The City Expands: A Study of the Conversion of
Land from Rural to Urban Land Use, Philadelphia 1945-62 (Philadelphia,
PA: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania,
1967), iii.
50
Table 2. New housing starts.
1930-39
2,734,000
1940-49
7,443,000
1950-59
15,068,000
1960-69
14,063,800
1970-75
10,385,800*
*Total for 1970 -79 = 17,675,800
Source: U.S. Census data accessed at http://www.census.gov/const/startsan.pdf on
March 29, 2011, and U.S. Census data from 1966 in Barry Checkoway, "Large Builders,
Federal Housing Programmes, and Postwar Suburbanization" in International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 4 , no. 1, March 23, 1980, and reprinted in Critical
Perspectives on Housing.
scale regional builders increased their volume from a few
houses a year to full subdivision development, similar hous-
ing in the form of standard models prevailed. Distinction and
individual custom design became less common. Despite this
similarity and homogeneity, distinct regional variations and
interpretations of styles are evident in material choices, house
form, and selection of details, as well as housing density, which
was influenced by local demand and existing land constraints.
Prefabrication and advances in construction materials, stimu-
lated by the war, also influenced postwar residential housing
construction.
Postwar suburban growth can be attributed to new pros-
perity, housing demand, government and private encourage-
ment of home ownership, a shift in standards of living, and
the readily available suburban land that was suitable for resi-
dential development. In addition, the growing automobile
age and improved infrastructure, through new roads and the
Interstate Highway System, contributed to suburban develop-
ment further from cities' central cores by improving access to
available land for development. It is this combination of social,
economic, and political factors that shaped the development of
the postwar residential suburbs, resulting in 60 percent of indi-
viduals owning their own single-family home by the 1960s.85
B. Transportation Trends
1. Automobile Age
One of the most pervasive reflections of postwar American
prosperity was the dramatic increase in automobile ownership.
The rapid construction of freeways, availability of cheap gaso-
line, and relative affordability of cars enabled the transforma-
tion of culture, demographics, and land use throughout the
"Michael E. Stone, "Housing and the Dynamics of U.S. Capitalism,"
in Critical Perspectives on Housing edited by Rachel G. Bratt, Chester
Hartman and Ann Meyerson (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press, 1986), 51.
postwar period. Between 1940 and 1970 automobile registra-
tions more than tripled from 27 million to almost 90 million.
By 1970 the average car owner traveled 10,000 miles per year
by automobile, thus ushering in a new lifestyle and the car cul-
ture.86 The growth in automobile ownership and usage enabled
people to commute to their workplace from a greater distance.
The rise in automobile ownership during the postwar
era followed trends begun in the preceding decades. Vehicle
operating costs decreased significantly during the first four
decades of the twentieth century as gasoline costs declined
and improvements in vehicle reliability and durability were
made. For example, in 1925 the average automobile traveled
23 miles per service dollar, while in 1945 this number had
increased to 112 miles. This was largely the result of improve-
ments to rubber tires, whose service life increased from
5,000 miles to 25,000 miles during the same period. Overall
service life of automobiles improved from 22,000 miles in
1925 to 81,000 miles in 1945.$'
During the first half of the twentieth century the affordabil-
ity of the automobile also improved greatly as Henry Ford's
mass production techniques permeated the industry and led
to a decline in prices. However, civilian car consumption came
to a halt during World War Il, when auto companies were
largely converted to wartime production. General Motors
(GM) had established a relationship with the War and Navy
departments, and by the time of U.S. entry into World War lI,
GM already held more than $1.2 billion in defense contracts
for the Allies. Beginning in 1940, Ford Motor Company man-
ufactured Pratt and Whitney airplane engines for the U.S. Air
Force, and beginning in 1942 Ford produced B-24 bombers in
a plant at Willow Run, Michigan. Ford also became the lead-
ing producer of four-wheel-drive military trucks and jeeps,
while Chrysler led production of military tanks during World
86 James Gilbert, Another Chance: Postwar America, 1945-1968 (Phila-
delphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1981), 110, 112-113.
$'Rowe, 183-184.
War II. On February 22, 1942, the manufacture of auto-
mobiles for civilian use ceased altogether; tires and gasoline
were rationed for the remaining war years and a 35 mile -per -
hour speed limit was imposed by the federal government.
Between 1941 and 1944 vehicle miles of travel by American
citizens decreased by 121 billion and highway expenditures
and motor vehicle use tax receipts fell considerably. By the end
of the war the American auto industry had manufactured 75
different essential military items, including engines, guns, and
aircraft. With a total value of $29 billion, the auto industry
comprised one-fifth of the nation's war production."
The immediate postwar years witnessed a boom in auto-
mobile production to meet pent-up demand, as 100 million
vehicles were produced in a mere 15 years. Not surprisingly,
the proportion of cars to population changed quickly from a
ratio of 1 car per 13 people (1:13) in 1920 to1:4.8 in 1940 to
1:2.3 in 1970. Despite being a "seller's market," emerging auto-
mobile companies during the postwar era found it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to enter the industry. Rather, GM,
Ford, and Chrysler formed Detroit's Big Three and accounted
for 94 percent of the American automobile market by 1955.59
The American car's rise to prominence during the mid -
twentieth century was the result of unparalleled production
and technological achievements. The introduction of the
Kettering engine, a V-8, overhead-valve engine, energized the
industry and essentially started the postwar horsepower race.
Automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, and
air conditioning were also integrated into the postwar car.
By the 1974 model year, nearly 90 percent of full-size cars
featured these options.90
Postwar automobile design—low, sleek, and shiny—provided
a level of comfort and power that brought motoring into a new
era. Although the period's automobile styling reflected the
aerodynamic qualities of World War II combat aircraft, by the
1960s the ever-growing and nonfunctional tail fins approached
the outlandish. Overall, the futuristic aesthetic of the postwar
automobile conveyed the 1950s concept of "cool.' This image
of "cool" cars, in turn, extended to the highway itself and its
associated roadside culture of billboards, strip malls, drive-ins,
and diners.91
The automobile transformed land use across the country as
it contributed to the growth of a national freeway or express-
way system, which people thought would alleviate vehicular
congestion, particularly in urban areas. As the freeway system
"James J. Flink, The Automobile Age (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press, 1988), 272-276.
89Flink, 277-279.
90Flink, 285-286; Rowe, 185.
91Alan Hess, Googie Redux Ultramodern Roadside Architecture (San
Francisco, Calif: Chronicle Books, 2004), 134; Flink, 286; Gilbert,
113-114.
51
was designed and constructed, interchanges became critical to
the pattern of suburban development. Interchange locations
and access roads that paralleled the freeway lanes were care-
fully studied not only by transportation engineers but also by
developers who often used these new roadway components
as entrances to their housing projects or shopping centers.
Shopping centers, freeway industries, motels, and residential
developments grew along urban highways and interchanges.
Visually arresting building forms and neon signs along heav-
ily traveled routes were advertisements in themselves, made
eye-catching to attract high-speed travelers who had only
moments to grasp the message conveyed through iconogra-
phy and advertising.91
With the growth of the national highway program, sub-
urban and rural areas were made increasingly accessible,
enabling and encouraging workers to live further away from
their workplace. According to sociologist William Dobriner,
the heart of the suburban pattern is the commuter, or some-
one who travels daily to a job in the city. Consequences of
increased individual mobility, as a result of private auto
ownership, included residential, commercial, and industrial
migrations to the periphery of the city proper.93
2. Interstate Highway Program
Although construction of the National System of Inter-
state and Defense Highways did not begin until 1956, plan-
ning for the system largely occurred during World War II.
The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized the des-
ignation of an Interstate Highway System, not to exceed
40,000 miles. The Interstate system was intended to connect
principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers;
serve national defense; and connect border points with
routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.
Transportation planners and government officials expected
the system to carry 20 percent of the nation's traffic and con-
nect 90 percent of cities with a population of 50,000 or more.
The downfall of the 1944 Federal -Aid Highway Act, however,
was that it did not provide funding for construction of the
Interstate system, but only allowed for preliminary planning
efforts. 94
92 Gilbert,113.
93Ned Eichler, The Merchant Builders (Cambridge, MA.: The MIT
Press, 1982),11-12; Mason, 90-91; William M. Dobriner, Class in Sub-
urbia (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice -Hall, Inc., 1963), 16.
94Bruce E. Seely, Building the American Highway System: Engineers as
Policy Makers (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987), 189-
191; A. E. Johnson, ed., Published on the Occasion of the Golden Anni-
versary of American Association of State Highway Officials: A Story of
the Beginning, Purposes, Growth, Activities and Achievements ofAASHO
(Washington, DC: The American Association of State Highway Offi-
cials, 1965), 153.
52
With minimal funding for constructing primary and sec-
ondary roads and urban highways, the Federal -Aid Highway
Act of 1944 did not do enough to solve the nation's trans-
portation problems. It did not anticipate Americans' postwar
financial prosperity, which dramatically increased automobile
ownership, highway usage, and commercial development. The
unexpected increase in automobile usage created congestion
in many urban areas and increased pressure on the overall
transportation network .95
The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1952 authorized the first
funding for the Interstate Highway System; however, it was
limited to $25 million a year for fiscal years 1954 and 1955.
This was enough to fund planning efforts that had begun
following the 1944 Act, but not enough to begin large-scale
construction efforts. 96 After taking office in January 1953,
President Dwight D. Eisenhower helped move the Interstate
from planning to reality, marshalling a bill through Congress
that provided federal money for primary, secondary, and
urban roads. This included the first significant funding for
Interstate highways of $175 million. Signing the bill into law
as the Federal -Aid Highway Act on May 6, 1954, Eisenhower
declared: "That gets us started, but we must do more: "97
Congress spent the next 2 years negotiating the terms of a
bill that would finally get large-scale construction of the Inter-
state system under way. The bill, codified as the Federal -Aid
Highway Act of 1956, authorized the expenditure of $25 billion
dollars over a 12 -year period for construction of a "National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways.' The network
would include 41,000 miles of new roads, built to "the highest
standards" of safety and efficiency. The system would be funded
by increases in federal gas, tire, and vehicle taxes. Revenues
would be collected in a newly created Highway Trust Fund
that would enable the government to complete the system on
a "pay-as-you-go" basis. Each state would be responsible for
completing sections of the system within its borders, with
90 percent of the funding provided by the federal government.
Lawmakers passed the bill with only one dissenting vote and
pledged that the entire network would be completed by 1972.95
The Interstate system was to be significantly different from
the system of trunk highways that had preceded it. As an
expressway system, the Interstate highways of the late 1950s
were designed to provide fast and safe mass automobile trans-
portation within, through, and between metropolitan areas.
9s Seely, 191.
96 Federal Highway Administration, "The Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways," Federal Highway
Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder (accessed
15 December 2009).
91 Seely, 214-215; Tom Lewis, Divided Highways: Building the Interstate
Highways, Transforming American Life (New York: Viking, 1997), 88.
91 Lewis, 121.
The objective of the expressway was to separate through traffic
from cross traffic, which included turning vehicles, parked cars,
and pedestrians. Expressways featured traffic capacities three or
four times that of highways and city streets of the same width.
Access to the Interstate system and urban expressway systems
was available only at designated control points, and bridges or
overpasses were required at most intersections to eliminate at -
grade crossings and improve safety and traffic flow. Within cit-
ies, a spoked -wheel highway configuration was favored, which
featured outer circumferential loops and connecting Interstate
highways that were typically constructed a few blocks from
the main downtown area, often in under-utilized, inner-city
space. Highway planners favored such routes because property
values and, hence, right-of-way costs were lower, and the new
routes would help move traffic away from congested urban
centers. In urban areas where dense construction and conges-
tion of heavy automobile traffic could not be avoided, elevated
or depressed roads were often constructed.
Although land acquisition for rural freeways presented a
daunting problem to highway planners in both alignment and
coordination, it was the construction of urban freeways that
presented more difficult challenges. Rather than just engi-
neering challenges, urban freeways garnered political debate
and hindrances that sometimes brought construction of the
system to a halt. The alignments for the Interstate routes
through metropolitan areas had to be drawn through estab-
lished neighborhoods and industrial areas, requiring acquisi-
tion of existing homes and businesses, and carving canyons
that divided one part of the city from another. The new road-
ways had the potential to be visually jarring, and the thou-
sands of vehicles anticipated to use the new routes each day
could potentially generate a significant amount of noise. In
an effort to combine social engineering with civil engineering,
the Interstate Highway Act had stipulated that urban high-
ways should, whenever possible, be routed through "blighted"
areas. As Thomas H. MacDonald, chief of the Bureau of Public
Roads, reported in 1944:
Blighted areas in the large cities average 20 percent of the total
area; but in that 20 percent is concentrated 33 percent of the city
population; and that 33 percent of the population is responsible for
45 percent of the major crimes, for 60 percent of the juvenile delin-
quency, for 50 percent of the arrests, for 60 percent of the tuber-
culosis, for 50 percent of the disease, for 35 percent of the fires, for
45 percent of the city service costs with tax revenues on real estate
of 6 percent. That is, in blighted areas, you have a spread between
city costs and revenues from real estate of 39 percent 99
"Thomas H. MacDonald, 28 April 1944, before the U.S. House Com-
mittee on Roads, as quoted in Richard F. Weingroff, "The Genie in the
Bottle: The Interstate System and Urban Problems, 1939-1957," Fed-
eral Highways Administration, http://www.fha.dot.gov/infrastructure/
rw00c.cfm (accessed 7 March 2011).
MacDonald envisioned that the urban Interstate Highway
System would improve the metropolitan fabric by eliminating
sub -standard housing and blight, while replacing it with federal
redevelopment buildings. Ultimately, the urban renewal that
occurred hand-in-hand with the construction of the urban free-
way system contributed to the leveling of many close-knit neigh-
borhoods and erection of high-rise towers in a failed attempt
to meet the housing needs of the city's poor (see Section C.3).
An inevitable result was continued segregation as many African
Americans and other minorities relocated to public housing in
the central city while whites moved to the suburbs, thus empha-
sizing the repeated accusation that the government was "build-
ing white men's roads through black men's homes.""
Completion of the Interstate system was generally delayed
by politics, cost overruns, and the inevitable ebb and flow of
federal funding. An early national goal was the completion of
half of the system, or 21,000, miles by the end of 1964. How-
ever, this challenge was not met until February 1966 when
21,185 miles (or 52 percent) of the system was open to traffic
and an additional 5,580 miles (7 percent) was under construc-
tion. In particular, the escalation of the Vietnam War in the late
1960s impeded Interstate highway progress. Although it did
not bring about comparable labor and material shortages that
had plagued highway planners during World War II and the
Korean conflict, it did cause Congress to reduce the amount of
federal -aid money available for Interstate construction in the
late 1960s. Despite having an original completion date of 1972,
the Federal -Aid Highway Act's expiration date was extended
repeatedly. Nationally, the system approached completion in
the mid-1970s, and by 1980, it was essentially complete, with
some exceptions for more controversial urban links."'
3. Non -interstate Freeways
and Improved Highways
While states across the nation were busy building segments
of the entirely new Interstate system, many were also fulfilling
a responsibility to modernize their state highways. In an effort
to provide safe and adequate thoroughfares, in the postwar era
many states began programs to upgrade portions of their state
highway system to expressway standards. Efforts to modern-
ize highways often incorporated many of the same controlled -
access highway design principles that were being used for the
Interstates. In many cases, efforts focused on alleviating traffic
congestion between population centers and regional centers
in the state. For example, in Minnesota a number of projects
10OWeingroff, "The Genie in the Bottle: The Interstate System and
Urban Problems, 1939-1957."
101 Richard E Weingroff, "The Greatest Decade 1956-1966: Part II—The
Battle forltsLife,"http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50interstate2.
cfm (accessed 9 April 2011).
53
completed between 1956 and 1970 sought to smooth the
flow of traffic in and between cities by transforming major
trunk highway routes into expressways with features such as
double -traffic lanes divided by medians, limited access, and
grade separations.102 Within Texas, similar efforts included
upgrading U.S. and State Highways to expressway standards,
including interregional multi -lane "superhighways" along U.S.
Highway 81 and U.S. Highway 77, which were completed by
1961. Many of Texas' non -Interstate freeways of the postwar
period, consistent with national trends, were projects com-
pleted in urban areas as part of urban expressway programs. 103
In some cases, these upgraded expressway routes were later
designated as Interstate highways.
While expressway conversion was a prominent national trend
during the postwar era, many states simultaneously embarked
on less dramatic improvements to state highways and arterial
roads, which also improved traffic flow and enabled suburban
development. After years of delayed highway maintenance as
a result of the war, many states used increased funding and
material availability to repair neglected secondary systems to
meet the requirements of increasingly heavy, high-speed, and
high-volume traffic. Common modernization efforts included
realigning roads to remove dangerous curves, broadening
and smoothing roadways with new paving and shoulders,
replacing inadequate bridges, and adding signalized at -grade
intersections.
4. Urban Mass Transit
Urban mass transit, which refers to scheduled intra -city
service on a fixed route in a shared vehicle, was an alternative
means of transportation during the postwar period as it had
been for the preceding century. Generally, World War II repre-
sented the peak of privately operated mass transit in the United
States. With automobile manufacturers suspending production
of automobiles during the war, Americans used mass transit
in greater numbers. In 1946 the transit industry peaked with
23.4 billion riders; however, ridership decreased rapidly dur-
ing the postwar years. With a boom in automobile production
and ownership and growth in residential development fur-
ther away from the city center, intra -city transportation routes
proved inconvenient and inaccessible. Between 1950 and 1955,
mass transit ridership dropped from 17.2 billion to 11.5 billion
102Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Highways of Minnesota from
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1958 (State of Minnesota: [St. Paul, Minn.], 1958),
24; Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Highways of Minnesota from
July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1960 (State of Minnesota: [St. Paul, Minn], 1960),
40. The number of highway separations reported in the biennial reports
likely includes those on both trunk highway and Interstate routes.
los Howard J. Erlichman, Camino del Norte: How a Series of Watering
Holes, Fords, and Dirt Trails Evolved into Interstate 35 in Texas (College
Station, Tex: Texas A&M University Press, 2006), 207.
54
passengers, a decrease of 33 percent. By 1960 only 8.2 percent of
Americans rode busses or streetcars to work, and only another
3.9 percent took rapid transit. Most notably about one-fourth
of all intra -city service riders were located in New York City,
where automobile ownership was less practical. 104
With the decline in ridership, many privately owned com-
panies abandoned streetcar lines and an increasing number of
municipalities assumed mass transit responsibilities through
publicly owned transit authorities. The federal government
entered the mass transit industry when, beginning in 1961,
small-scale experimental projects in numerous cities were fed-
erally funded. The passage of the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964 further increased the federal role as $375 million
in aid was authorized for transit projects' capital costs. Munici-
palities were expected to match every two dollars of federal aid
with one local dollar. By the mid-1970s transit ridership began
rebounding from the postwar decline. Much of the recovery
was related to renewed efforts for rail service. Beginning in the
mid-1950s, cities including Cleveland and San Francisco began
constructing short rapid transit lines along existing railroad
and streetcar right-of-way. Additional planning efforts for
rapid rail systems included programs in Atlanta, Miami, Balti-
more, and Washington, D.C. Using billions of federal -aid dol-
lars, these rail systems enabled people to travel from suburban
developments to the city core during rush hour. As an example
of the reversal in ridership trends, the percentage of people
entering the Washington, D.C., area during the morning rush
hour on mass transit increased from 27 percent in 1976 (the
year the subway system known as the Metro opened) to 38 per-
cent in 1996. Notably, this increase in ridership and develop-
ment of mass transportation programs also coincided with
the early 1970s energy crisis, which limited the availability and
increased the cost of gasoline to power private automobiles. 105
5. Conclusion
Without a doubt, the golden age of individual -oriented
American transportation opportunities corresponded with
the postwar period of 1945 through 1975 and coincided with
the federal government's efforts to develop a national, inter-
regional freeway system. The necessity of such a system was
largely influenced by the contemporaneous rise in automobile
popularity and the inevitable congestion that this created. In
tandem, these two trends—highway construction and pri-
vate automobile ownership—contributed to the growth of
the suburbs, changes in land use patterns, and the architec-
ture of roadside businesses and single-family dwellings. See
101 Zachary Schrag, "Urban Mass Transit in the United States, Economic
History Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples http://eh.net/encyclopedia/
article/schrag.mass.transit.us (accessed 7 April 2011).
'O'Schrag, n.p.
Sections E and G for detailed information on residential
development patterns and garages and carports.
C. Government Programs
and Policies
Suburbanization and single-family housing development
following World War II was aided and influenced by federal
programs originally instituted during the Great Depression
to address housing needs and employment. Programs of the
FHA, instituted with the National Housing Act of 1934 (Act),
transformed home financing and shaped residential and sub-
division development patterns. At the end of World War II,
the Veteran's Administration (VA) assisted veterans with
mortgage support, while the Veterans' Emergency Housing
Act assisted with prioritizing building materials and surplus
factories and facilities toward residential housing construc-
tion. Together, the FHA and VA provided for government
backed mortgages and loans that substantially increased
the number of individuals that could become homeowners.
While the FHA and VA programs may have had the most
direct influence on postwar housing, additional government
housing policies such as urban renewal and routine amend-
ments to the housing act also played a role in the develop-
ment of the postwar residential landscape.
1. The Legacy of the National Housing Act
Signed into law on June 27, 1934, the National Housing
Act began a new chapter for American single-family hous-
ing and government involvement in the housing market. The
objective of the Act was to make funds available for home
repair and construction while providing jobs and improving
the country's economic conditions resulting from the Great
Depression. Longer range objectives were "to reform mort-
gage lending practices, to broaden opportunities for home
ownership, and to raise housing standards."106 It was these
policies that influenced home ownership and residential
development patterns well beyond the 1930s, especially dur-
ing the housing boom following World War II.
At the time of enactment, only 44 percent of individuals
owned their own home. 107 Home loans were typically short
term (averaging 5-10 years) and required significant down
payments (at least 30 percent). 101 The Act authorized the FHA
lob United States Federal Housing Administration, The FHA Story in
Summary, 1934-1959 (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administra-
tion, 1959), 4.
101 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,
216.
108 Kenneth T. Jackson, "Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: The
First Quarter -Century of Government Intervention in the Housing
Market" in Records of the Columbia Historical Society Vol. 50 (1980): 427.
to insure long-term loans on private homes, thus encouraging
lenders to invest in residential mortgages. Amendments to the
Act both before and after 1945 continued to stimulate hous-
ing development and home ownership in the postwar period
through modifications to the mortgage insurance program and
creation of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae) that allowed for the buying and selling of mortgages. The
FHA administered the private housing part of the program. 101
a. Federal Housing Administration
Under the National Housing Act, the FHA provided fed-
eral insurance for privately financed mortgages for homes
and housing developments.1" The FHA did not provide loans
directly, but did insure the mortgages provided by the private
financial institutions if the investments were deemed to be eco-
nomically sound. As a result, the lender's risk was reduced as
they were protected against loss from default by a homeowner.
The FHA initially insured first mortgages up to 80 percent
of the property value with a maximum mortgage amount of
$16,000 for a single-family home. A 20 percent down pay-
ment was required with monthly payments amortized over
20 years. The amount the government insured increased to
90 percent in 1938 and 95 percent in 1948, allowing for lower
down payments and extending the period of repayment to
25 and 30 years, respectively."' The FHA limited the interest
rate that financial institutions could charge, keeping them at a
relatively low level. As part of the program, the borrower was
charged a mortgage insurance premium of between 0.5 per-
cent and 1 percent of the original mortgage amount. Paid
to the FHA, this premium allowed it to be a self-supporting
government agency. These home financing reforms with fully
amortized mortgages and low down payments opened the
door for many to home ownership, and Congress increased
the mortgage insurance authorization regularly in the 1950s
to allow the FHA to keep up with the housing demand.12
The FHA appraised homes, or reviewed plans and speci-
fications if the mortgage insurance was offered prior to con-
struction, to ensure the loan resulted in a good investment
and met the FHA minimum property standards. For new
construction, the FHA would typically inspect the home three
times to see that it was built according to the approved plans.
Builders were also required to provide the home buyer with
109Other National Housing Agency units included the Federal Home
Loan Bank Administration and the Federal Public Housing Authority.
110 In 1947 the FHA was made a constituent agency of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency, and in 1965, it was made part of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development.
"'The increase to 90 percent in 1938 was under Title II of the National
Housing Act. McClelland, Ames, and Pope, E-11.
"'Mortgage insurance authorization was known to have increased in
1950, 1951, 1953, and 1954. Checkoway, 31.
55
a warranty that the house would be built to conform to FHA
standards.1' Not all homes were eligible for an FHA mortgage.
In some metropolitan areas, house prices were higher than
the mortgage limit due to high land costs; therefore, this pre-
cluded the use of FHA insured mortgages for some homes. 114
The FHA also insured bank loans to developers to purchase
land, subdivide it, and construct houses. Subdivisions that
conformed to the FHA standards ensured that individuals
purchasing houses could also get FHA financing. Developers
submitted plans to the FHA for review and compliance with
its standards.15 Some large-scale builders also had access to
government credit and financial aids, including "production
advances.' One of the nation's largest developers, Levitt and
Sons, received FHA commitments to finance 4,000 houses
before it had even cleared the land. 116 With federal incentives,
it was more profitable for the developer to subdivide the lots
and build houses, rather than just dividing the lots, which had
been more common in the pre -World War II era.' 17
Meeting FHA Standards. In order to receive mortgage
insurance, individual homes and subdivisions needed to meet
FHA standards. In the FHA's own words, these standards were
put into place for two purposes: "to encourage improvement in
housing standards and conditions" and "to provide assurance
that the project with respect to which the mortgage is executed
is economically sound. 18
These standards, many of which were developed in the
1930s with the beginning of the program, continued to be
applied into the postwar era with periodic revisions. Finan-
cial institutions often used the same standards for non -FHA
insured projects. The core of the program was the criteria used
in decisions to back a mortgage by rating the quality of the
neighborhood. The criteria from the underwriter's manuals
of the 1930s rated and weighted several factors, including: 19
• Relative economic stability (weighted 40 percent);
• Protection from adverse influences (20 percent);
13 United States Federal Housing Administration, FHA Home Owner's
Guide (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1962),2-3, 9.
"'United States Federal Housing Administration, Sixth Annual Report
of the Federal HousingAdministration (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1940), 123.
"'Dolores Hayden, "Revisiting the Sitcom Suburbs," in Land Lines 13,
no. 2 (March 2001) http://www.Encolninst.edu/pubs/253_Revisiting-
the-Sitcom-Suburbs (accessed 13 December 2010).
116 Checkoway, 27.
117 Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing
In America (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1981), 248.
"'United States Federal Housing Administration, Circular No. 5 Sub-
division Standards (Washington, D.C.: September 1939), 1. Section 203
of the National Housing Act provides for the approval of a mortgage.
"'Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the United States,
207.
56
• Adequacy of transportation (10 percent);
• Appeal (10 percent);
• Freedom from special hazards (5 percent);
• Adequacy of civic, social, and commercial centers (5 percent);
• Sufficiency of utilities and conveniences (5 percent); and
• Level of taxes and special assessments (5 percent).
One factor used to assess economic stability was the rank-
ing of geographic areas. Neighborhoods that were identified
as older, inharmonious, or too dense were deemed to be less
desirable and economically unstable, which led to the practice
of redlining or flagging these areas as not meeting standards.
As a result, new homogenous suburban development was often
rated as the more economically stable investment. Practices
and policies such as redlining, assessment of neighborhoods,
and the initial requirement that subdivisions have protective
covenants resulted in racial and other forms of segregation in
the form of FHA policies. 110 As a result of a Supreme Court rul-
ing in 1948, the FHA announced in 1949 that as of February 15,
1950, it would not insure mortgages on properties subject to
covenants, and in 1963 it called for an end to racial bias or dis-
crimination in FHA or VA housing. 121 Subsequently, the 1968
Civil Rights Act eliminated discrimination in the sale of all
housing (See Section D for further discussion of segregation).
The FHA published a number of technical bulletins and
circulars that provided guidance on the standards for house
construction and subdivision layout and lot development.
Although many were published before 1945, the guidance
and standards continued to reflect the FHA's accepted prac-
tice and were carried into the postwar period with periodic
updates. The following FHA publication titles indicate the
breadth of technical guidance provided for house construc-
tion, overall subdivision layout, and land development:
• Property Standards (1936, with overall standards and subse-
quent publications with minimum requirements by state);
• Principles of Planning Small Houses (1936, revised 1946);
• Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses (1938);
• Planning Profitable Neighborhoods (1938, revised 1939);
• Subdivision Standards for the Insurance of Mortgages on
Properties Located in Undeveloped Subdivisions (1938);
• Minimum Property Standards (1938, revised 1958); and
• Successful Subdivisions (1940).
The FHA outlined minimum standards to receive FHA
assistance in addition to desirable standards that it encour-
aged. Even though the FHA loan insurance was frequently
related to an individual house mortgage, the minimum subdi-
110Checkoway, 33.
121 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the United States,
208.
vision standards had to be met "by all subdivisions submitted
as suitable sites for homes financed under the Federal Hous-
ing Administration's Insured Mortgage Program.' 122 The FHA
worked with real estate developers and builders by providing
technical advice and reviewing applications submitted for
insurance of loans, even employing land -planning consul-
tants. "I A discussion of the specific guidance of the FHA stan-
dards for residences and subdivisions is discussed in Section E.
2. Veteran Housing Initiative
Just as housing to support the war industries was pri-
oritized during the war, the federal government recognized
housing for returning veterans as critically important. Passed
in 1944, the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, known as the
GI Bill, extended home mortgage insurance to veterans,
substantially increasing home ownership opportunities for
those returning from the war. The VA guaranteed housing
loans and allowed veterans to borrow the entire price of a
house without a down payment or mortgage insurance.
Veterans within two years of leaving the armed services or
two years after the end of the war, including women, were
eligible. 124 Loans were approved following an appraisal by
the VA, which often accepted FHA approval of plans and
subdivisions. 125 The VA administered its program separately
from the FHA; however, it closely followed FHA practices.
The GI Bill allowed for loans to be split into two, with one
insured by FHA and one by VA, with veterans borrowing both
the loan and the down payment. This was popular during the
first five years after the war, as nearly one-fifth of the loans
insured were for second mortgages supplementing an FHA
first mortgage .126 In the case of dual loans, the property had
to meet FHA standards. 127
The success of the GI Bill is demonstrated in the percent-
age of houses that were built with VA mortgages immediately
following the war, representing 40.5 percent and 42.8 percent
of homes built in 1946 and 1947, respectively. As the number
of years passed following the war, the use of the GI Bill VA
mortgage declined, with only 26 percent of the homes built
in 1950 using the program. 121
122 United States Federal Housing Administration, Circular No. 5 Sub-
division Standards, 4.
123 United States Federal Housing Administration, Circular No. 5 Subdi-
vision Standards, 34-35.
124 National Housing Agency, The Facts About Homes for Veterans
(Washington, D.C.: National Housing Agency, 1945), 14.
les Eichler, 8.
126 Thomas W. Hanchett, "Federal Incentives and the Growth of Local
Planning, 1941-1948,"APA Journal (Spring 1994), 202.
127 National Housing Agency, The Facts About Hames for Veterans, 8-11.
121 Michael Bennett, When Dreams Came True (Washington, D.C.:
Brassey's Inc., 1996), 287.
3. Continuation of Federal Housing Policies
The FHA and VA mortgage programs had significant influ-
ence on housing loans and construction in the postwar period.
Additional amendments to the Act, new housing acts, and other
policies continued to pass, encouraging private housing devel-
opment through financial incentives that impacted the hous-
ing industry through 1970. FHA and VA practices promoted
new suburban development through programs that favored
single-family new construction, while loans for repairs to an
existing house were less attractive. In addition, the assessment
of neighborhoods led to a bias for new suburbs. 129 The FHA also
encouraged development of single-family homes in suburban
and outlying areas through new mortgage programs and terms
on loans in the 1950s, and amended its practices to provide
incentives for larger three- and four-bedroom houses. 110
Subsequent housing acts continued to liberalize mortgage
insurance terms. The National Housing Act of 1954 increased
mortgage amounts to $20,000, with the FHA insuring 90 per-
cent on the first $9,000 and 75 percent of the appraised value
for the remainder. The Act also provided 30 -year loans up to
$17,100 for servicemen.131 In an effort to continue to stimulate
housing, mortgage terms including down payments, maxi-
mum loan amounts, and loan length continued to be modified
in the 1950s and 1960s through the adoption of subsequent
housing act amendments. Some amendments targeted certain
housing types or sectors. The National Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965 allowed for larger mortgages for
low-priced homes in outlying areas and near military installa-
tions, while the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
provided assistance for low-income home buyers. 112
Other incentives focused on the development of residen-
tial neighborhoods. For example, the Housing Act of 1948
encouraged the "use of cost -reduction techniques through
large-scale modernized site construction of housing."" This
amendment was attractive to developers of larger -scale sub-
divisions, and the FHA reported that about 2,000 homes were
financed under this section until it was made inactive by the
Housing Act of 1954.134 Additionally, in 1950 the terms on
loans for large-scale residential construction were liberalized,
and in 1954 an allowance was made for mortgages for devel-
opments of single-family dwellings of at least 25 houses that
129 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the United States,
206-207.
130 Checkoway, 31-32.
131 United States Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 1448, Review
of Federal Housing Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1956),109, 114.
132 Mason, 134, 135.
133Ames and McClelland, 30.
134 United States Federal Housing Administration, The FHA Story in
Summary, 1934-1959, 17, 20.
57
would qualify for FHA mortgages. 135 In addition, the FHA
authorized loans to facilitate the production of prefabricated
houses or components in 1951, which was also attractive to
the large-scale developers. 116
Amendments to the Act and other government provisions
also focused on urban renewal efforts through loans, grants,
technical assistance, and special mortgage insurance in cities.
These provisions provided tools for local governments, private
enterprises, and the federal government to take measures to
eliminate blight. 117 The Federal Housing Act of 1949 autho-
rized $1 billion in loans and $500 million in capital grants
for slum clearance and urban redevelopment over 5 years.13'
The authors of the 1949 Housing Act stated their objective
was "the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent
home and a suitable living environment for every American
family." 119 Five years later, the Housing Act of 1954 introduced
the term "urban renewal" instead of urban redevelopment to
refer to the restoration of decaying areas. 140 The 1968 Hous-
ing and Urban Development Act continued to provide funding
for urban renewal efforts. 141 Some of the provisions of urban
renewal focused on new construction, such as mortgage insur-
ance assistance for special urban renewal areas and acquisition
and clearing of blighted land for redevelopment. Many of the
urban renewal provisions focused on rehabilitation of existing
housing stock, project planning, and construction of public
and rental housing. 141
Additional government programs in the 1970s continued
to focus on the country's housing needs. For example, at the
tail end of the study period, the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 was intended to continue the devel-
opment of viable urban communities, including improved
housing through programs and grants to communities, such
as Community Development Block Grants.
4. Conclusion
The federal role in housing during the postwar period
impacted housing location, design and layout, and led to an
"'This was added in Section 611 of Title VI of the National Housing Act.
United States Federal Housing Administration, Administrative Rules and
Regulations Under 611 of the National Housing Act (Washington, D.C.:
Federal Housing Administration, Revised April 1950), 1, 3; Checkoway,
31-32.
136 Checkoway, 31-32.
137 Housing and Home Finance Agency, The Urban Renewal Program Fact
Sheet (Washington, D.C.: Housing and Home Finance Agency Urban
Renewal Administration, 1964), 1.
131 Checkoway, 31.
139 Wright, 246.
140 Mason, 65.
141 Mason, 135.
142Housing and Home Finance Agency, The Urban Renewal Program
Fact Sheet, 2-5.
58
increase in large-scale builders. The influence of the FHA
mortgage insurance program is undeniable as one-quarter
of all new housing starts between 1934 and 1970 involved an
FHA mortgage. 143 By 1965 the FHA reported that it had writ-
ten mortgage and loan insurance of more than $100 billion,
covering 7.5 million homes. 144 The efforts of the FHA and other
federal agencies and programs allowed home ownership to
increase to 63 percent by 1972, up from 44 percent ownership
in 1934. 145 The role of the FHA in financing homes continued
well beyond the 1970s.
D. Social, Economic,
and Cultural Trends
In the post -World War II era, America's social and economic
history was defined by numerous and related overarching
trends. Among these trends were economic prosperity with
increasing incomes and personal financial health; shifting
populations from the city center to suburbs and from the East
Coast and Midwest to the South and West; increasing fam-
ily sizes spurred on by the baby boom; racial desegregation
resulting from the civil rights movement; rapid innovations
in technology; and an increased sense of consumerism. Addi-
tionally, the postwar period was largely characterized by a ten-
sion between optimism in the economic health of the country
and a continued persistent sense of anxiety and unease regard-
ing the Cold War. 146 These broad trends are discussed herein.
1. Economic Conditions
After 16 years of depression and war, during which residen-
tial construction lay dormant, America emerged from World
War II with a dire need for housing. In 1947, six million fami-
lies were doubled up in homes with relatives or friends, while
another 500,000 lived in Quonset huts or temporary quarters.
As a result, housing the growing population became both a
national priority and a means to stabilize the economy in the
postwar era. For the first time in history, housing starts by
month and year became an important economic indicator. 147
143 Cynthia L. Girling and Kenneth I. Helphand, Yard, Street, Park
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996), 85.
144United States Federal Housing Administration, Financing for Home
Purchases and Home Improvements (Washington, D.C.: Federal Hous-
ing Administration, 1965), 1.
145 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,
216.
"Clare J. Richfield, The Suburban Ranch House in Post -World War II
America: A Site of Contrast in an Era of Unease, Uncertainty, and Instabil-
ity (Thesis, Barnard College, Department of History, Spring 2007), 2-3.
147 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United
States, 232-233; Elizabeth S. Wilson, M.E.P., Postwar Modern Housing
and a Geographic Information System Study of Scottsdale Subdivisions
( [Scottsdale, Ariz.], August 2002), 18.
Residential building and suburban growth established the
construction industry as a major player in many communi-
ties and a significant force in regional and national econo-
mies. By the late 1960s, housing was considered a consumer
good, or a commodity for purchase, available to many more
consumers than in previous decades. With access to mort-
gages and financing, more families could purchase homes,
as is witnessed by the large jump in homeownership rates.
Accessible homeownership also resulted in an increased
demand for related commodities, such as appliances, home
furnishings, and automobiles, thus further stimulating the
national economy. 148
Between 1945 and 1950 new residential construction grew
from one to 6 percent of the gross national product (GNP). The
nation's building boom reached a record high in 1950 with the
construction of 1,692,000 new single-family houses. Generally,
building construction starts remained high, totaling more than
one million per year until 1960, when starts dipped below one
million for several years. During this time, construction leveled
off at about 3 percent of GNP by the late 1960s, at which time
residential land and buildings comprised nearly one-third of
the country's total wealth. A second wave of increased building
activity occurred between 1971 and 1973, when housing starts
again topped one million. The period between 1945 and 1975
proved to be the most productive period in American history
in terms of overall housing construction. 149
The nation's financial health in the postwar years was
marked by several factors. The anticipated postwar recession
never occurred and non-farm employment increased imme-
diately after the war. Employment redistributed across the
country as the military and defense corporations turned jobs
occupied by women during the war over to veterans. Many
defense industries were converted to produce consumer goods,
and the middle class expanded as the work force shifted from
labor and blue collar jobs to service and professional employ-
ment during the period. 150
141 Lizabeth Cohen, "Citizens and Consumers in the Century of Mass
Consumption," in Harvard Sitkoff, ed., Perspectives on Modern America
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 158.
149 There is some debate over the accuracy of housing start statistics from
1945-1958. Prior to 1959, the Bureau of Labor Statistics kept records on
housing starts based on permitting processes, which were not necessarily
consistent across the country. As a result, David Siskind has argued that
housing starts may have been underreported by approximately 25 per-
cent between 1945 through 1958. Nonetheless, 1950 still represents
the peak year of housing starts in the United States during the postwar
period. David Siskind, "Housing Starts: Background and Derivation of
Estimates, 1945-82," Construction Review (May/June 1982), 4-7; Jackson,
Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, 232-233;
Ames and McClelland, 65-66; Clifford Clark, American Family Home,
1800-1960 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1986),
46; Wilson, 18-27.
"o Wilson, 18-19.
Table 3. Percent of total population living in central cities and suburbs.
Location
1940
1950
1960
1970
Central City
32.5
32.8
32.3
31.4
Suburbs
15.3
23.3
30.9
37.6
Rural
52.2
43.9
36.8
31.0
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Postwar economic affluence in savings and income was influ-
enced by the nearly full employment levels and relief from war-
time spending constraints. During the wartime years, imposed
rationing and the unavailability of many consumer goods
caused Americans to save like never before. By the end of World
War II, Americans held more than $81 million in war bonds
and bank accounts. As a result of employment and savings,
disposable income nearly doubled between 1940 and 1945. Of
the more than six million families living with family or friends
or in temporary housing in 1947, at least half had enough sav-
ings, income, and desire to occupy their own homes. Median
family income grew from $3,800 in 1949 to $5,700 in 1959, an
increase of about 50 percent. As American citizens enjoyed a rise
in assets and wealth, lending institutions experience increased
assets. Banks and savings and loan associations began providing
mortgage and commercial loans that yielded between four and
6 percent interest, a considerable increase over the two -percent
yields of wartime government bonds. 151
Despite small recessions in 1957 and 1961, there was an
overall 23 percent rise in real household income between 1950
and 1970. Median household income doubled during these
two decades, translating into increased consumer consump-
tion, especially in the housing market. With mortgages readily
available to veterans and nonveterans alike (as discussed in
Section C), American investment in real estate grew. By 1965
national mortgage debt as a proportion of disposable income
rose to 54 percent. 152
Although the population generally shifted out of the
central city, economic activity in the country's 25 largest
metropolitan areas grew significantly and rapidly during the
postwar years. Employment increased in manufacturing by
16 percent, in trade by 21 percent, and in the service sector
by 53 percent. However, this job growth was more visible in
the suburbs than in the central core. Central cities lost 7 per-
cent of jobs in the manufacturing and trade sectors, while
only increasing service employment by 32 percent between
1948 and 1963. The suburbs witnessed much greater growth;
"'Wilson, 21; James Andrew Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House":
The Evolving Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a
Renewed Consumer World 1945-1970 (PhD Dissertation, Columbian
College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, 2005), 50.
112 Wilson, 23.
59
employment increased in manufacturing by 61 percent, in
trade by 122 percent, and in service sectors by 135 percent.
While the central cities of the 25 largest metropolitan areas
lost approximately 300,000 jobs, employment increased by
almost 4 million in their suburban counterparts. By 1970 sub-
urban America housed more manufacturing jobs than cen-
tral cities since commercial and industrial developments used
available and inexpensive land outside of the city limits.153
2. Demographic Trends
a. Shifting Populations
America was a predominately urban society in the twenti-
eth century and prior to World War Il, but the postwar years
would transform the American landscape. During the 1950s
and 1960s the country witnessed a migration of predomi-
nately white Americans out of the city and into low-density
suburbs. As illustrated in Table 3, the nation witnessed a dra-
matic increase in suburban population between 1940 and
1970, with the percentage of suburban residents surpassing
rural residents between 1960 and 1970. Although postwar
housing is often found in suburban clusters, additional devel-
opment occurred across the country as houses were erected
as infill in older neighborhoods and as cities re -platted earlier
plats to accommodate the new lower -density housing prefer-
ences. As stated in the U.S. Department of Labor's 1958 study,
New Housing and its Materials: 1940-1956, the postwar pref-
erence for detached single-family homes led to the pattern of
suburbanization and led to a shift in zoning regulations within
the city to promote lower density residential development. 154
With an increasing suburban population, numerous cities
saw a population shift; in Baltimore, the urban population
relative to suburban population fell from 67.6 percent in 1950
to 43.7 percent in 1970. In Detroit the shift was even more
marked, from 61.3 percent in 1950 to 36 percent in 1970. The
population shift can be explained by the dispersion of jobs,
housing, and shopping to the suburbs, enabled by a growing
153 Gilbert, 102-103.
154 Kathryn Murphy, New Housing and its Materials: 1940-1956 (Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1958), 2.
60
road and highway network (see Section B). As a result, the
tax base of the metropolitan region shifted, affecting available
public services and the demography of the city and suburbs. 155
Not surprisingly, the movement of business out of the
cities stimulated the suburban housing market and contrib-
uted to the postwar housing boom. Between 1940 and 1970
the percentage of Americans owning homes increased by 30
percent. While American suburbs witnessed prosperity and
increasing wealth, the economy of central cities faltered. By
1967 the median income of city dwellers measured nearly
$2,000 less than suburbanites. 156
In addition to the shift from city to suburb, the country
also witnessed a population shift from the East Coast and
Midwest to the South and West Coast. Between 1940 and
1970, the western United States grew twice as fast as the
Northeast. The South also grew faster than either the North-
east or North Central regions of the country, reflecting the
decline of manufacturing in the East and Midwest. At the end
of each decade, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates the mean
center of population, which refers to a geographic point in
the United States. Historically, the mean center of population
reflected the movement of the nation's population westward
and southward. Between 1900 and 2000 the mean center of
the country's population shifted 324 miles west and 101 miles
south. Notably, the southward movement of the population
occurred primarily during the second half of the century.
Within the postwar period, California featured a particularly
rapid population rise. As the fifth most populous state in 1940,
California rose to be the second most populous by 1950 and
the first most populous by 1963. Other states that witnessed
acute growth during the postwar period include Arizona,
Florida, Washington, and Texas. Although their total popula-
tions were less than California's, Arizona and Florida witnessed
more rapid relative growth during the 1940s through 1960s.
Arizona's population increased 50 percent between 1940 and
1950, nearly 74 percent between 1950 and 1960, and 36 per-
cent between 1960 and 1970. Similarly, Florida's population
increased 46 percent between 1940 and 1950, nearly 79 per-
cent between 1950 and 1960, and 37 percent between 1960 and
1970. As with growth in the rest of the country, much of the
new south and western population resided in suburbs."'
b. Family Size
Perhaps one of the most important demographic trends
affecting the development of postwar housing, particularly
"'Gilbert, 102-103.
116 Gilbert, 105.
157 Gilbert, 108-109; Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, U.S. Census
Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4, Demographic
Trends in the Twentieth Century (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 2002), 16, A-1.
the size, scale, and layout of the house, was family size, which
was also influenced by age, marriage rates, and fertility. In gen-
eral, sociological studies of postwar suburbs found trends that
included higher fertility rates, lower median age, higher percent-
ages of married couples, higher percentages of primary families,
lower percentages of separated couples, and lower percentages
of women in the workforce than in cities.151 As previously men-
tioned, the postwar era witnessed a continued increase in mar-
riage and birth rates, a demographic trend that began during
the war years. With the return of nine million veterans after the
war's end, both marriage and birth rates reached an immedi-
ate postwar record. Between 1944 and 1948, the United States
had the second highest marriage rate of any country in the
world. Almost 70 percent of males and 67 percent of females
over the age of 15 were married in 1950.159 The number of mar-
riages peaked at 4.3 million in 1957. Moreover, 94 percent of
women between the ages of 35 and 39 were married and had
been married at younger ages and with a lower rate of divorce
than any earlier decade. Optimism, the improved economy, and
high employment encouraged families to have more children.
Thus, a consequence of the marriage boom and recovering
economy was the 18 -year baby boom, which affected demo-
graphics and the housing market considerably. The birthrate
rose from 2.2 births per woman in the 1930s to 3.51 by the end
of the 1950s, while the population grew by nine million in the
1940s and surged to 29 million in the 1950s. During these two
decades, the U.S. population increased 33 percent. 160
The postwar family was typically characterized as "the
veteran, his young wife, and their prospective children.
'161
In 1950 the average age of the suburban household was 31,
and the suburbs typically featured many young children and
few elderly, single, widowed, or divorced adults. Although
many women held jobs after the war, as of 1950 only 9 per-
cent of suburban women worked compared to 27 percent of
the overall population. Women were encouraged by popu-
lar culture to view domesticity as life's most rewarding goal.
Although predicating a stereotype, popular magazines of the
period, including Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal,
and Better Homes & Gardens, popularized a woman's domes-
tic role with features on cooking tips, cleaning advice, and
stories that stressed the rewards of female sacrifice .162
Although the popular image of women during the imme-
diate postwar period involved the housewife, entry of women
into the workforce defined the latter half of the postwar era. In
1930,22 percent of women held jobs, and by 1970 this num-
... Dobriner, 19.
119 Gilbert, 57-58.
160 Clark, 205-206.
161 Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing,
and Family Life 2nd edition (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2002), 41.
"Wright, 256; Gilbert, 63-64.
her had grown to 43 percent. The majority of the increase was
the entry of married women into the workforce, and one of
the largest increases in women's employment occurred dur-
ing the decade of the 1950s.161
The modern home, which was influenced by demographic
and economic trends, emphasized relaxation, children, and
enjoyment. Not only did the individual house reflect these
influences, but the planned environment of new communities
did as well. With an adequate allotment of space for parks or
even an elementary school, and the inclusion of cul-de-sacs
that resulted in privacy and slower -moving traffic, the design of
subdivisions created a family -friendly environment, well suited
to children and individual privacy. 164 Additional information
on subdivision layouts and features is included in Section E.
c. Segregation, the Civil Rights Movement,
and Racial Desegregation
In the immediate postwar years, segregation was ingrained
in the policies of the FHA, the agency that guided much of the
housing expansion during the period. In an effort to ensure
neighborhood homogeneity, stability, and character, the
FHA encouraged developers to consider their market based
on income and race. The agency often demonstrated a bias
against racial and ethnic minorities when it refused to under-
write houses in areas where minorities were concentrated, a
practice known as "redlining." However, there were certainly
exceptions to this trend, such as African American developer
Walter Aiken in Atlanta, Georgia, who was able to receive
FHA loan guarantees for his Fairview Terrace development.
Nonetheless, by the late 1950s only 2 percent of new homes
underwritten by the FHA were occupied by minority popu-
lations.16' As late as 1963 residential developers in Northern
Virginia, including Levitt & Sons and Edward R. Carr, contin-
ued to refuse home sales to African Americans. These actions
resulted in public demonstrations, protests, and sit-ins that
came to characterize the civil rights movement. 166
Within postwar suburbs, the FHA encouraged the use of
restrictive covenants to regulate land use and enforce homo-
geneity. Until the 1948 Supreme Court decision in Shelly v.
Kramer, the court system enforced restrictive covenants, a prac-
tice that continued informally across the country even after that
date. Although restrictive covenants could no longer be listed
lbs Gilbert, 68.
164 Clark, 216; Girling and Helphand, 90-92.
16'Andrew Wiese, Places of Their Own: African American Suburban-
ization in the Twentieth Century (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 2004), 101.
166"8 Pickets Are Jailed at Belair," The Washington Post, Times Herald,
15 September 1963, B-1; "Housing Project Bed -In Is Staged," The
Sun, 11 August 1963, B-46; "Housing in D.C. Area Picketed," The Sun,
19 August 1963, 30.
61
in deeds, homogeneity and conformance was still achieved by
choosing to whom houses would be sold. Tension continued
to rise as newly middle-class African Americans who could
afford suburban homes were prohibited from home owner-
ship because of their race by informal covenants or restrictions
from the sale of homes. Even while the economic boom of the
postwar period increased the standard of living, awareness of
class and racial disparity became acutely visible. 161 As previ-
ously discussed, the FHA attempted to address issues of racial
discrimination with an announcement that as of February 15,
1950, it would no longer insure mortgages on properties subject
to covenants. The FHA also followed this with a 1963 call for the
end to racial bias or discrimination in the sale of all housing. 168
It was not until 1954 and the case of Brown v. Board of Edu-
cation of Topeka, Kansas, where the Supreme Court declared
segregation in public education to be unconstitutional, that the
civil rights movement gained ground, ushering forth a period
of desegregation in all aspects of public life. This well-known
court case overturned the "separate but equal" mandate of
Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 court case that legally supported
discrimination and segregation in all aspects of life, such that
facilities were not required to be racially integrated as long
as they were equal. In response and in an effort to eliminate
acts of racial discrimination against African Americans and
other disadvantaged groups, private citizens adopted a strat-
egy of civil disobedience and resistance. The best known was
the yearlong bus boycott (1955-1956) in Montgomery, Ala-
bama, following Rosa Park's incarceration for refusing to give
her seat to a white passenger. Another prominent act of civil
disobedience was the 1960 Greensboro sit-in, during which
four black students from the North Carolina Agricultural and
Technical State University staged a sit-in at a Woolworth's
lunch counter because they had been denied service. Non-
violent marches also provided a viable means for advancing
the civil rights movement, as was the case of the Selma -to -
Montgomery marches in Alabama (1965) and the March on
Washington for Jobs and Freedom (1963), best remembered
for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.
Generally, the civil rights movement is considered to have
lasted between 1954 and 1968. In addition to the 1954 Brown
v. Board of Education court case, other critical legislation that
addressed discrimination included the following:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination
in employment practices and public accommodations;
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which restored voting rights
to African Americans; and
The Civil Rights Act of 1968, which banned discrimination
in the sale or rental of housing.
16' Richfield, 26-28.
168 Wright, 247; Gilbert, 106; Richfield, 26.
62
Much attention has been given to the racial distribution
of both suburbs and the central city in the postwar period;
sociological studies since 1970 have made careful use of cen-
sus data to analyze racial distribution and trends. In particu-
lar, between 1930 and 1970, the color composition of cities
changed dramatically, with the proportion of whites living
in the city falling steadily and the proportion of non -whites
in central cities increasing considerably. Of the cities within
the 12 largest standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA),
as identified in 1970, the non-white population more than
doubled between 1930 and 1970.169 Meanwhile, the white
population in the central cities decreased by almost half and
increased steadily within the suburban rings of the SMSAs.
By 1970 whites were twice as likely to live in suburban rings as
were non -whites. In real numbers, the 12 largest SMSAs lost
more than 4.5 million white central city residents between
1950 and 1970, while the central cities gained nearly 4 mil-
lion non-white residents. However, population increases for
both white and non-white populations were visible in the
suburban rings, and while the growth rates were similar from
1950 to 1970, the absolute numbers depicted the non-white
increase as being significantly lower than the white increase. 170
Explanations for the different rates of racial suburban-
ization are difficult and incomplete. However, housing and
employment segregation certainly filtered the flow of pop-
ulation from cities to suburbs. Houses in the suburbs were
typically more expensive than housing in cities, and income
levels may provide one factor in this racial distribution trend.
Additionally, employment for semi -skilled or unskilled work-
ers was still more readily available in the central cities during
the postwar period, particularly with the growing number
of service employment opportunities at hotels and restau-
rants near central business districts. Regional differences also
played a role in the severity of racial distribution, as segrega-
tion was a stronger force in the South and industrial Midwest
than it was in the West or Northeast. 171
3. Consumerism and Technology
Postwar America was also greatly influenced by a rise in
technology and renewed consumerism. During the preced-
ing 16 years of depression and war, consumption was gener-
ally hindered and suspended, particularly by the restriction
of production of consumer goods during World War Il. With
169 The 12 largest SMSAs as of 1970 included: New York; Los Angeles -Long
Beach; Chicago; Philadelphia; Detroit; San Francisco -Oakland; Boston;
Pittsburgh; St. Louis; Washington, D.C.; Cleveland; and Baltimore.
17° Leo E Schnore, Carolyn D. Andre, and Harry Sharp, "Black Sub -
urbanization, 1930-1970;' in The Changing Face of the Suburbs, ed. Barry
Schwartz (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), 69-94.
11 Schnore, Andre, and Sharp, 69-94.
unparalleled cash in hand and consumer desires, which were
the result of pent-up demand, increasing wages, and avail-
able consumer credit, Americans were eager to purchase and
indulge. Americans responded to technical innovations and
aggressive mass -marketing techniques with an intense desire
for the new or novel consumer good. This was especially seen in
the home through the integration of electric and gas -powered
appliances in kitchens and basements, and incorporation of a
garage or carport for the new family automobile. With innova-
tions occurring quickly and regularly, a cycle of purchase and
replacement became evident in the postwar years as home-
owners continuously upgraded their technological goods,
from cars to televisions. 172
Between 1955 and 1973 American scientists and workers
developed more than half of the world's significant inventions
of the era. These inventions formed new industries. In partic-
ular, the communications industry defined the postwar era,
characterized by the transmission, storage, and manipulation
of information. Televisions and computers symbolized the
ability to distribute and store information. Following World
War 11, the technology of transmitting pictures improved
rapidly. Early production included 6,000 receivers in 1945,
but within only 5 years this number increased dramatically;
seven million televisions were produced in 1950, and high
production rates continued until the late 1960s. In a single
generation, 99 percent of American homes acquired a televi-
sion, a technology that was well suited for the new postwar
family room (also referred to as a recreation room). 173
The impact of computers was also significant in the post-
war era, particularly as it influenced industry and commerce,
which in turn influenced suburban growth. International
Business Machines (IBM) and other companies worked dur-
ing the war on code -breaking machines, and the federal gov-
ernment continued to provide the impetus for the computer
industry in the postwar period. By 1966 the government had
2,500 computers in use (representing an increase from the
government's three machines, which had been used to com-
pute the 1950 census returns) and more than 30,000 comput-
ers were being used in all facets of industry and commerce.
By the end of the postwar period, the transformation of
technology, organization of work, and corporate consolida-
tion resulted in a new economic order. Automated machines
enhanced, and in some cases replaced, human labor. 174
Around the country, new suburban growth and subdivi-
sion development occurred as a result of corporate expansion,
12 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,49-53.
13 Gilbert, 164; James Andrew Jacobs, "Social and Spatial Changes in the
Postwar Family Room, Perspectives in VernacularArchitecture 13 (2006), 73.
14Gilbert, 160-165.
increased production, and technological improvements. For
example, the city of Arlington, Texas, witnessed unparalleled
growth in the 1950s when GM located a Buick -Oldsmo-
bile -Pontiac plant on the eastern edge of town. Employing
2,000 workers by 1953 and 3,000 workers by 1955, GM con-
tributed greatly to the city's residential growth, and Arling-
ton's population increased 482 percent between 1950 and
1960.15 Similarly, Rochester, Minnesota, witnessed an imme-
diate increase in home-building permits following IBM's
announcement of locating a manufacturing facility on the
city's northwest edge in 1956. Between 1956 and 1957 build-
ing permit applications nearly doubled from 261 to 501, and
by 1958 the company employed 1,500 people, thus signifi-
cantly affecting the local economy and real estate market. 176
By the 1960s the pronounced cycle of the purchase and
replacement of technological goods, such as appliances and
automobiles, was extended to real estate and the "trading up"
of homes. At this point, many consumers owned homes but
found themselves with considerable discretionary income.
This inevitably led to seeking a larger home with even more
amenities and conveniences, such as better appliances in
larger kitchens and larger utility rooms and separate rooms
to accommodate televisions. As more and more Americans
became homeowners, the house itself became an impor-
tant symbol of economic status. As a sign of its owner's eco-
nomic status, trading up to larger and more amenity -filled
residences was an unsurprising result of economic prosperity
and built-up wealth in the latter part of the postwar period."'
4. Conclusion
The trends discussed within this section, including economic
prosperity, rising discretionary incomes, shifting populations,
increasing family sizes, racial desegregation, technological
innovations, and growing consumerism, affected the climate of
postwar residential home building. Additionally, these trends
influenced the design of subdivisions and the postwar house,
as it became necessary to accommodate larger and younger
families and an increased number of consumer goods, from
automobiles to electric and gas -powered appliances. The fol-
lowing sections address the design and layout of the postwar
landscape and house in more detail.
"'Komatsu Architecture, et. al, Final Arlington Historic Resources Sur-
vey Update, Prepared for City of Arlington, Texas City Community Ser-
vices Office, September 2007, 7-10.
16"IBM — A Vibrant Force in Rochester," RochesterMN.com, http://
www.rochestermn.com/ibma/vibrant/force/in/Rochester/story-2 1.
html (accessed 30 March 2011).
"'Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House". The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 98, 101; Hobbs and Stoops, 124.
63
Figure 74. This Westport, Wisconsin, c. 1960
subdivision is similar to those constructed nationally
in the postwar era, with modest residences set back
along curvilinear streets (photograph courtesy of the
Wisconsin Historical Society, Image ID: 66696).
E. Planning and Development
Postwar residential development re -shaped American cit-
ies and nearby environs. The increased demand for housing
and improved transportation networks allowed for residen-
tial development to extend beyond the central city to areas
that had previously been raw land. This section discusses
postwar development patterns and the individuals, builders,
and manufacturers responsible for the unprecedented boom
in residential construction that followed World War II.
1. Development Patterns
The majority of postwar residential development occurred
in new residential subdivisions on the periphery of established
communities. One of the biggest factors that contributed to the
postwar development boom was the ready availability of land.
Thousands of developments sprang up with similar houses,
setbacks, and curvilinear streets on former agricultural or dor-
mant land (see Figure 74). These subdivisions ranged from
small clusters of houses to entire suburban communities with
thousands of homes and a commercial center, school, church,
and parks. Land further away from the city was less expensive
and easier for developers to shape. In addition, Americans
wanted to live away from town; they did not mind commutes
to work or shopping centers. As a result, new suburbs built
up of multiple subdivisions came to characterize the era. One
example of this trend of suburban expansion can be seen in
Philadelphia, where 5,200 acres of rural land well outside of the
city center was converted to urban use between 1945 and 1962,
with more than 75 percent for residential use.18
In 1950 Popular Mechanics published a book titled Your
Home and How to Build It Yourself that weighed the pros and
"$Milgram, iii.
64
cons of building a home in established neighborhoods and
new residential developments. Within established prewar
neighborhoods, it was suggested that new or "infill" con-
struction could result in reduced resale value since the house
may not conform to the existing homes in the neighborhood.
However, the benefits of building in an existing neighborhood
included established schools, churches, and playgrounds, as
well as utilities and sidewalks that had already been installed
and paid for. The book also stressed that although new devel-
opments and neighborhoods typically offered larger lots at
lower prices, needed sidewalks and utilities could result in
additional fees and assessments on the property. Prospective
home builders were advised to consider availability of and
access to schools, churches, transportation, police and fire
protection, and existing residences when deciding where to
build a home. 179
Postwar residential development was not limited to newly
established subdivisions. Both individuals and builders con-
structed homes on empty lots within established plats in
communities. The infill development occurred on lots that
were empty prior to and during the war, as well as secondary
lots associated with a prewar house that were now offered for
development. The result of infill construction that occurred
during the postwar era was neighborhoods with a mix of
architectural styles, sizes, ages, and setbacks.
Cities throughout the country had subdivisions platted
within city limits during the 1920s and 1930s that remained
undeveloped at the end of World War II. In an effort to encour-
age development in these areas, both the FHA and National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB) provided guidance
for upgrading these established subdivisions. 110 Developers
were encouraged to purchase available land, vacate the previ-
ous plat (when possible), and develop a modern layout based
on the accepted standards of the period. Any existing homes
constructed during the initial period of development were to
be incorporated into the new plat, often with new plantings
or landscape enhancements to improve their appearance."'
Although the majority of residential development in the
postwar era occurred in platted subdivisions in suburban
areas, some individuals and builders constructed homes on
land in relatively undeveloped, rural areas (see Figure 75).
In some cases, individuals purchased small tracts of land
19Allan Carpenter and Norman Guess, ed., How to Plan, Build, and Pay
for Your Own Home (Chicago: Popular Mechanics Press, 1950), 11-13.
11ONational Housing Agency, Housing Needs, A Preliminary Estimate
(National Housing Bulletin 1) (Washington, D.C.: National Housing
Agency, November 1944), 37.
"'National Housing Agency, Housing Needs, A Preliminary Estimate
(National Housing Bulletin 1), 37; The National Association of Home
Builders, Home Builders Manual for Land Development, Second Revised
Edition (Washington, D.C.: The National Association of Home Builders,
February 1958), 207.
Figure 75. Postwar house in a rural southeast
Georgia setting (photograph courtesy of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division).
directly from farmers and worked with a builder to construct
a non-farm residence. In other cases developers purchased
land for residential development from farmers and estab-
lished suburban -type subdivisions of varying sizes in tradi-
tionally rural settings. The result was typically a small cluster
of homes arranged in a linear configuration that lacked the
amenities of larger, planned subdivisions, such as parks,
cul-de-sacs, or community buildings.
Transformation of farm land to suburban development
was often influenced by increased ex -urban land values and
taxes, which made it difficult to dedicate land to existing
farms and expensive to expand farm operations. As a result,
farmers were able to make more money by selling agricultural
land than farming it.182 This put pressure on landowners and
proved attractive to developers where available land was well
situated in proximity to urban centers. With continued resi-
dential development on the outskirts of communities, many
of the postwar homes and subdivisions that were in once
rural settings are now surrounded by additional development
and no longer reflect their original "isolated" setting.
For example, a collection of c.1965 homes on the outskirts
of Madison, Wisconsin, represents isolated postwar residen-
tial development in a rural area (see Figure 76). This linear
collection of six Ranch houses features similar sizes, massing,
and setbacks. Lots are slightly wider than in a typical planned
development and the area lacks sidewalk, curb and gutter,
or decorative plantings. Based on real estate advertisements
placed in the local newspaper, it appears the homes were
constructed by developers who then sold them to individu-
als, rather than by a farmer for family members. At the time
of construction, little non-agricultural development had
occurred in the area. However, with the continued growth of
Madison and the surrounding communities, additional resi-
182 Milgram, 17.
Figure 76. Raised Ranch house on outskirts of
Madison, Wisconsin, constructed c. 1965 as part of an
isolated collection of postwar residences in a rural
area (Mead & Hunt photograph).
dences were constructed from the 1970s through the present
and a modern subdivision is encroaching on this collection.
Postwar residences were also added to active farms during
this period. These homes often replaced the original farm-
house on the property, or were constructed as a secondary
house for additional generations who lived and worked on
the farm (see Figure 77).
a. Influence of Ordinances, Codes, and Covenants
During the postwar era, zoning laws and covenants were
viewed by many, including the FHA, as enhancing the appeal
of new residential developments. While zoning laws and ordi-
nances are enforceable policies established by local govern-
ments or authorities, covenants are contractual obligations
that are tied to the property itself and recorded in the deed. In
the 1938 publication Planning Profitable Neighborhoods, the
FHA argued that it was "essential for every residential neigh-
borhood to be protected against adverse influences which
may occur through undesirable land uses.' The FHA stated
Figure 77. Postwar c. 1960 Ranch house added to an
early twentieth-century farmstead in rural Dawson
County, Nebraska (Mead & Hunt photograph).
65
that the best means of protection were zoning regulations
and covenants, claiming "regulation of lot sizes, location of
structures and their design, and prohibition of nuisances are
good business of both buyer and seller."lss
During the postwar era, subdivision developers were
often working within a system of established local zoning
and subdivision regulations that required minimum design
or engineering standards during the layout and develop-
ment process. In established communities, zoning regula-
tions could influence lot size, street layout and design, and
the incorporation of parks and sidewalks. In areas outside
communities, including rural areas, there was often a lack of
local regulation regarding residential development. Because
local regulations meant increased control and homogeneity,
the FHA advised developers to work in areas with established
zoning regulations. 114 According to the Community Builders'
Council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the most com-
mon zoning regulations included: local approval of the sub-
division plat and grading plan; local approval of planned
infrastructure within the development, including sidewalks,
paved streets, sewers, and utility lines; and the utilization
of standard subdivision design requirements, including the
relation to the existing street system, street width and align-
ment, alleys, easements, block dimensions, lot dimensions,
and open spaces. 185
In 1938 the FHA recommended that developers include the
following eight protective covenants in new residential devel-
opments, which were intended to create a uniform neighbor-
hood appearance and homogenous character: 116
• Regulation of land use,
• Placement of buildings using side yard and setback
regulations,
• Prohibition of subdivided lots,
• Prohibition of multiple dwellings per lot,
• Design control through approval of qualified committees,
• Prohibition of nuisances and temporary dwellings,
• Prohibition of occupancy of properties by inharmonious
racial group, and
• Appropriate provisions for enforcement.
These restrictions were to be recorded within the plat and last
a minimum of 25 years. By 1940 the FHA added two additional
suggested covenants: limitation of permitted improvement
"'United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 6.
184Hanchett, 201.
"'Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Insti-
tute, 1948 [revised]), 28-29.
116 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 34.
66
costs and dwelling floor areas and reservations of public utility
easements. According to the FHA, these covenants would result
in neighborhoods with a "harmonious variety" of homes on
wide lots with similar setbacks and maintained yards, which
would be more appealing to potential homebuyers and safe-
guard against decreasing property values. 117
The ULI also provided recommendations for similar
covenants. Its 1948 Community Builders' Handbook recom-
mended the following provisions be considered: control of
land use, including residential type and design; architectural
control of structures, including walls and fences and house
colors; prohibition or placement of utility buildings, such
as sheds; and prohibition of nuisances, such as signs.1" In
an effort to assure adequate front yards, they also suggested
that minimum building setbacks be included in protective
covenants. They went on to state that these setback require-
ments would result in better relationships among property
owners. 189
As suggested by the FHA, some developers chose to include
restrictive covenants based on race and religion. Restrictive
covenants excluding home ownership to African Americans,
Mexicans, Asians, and Jews were frequently used in residential
subdivisions as early as the 1920s and continued during the
early postwar period. 190 As previously discussed, as a result of
the 1948 Supreme Court ruling outlawing the enforcement
of restrictive covenants, the FHA announced that as of Feb-
ruary 15, 19503 it would no longer insure mortgages on real
estate in protected neighborhoods (see Section C.1). How-
ever, FHA officials continued to accept unwritten agreements
based on race or religion until the passage of the Civil Rights
Act in 1968.191
2. Subdivision Development
A number of parties were involved in the process of sub-
division development, from the builders and developers who
established the site to the agencies who influenced legisla-
tion. Advertising was an important means of achieving the
goals of each party, allowing them to promote themselves,
their developments, and the concept of home ownership and
the American dream.
117 United States Federal Housing Administration, Successful Subdivi-
sions, 9, 28.
188 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 90.
189Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 59.
190 Wright, 212.
191 Antero Pietila, Not in My Neighborhood, How Bigotry Shaped a Great
American City (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2010),107; Wright, 248.
a. Developers and Builders
The subdivider of a parcel of land does very much more than
sell real estate by a bargain concerning the buyer and the seller
alone. The results of his activities are in truth indelibly impressed
upon the physical pattern of the community at large ...
— Harold W. Lautner of the Public Administration Service191
Although some homeowners took it upon themselves
to construct a new residence, builders and developers were
responsible for the majority of suburban development. The
role of developers and builders changed in the postwar era
due to the substantial demand for housing and the resulting
large-scale development that occurred. In previous decades,
the roles were clearly defined. Developers, also known as sub-
dividers, were responsible for the development of the land
and the infrastructure. They typically purchased large areas
of land, platted lots, constructed streets, and installed sewer
systems. They then sold the lots to builders who constructed
homes for sale, or individuals who contracted with a builder
to construct their own home. However, this pattern changed
after World War II, when government financing programs
made residential development more lucrative and developers
realized they could increase profits by constructing the homes
themselves.19'
The postwar building boom greatly impacted the building
profession. According to data published by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics for 1938, in the largest cities, the typical builder
constructed no more than four single-family residences each
year and only a few builders had the capacity to construct as
many as 10 houses a year. This small amount of construc-
tion was partially the result of low housing demand during
the Depression, as many families were not able to afford the
required down payments and mortgage costs associated with a
new home. When an individual did decide to construct a new
house, the owner typically retained a builder to construct a
house under contract. As a result, little speculative residential
construction was completed during this period. 194
However, this began to change with the creation of the
FHA in 1934 and programs that made securing a mortgage
easier. These programs (discussed in Section C.1), combined
with the increased demand for homes, resulted in a dramatic
increase in the number of home builders. Some builders who
took advantage of these programs were operating prior to the
war and others had been involved in defense construction,
191 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The Com-
munity Builders Handbook (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute,
1954), 38.
193 Wright, 248; Ames and McClelland, 26.
194Marc A. Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1987), 38.
which positioned them to take advantage of opportunities
during the postwar residential construction boom.
Although the average home builder continued the prewar
trend of constructing only a few homes each year, a small num-
ber of builders were responsible for a large percentage of the
homes constructed annually. Between 1938 and 1955 the num-
ber of builders responsible for five or more houses rose from
14 percent to 27 percent.19' In 1949, 4 percent of all builders
and developers were responsible for 45 percent of new residen-
tial construction.19' By 1959 it was estimated that 1 percent of
builders were responsible for one-third of the new houses built,
and the top 10 percent of builders were responsible for two-
thirds of the houses built. 117 These builders became known as
"merchant builders"; they are discussed in more detail below.
Those builders responsible for a large number of homes
often employed mass production techniques to the construc-
tion process. Similar to workers on a manufacturing assem-
bly line, carpenters, plumbers, painters, and other tradesmen
completed the same task continuously, moving from one house
to another. To make the supply process more efficient, some
builders maintained large material inventories, prefabricated
their own components off site prior to delivery, and utilized
precut lumber. This eliminated downtime as workers waited for
supplies to be delivered, cut, or assembled. 191 See Section F for
more information on standardization of materials.
In an effort to develop and perfect the mass production
of houses and reduce construction costs, many builders lim-
ited the number of models and exterior variations available
to prospective buyers, simplified the design, and eliminated
extra features, including basements. In addition, they aligned
interior load-bearing walls, standardized window and door
sizes, and grouped plumbing together.199 Along with the
standardization of materials, this resulted in large numbers
of similar residences constructed in the postwar era.
Smaller Developers and Builders. Although a small num-
ber of developers and builders were responsible for the large
subdivisions, smaller scale developers and builders constructed
a large number of homes across the country. They were respon-
sible for individual infill or isolated residences, as well as sub-
divisions ranging from a half-dozen to several dozen homes.
This large number of small-scale local builders was influenced
by local housing needs, availability of land for development,
and available materials. As a result, there is not a single process
or pattern that defines development at this level. However, the
"'Burnham Kelly, Design and the Production of Houses (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), 9.
196Weiss, 161.
197 Kelly, 9.
198 Checkoway, 24-25.
199 Eichler, 68.
67
speculative building process was common across the country.
Developers and builders constructed homes for unknown
but anticipated clients. Known as "spec homes," these homes
were often based on popular prototypes in the area. Based on
the abilities of the developer or builder, spec homes could be
limited to single infill residences in already developed plats, or
small clusters of homes or subdivisions.
Because it was often difficult to obtain financing for the
purchase of land, smaller developers and builders had a dif-
ficult time securing the necessary funds to purchase enough
property for a large subdivision. Additionally, financing was
also required to cover the actual construction costs. As a result,
most large subdivisions were developed by a small number of
builders with financing capacity. Small-scale developers and
builders often found it easier to work under contract with
an individual or family who were responsible for obtaining
the financing for the effort, or construct a limited number of
homes annually that required minimal financial outlays.200
Phased development was also common for small-scale builders
and developers, with subsequent adjacent additions underway
as financing and buyer demand allowed.
When the small-scale builders and developers were working
near each other or phasing their developments, the end result
was similar to that of a large-scale developer or builder—large
numbers of similar postwar homes with little or no break
between the plats.
Merchant Builders. The small number of builders who
were able to respond to the postwar housing need and con-
struct large numbers of homes quickly became known as
merchant builders. The term "merchant builder" referred to
builders who completed the entire development and con-
struction process. Merchant builders acquired large tracts
of land, designed and installed streets and infrastructure,
designed and built houses, and sold the finished houses as
part of a new community. These builders dominated the post-
war housing industry by building large numbers of homes at
a fast rate "and achieving economies of scale not previously
seen in housing construction'101 According to economist and
real estate researcher Sherman Maisel, "These are the new
giants in an industry populated by pygmies. Here, at the very
peak of their house building pyramid, are the leaders of con-
struction who are not content merely to build houses. They
construct communities.' 202 Although the term "operative
builder" is sometimes used interchangeably with "merchant
builder," by definition operative builders controlled the entire
201 Milgram, 19-22.
201Andrew Hope, "Evaluating the Significance of San Larenzo Village,
a Mid -20th Century Suburban Community." CRM Journal Summer
2005, 52.
202 Checkoway, 29.
68
Figure 78. Eichler -built house in Orange County,
California, c. 1958 (photograph courtesy of Andrew
Hope, Caltrans).
operation from land acquisition through construction but
phased their home building as money became available.2os
Their developments were often smaller than those of mer-
chant builders due to the phased construction and lack of
community facilities.
Merchant builders' developments far exceeded the scale
of pre-war subdivisions, and in some cases, they were larger
than entire communities. In addition to constructing houses,
some builders planned for entire communities with ameni-
ties that would draw families to the developments, includ-
ing schools, churches, libraries, and parks. 104 These builders
were sometimes referred to as "Community Builders.' Most
major cities and urban areas had at least one active merchant
builder during the postwar period. Some of the most noted
were William Levitt of New York; Dave Bohannon and Joseph
Eichler in California (see Figure 78); Edward Ryan in western
Pennsylvania; John Mowbray in the Baltimore area; Waverly
Taylor in the Washington, D.C. area; Irvin Bleitz in the Chi-
cago area; and Del Web in the Phoenix area .205
Levitt and Sons is perhaps one of the best known merchant
builders of the era. William Levitt, president of Levitt and
Sons, was considered one of the nation's largest developers
in 1950. That year, the company produced one 4 -room house
every 16 minutes .106 Prior to the war, the company con-
structed homes for affluent families on Long Island. After the
war, Levitt purchased 1,400 acres of Long Island farmland
and began developing "Levittown," which when complete
had 17,000 homes. A subsequent Levittown was developed in
lower Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on the outskirts of Phila-
delphia, which had experienced postwar housing shortages. 107
See Section F.2 for more information on Levitt.
20' Ames and McClelland, 26.
204Andrew Hope, 54-55.
201 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 68; Checkoway, 29.
206 Wright, 252.
207Checkoway, 26, 29.
Many merchant builders faced a decline in the 1960s. Levitt
and Sons faced increased competition and had difficulty find-
ing large tracts of land at competitive rates or areas with a
demand for a large numbers of houses. In the case of Eichler
Homes, the company had a limited market due to the type
of modern home they constructed, and the cost of materi-
als increased significantly. The company fell into bankruptcy
when its diversification efforts failed. Some merchant build-
ers, however, were successful in the 1960s and 1970s and
went public or merged with other companies .208 Kaufman &
Broad, Inc., of Los Angeles, was one of the largest publicly
held building companies in the 1960s and had 42 widely dis-
tributed major housing developments underway in 1969.209
b. National Association of Home Builders
Established in 1942, the NAHB originated out of the
National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB). At the
time of organization, the NAHB was concerned with provid-
ing defense housing during the war effort. As the demand
for housing grew in the postwar era, the association focused
on promoting the housing industry through large builders
and new subdivisions. The NAHB had a powerful lobbying
group and supported the FHA and VA programs that like-
wise promoted residential construction .210 The NAHB was
responsible for the development of large-scale marketing
efforts. Together with local Home Builders' Associations, it
established National Home Week in 1948 and the "Parade of
Homes" event in the 1950s as a feature of National Home
Week. See Section E.3 for more information on National
Home Week and the Parade of Homes.
The NAHB also worked to improve the house building
industry, holding conferences and exhibits to promote new
products in the industry and conducting surveys of members
to identify trends and inform areas of improvement. In 1964
the NAHB established a research center to test new building
methods and materials. That same year it instituted a "Regis-
tered Builder" program to counter the negative image of home
builders that had developed by this time, when the overall
population was scrutinizing industry in general, including the
housing industry.211 This image of builders was highlighted
in the November 1964 edition of House & Home magazine,
which stated "it's time for homebuilders to face an unfortunate
fact: despite enormous improvement in the design and quality
208Eichler, 116-117.
209 Mason, 101.
210Checkoway, 34-35.
211 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 67-68; "History Timeline," NAHB The Voice of the Housing
Industry, http://www.nahb.org/NAHB_History/historytimeline.html
(accessed 11 March 2011).
of housing, too many people still see builders as irresponsible
exploiters of the consumer's need for shelter.""
c. Real Estate Companies
Local and regional real estate companies were actively
involved in the postwar housing boom, working directly with
individuals interested in purchasing a home and builders who
were constructing homes speculatively. Some real estate com-
panies served as brokers in the early stages of development,
aiding in the sale of undeveloped land to investors, developers,
or builders. Upon construction completion, real estate compa-
nies often worked with builders to sell finished homes at a flat
fee or commission rate. If real estate companies were involved
in the initial land sale and the sale of the completed house,
they stood to earn two commissions. Real estate brokers could
also help prospective home buyers secure mortgages, further
increasing their role and profit in the development process.
However, merchant builders and other builders who were
responsible for the development of entire subdivisions often
acted as their own real estate firms. They had experienced sales
representatives on staff and relied on advertising and model
homes to attract attention and win home sales.21'
Much like the NAHB, the NAREB was concerned with how
federal legislation impacted the real estate industry. During the
1930s, the NAREB was influential in lobbying for housing acts
and during the following decades they maintained a stand-
ing committee on federal legislation. Together, the NAHB and
NAREB exerted a considerable amount of political pressure
on Congress, focusing on facilitating the construction of new
single-family suburban homes. Programs implemented by
FHA and VA assisted their efforts and reduced risk.214
3. Advertising Trends
Advertising through various media, including television,
radio, and print, was critical to increasing residential sales
across the country (see Figure 79). The popular press, particu-
larly domestic -related magazines, devoted considerable atten-
tion to the program of affordable residential design during
the 1940s and 1950s. Magazines such as Good Housekeeping,
House Beautiful, Sunset, and Better Homes & Gardens featured
work from prominent architects and builders. For instance,
Ranch houses designed by California architect Cliff May were
featured prominently in print and were also often built for
public viewing as model houses, completely furnished and
"'Quote referenced in Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The
Evolving Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed
Consumer World 1945-1970, 68.
213 Weiss, 39-40.
114 The NAREB eventually became the National Association of Realtors.
Checkoway, 34-35; Wright, 2.
69
In the Model Home. —
Furnishings by Ilail•Dum,
Draperies by the Dancer Co..
Flowers by Jewett's Flower Shop
OPEN HOUSE
At Furnished Model
in Broakdale Subdivision
Mason — Corner US -127 and
South Street
Z - 8 P.M.
Now Tear's Day through Sunday
More House -More Value -More Living
Figure 79. Advertisement for the Brookdale
Subdivision in Mason, Michigan (Ingham County
News 1 January 1959).
landscaped (see Section G for more information on Cliff
May) .215 Popular Mechanics also issued build -it -yourself
guides for Ranch homes, including both exterior and corre-
sponding interior components, as well as tips for prospective
home builders. With details on cabinetry and even furniture,
Popular Mechanics provided the general public with step-by-
step instructions for modern homebuilding and landscaping.
By promoting home designs with lavishly illustrated arti-
cles showing Contemporary interior designs in use by fami-
lies, these magazine articles stimulated the reader's desire for
a modern home with up-to-date appliances and furniture. By
using well -staged photographs, these publications helped the
reader, usually a woman, imagine her family living in a simi-
lar type of home. As such, the popular press contributed to
postwar residential development and construction by fram-
ing the "wants" and "needs" of the postwar family.
The use of model homes to promote new subdivisions was
a marketing technique with roots in the Great Depression.
However, its function as a sales tool shifted during the postwar
years as the model home became the home builder's store-
front, with well -executed interior design and decorating prov-
ing critical to the model's success. In some cases, construction
of the model home started before the overall plat map was
recorded. Fully furnished models were an essential market-
ing tool by the early 1950s, and the homebuilding industry
acknowledged that "good decorating hides shortcomings,
makes small rooms look bigger, and any room look better."216
It was common for builders to work with local appliance and
us David Bricker, "Ranch Houses Are Not All the Same," Preserving the
Recent Past 2, 2-119.
216 Quote referenced in Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The
Evolving Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed
Consumer World 1945-1970, 83.
70
department stores to stage a model home to make it more
appealing to prospective homebuyers. A furnished model
house encouraged prospective home buyers to envision them-
selves living in the home, complete with novel appliances and
sleek modern furniture, all the while encouraging domestic
consumption.' 17 In addition to the model home, builders
often had sales displays at the construction site for those inter-
ested families who were watching the construction process.218
Furthering builders' efforts to use model homes as a selling
tool was the evolution of National Home Week, a festival spon-
sored by the NAHB and its affiliated local Home Builders' Asso-
ciations. Occurring across the country, this annual event was not
only an advertising opportunity but a means for home builders
to educate consumers on new technologies in construction and
the "latest and best in living convenience and comfort."" The
week-long event included local media campaigns, advertising
opportunities for local builders, informative programs, con-
tests, ceremonies, and opportunities for public participation.
By the late 1950s, more than 150 communities throughout the
country celebrated National Home Week during the month of
September. Many used special newspaper sections and photo-
graphs to promote the event, while others sought additional
promotion by commissioning television spots and establishing
partnerships with appliance and utility companies. See Fig-
ure 80 for an example of a newspaper promotion. 120
Based on the success of the program, the NAHB developed
the "Parade of Homes" event as a concurrent or consecutive
feature of National Home Week in the 1950s. Local orga-
nizers selected a site or a street in an existing development,
and local builders, upon paying an entry fee, received a lot
on which to construct a house that showcased their ability
and style. Visitors then paid admission to see the collection
of homes. Parade events proved to be valuable promotional
opportunities for small builders, many of whom did not have
the budgets to construct large subdivisions or wage adver-
tising campaigns. A successful parade house allowed them
to attract and secure clients. The Parade of Homes events
became extremely popular, and in some areas, they replaced
the National Home Week events.221
217 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,81-86.
218 Eichler, 64.
219 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 87.
221 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 88.
221 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 87-91.
Figure 80. Promotional photograph of the collection
of homes included in the 1955 Madison, Wisconsin,
Parade of Homes as featured in the Wisconsin State
Journal (photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin
Historical Society, Image ID: 4717).
Parade of Homes events were held throughout the country,
including Sacramento, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; Dallas
and Houston, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; South Bend, Indiana;
Denver, Colorado; Knoxville, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington;
Columbus, Ohio (see Figure 81); and the Washington, D.C.,
metro area. The 1954 Utah Parade of Homes, sponsored by
the Utah Home Builders Association, even included a house
giveaway. The three-bedroom home, valued at $18,000, was
the combined effort of members of the local Utah Builders
Association. The one-story brick, Contemporary style house
featured three bedrooms, a combined living room and kitchen
space, two -car carport, adequate storage, sheltered patio, and
sweeping views of the Great Salt Valley.222
Newspaper advertising was vital to the success of both
model and non -model home showings and local promo-
tional events, such as the Parade of Homes. As the primary
means of advertising houses and developments, newspapers
across the country witnessed a print layout change in their
home and classified sections. Advertisements grew larger to
accommodate information on both individual homes and
subdivision characteristics and features.221 The following
full-page advertisement for the Snyder Subdivision in the
222 Utah Home Builders Association, `America's Most Beautiful Parade
of Homes, Souvenir Booklet" ( [Salt Lake City, Utah] : Utah Home Build-
ers Association), 1954, http://www.flickr.com/photos/rightintwomcm/
4018279708/in/set-72157622476127301/ (accessed 25 March 2011).
221 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 79-81.
Figure 81. Split-level home in Worthington Hills,
Ohio, the location of the 1966 Parade of Homes event
for the Columbus -Central Ohio area (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Lansing suburb of Mason, Michigan, is an example of this
marketing method:
an area planned for a lifetime of pleasant living ... Katheryn
street, located in the heart of the subdivision will have concrete
curb and gutter, sidewalk and blacktopped surfacing. The area
will be completely graded and a sturdy shade tree will be planted
on every lot ... Mason's newest development is conveniently
located on the west side near shopping areas. It's only 10 miles
from Lansing. Commuting to the capital city takes only minutes
on the new divided highway near the subdivision. 224
This typical advertisement, while touting the advantages
and ease of suburban living, also included an open house
notice for a three-bedroom Ranch house, complete with
automatic appliances and picture windows (see Figure 82).
In addition to local efforts to promote and advertise hous-
ing and development in newspapers and on the ground,
the national popular press proved essential to the country's
movement to postwar suburbia. An example of the nuanced
ability of architects and builders to promote a discrete set of
house plans to millions of Americans seeking individualized
homes is the "Home for All America," a lengthy advertise-
ment published in Better Homes & Gardens in 1954. Designed
by architect Robert A. Little & Associates of Cleveland, Ohio,
the Ranch house plan set was promoted as "A house to please
and serve many people in many parts of the country. A house
for a New England town, a bustling Midwestern suburb, a
Gulf Coast retreat, a Panhandle ranch, an established neigh-
borhood in a city of any size." With 13400 ft2, three bedrooms,
living -dining space, a semi -open kitchen, separate activity
space, two bathrooms, outdoor living space, a workshop, and
storage, the plans for the Home for All America also included
an optional basement to add utility space and a recreation
224 Advertisement, "Snyder Subdivision, Ingham County News, 19 January
1956.
71
M a PYdr��IeMe� �F II+r� wri Cam
w.y iir.P b•�AIMI
F+o'er a'<bW rryr,yw� W r
}Ppri W'rdPf ib-w.ai ►PFxPrnr
ry«iP� s PNS Yrr
rbplP� P! PPey M•
Snyder Subdivisioni
Maaads Newnt and F+ne:t Re.id*ntiai Area
SATURDAY SUNDAY
January 21-22
rrPy IPnu�
i�P�r iPx• i r�Y,
Figure 82. Advertisement for Snyder Subdivision in
Mason, Michigan (Ingham County News 19 January
1956).
room. Responding to improved house planning and zoning
and taking advantage of modern construction and materi-
als, the Home for All America was a modular system with
many variations, including roof shape and the placement of
the carport or garage. The 16 -page advertisement featured
numerous images and photographs, none more evocative
of the era's advertising trends than the photographs of the
housewife working in the kitchen, setting the dining table
with a view towards the living room, and ironing clothes
while watching her children through the large picture win-
dow. Advertising photographs such as this perpetuated the
popular theme of domesticity and reinforced gender roles,
with women in a kitchen or utility room complete with mod-
ern conveniences and appliances that surely eased homemak-
ing responsibilities.225
Advertisements for low-cost prefabricated home designs
also intensified during the early 1950s. These standard-
ized houses, an answer to the acute postwar housing need,
were promoted through advertisements taken out by the
fabricators. For instance, U.S. Steel Homes, which acquired
Gunnison Homes in 1944, published numerous one-page
advertisements in women's magazines during the postwar
period. Their "Bride's House of 1955" epitomizes advertising
221 John Normile and Jim Riggs, "The Home For All America," Better
Homes & Gardens, September 1954, 57-73.
72
Figure 83. Levitt -constructed Rancher and Cape Cod
models in Belair, Prince George's County, Maryland
(photograph courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland
State Highway Administration).
trends geared towards the housewife, while also taking into
account the various stages of family life. The advertisement,
which also noted that the house was featured in House Beau-
tiful's "Guide for the Bride—Summer Issue,' reads:
If you're about to be married, you'll like it because it's priced
low ... If you are married and now raising children, you'll like
this home because it gives your whole family space to eat, play,
and sleep in comfort ... If you're a grandparent now and all your
own children have grown up and left, you'll like this home for
its step -saving convenience and for the very little care it requires
inside and out 226
Other manufacturers of prefabricated homes, including
Lustron and National Homes, established similar advertising
techniques.
In addition to advertisements published in the popular
press, home builders created informational pamphlets to pro-
mote their developing subdivisions. Levitt and Sons, Inc.,
probably the best known home builder in the postwar period,
issued numerous promotional pamphlets. Their "Belair at
Bowie Maryland" pamphlet from 1961 is a typical example
of this type of advertisement. The pamphlet introduced the
subdivision as a whole, with particular consideration given
to the five different housing types being shown (the Country
Clubber, three- and four-bedroom Colonials, the Rancher,
and Cape Cod); the lot size; and location of churches, com-
munity facilities, shopping centers, schools, and recreational
clubs (see Figure 83 for examples of these houses). Well illus-
trated with photographs of each type of house and couples
interacting with the house, the pamphlet emphasized the
zoned spaces for domestic activities and leisure; modern
appliances, such as the electric range, automatic oven, dish -
226 Advertisement, "The Bride's House of 1955," Ladies Home Journal,
1955.
washer, and garbage disposal; and Levitt's experience with
building neighborhoods.22'
The Strauss Brothers Company of Lincoln, Nebraska, pub-
licized its Eastridge subdivision with a series of informational
pamphlets on the company's "Trendhome" designs. Their ini-
tial publication promotes the concept of home ownership, the
benefits of the Eastridge neighborhood, the three available
floorplans, and a comprehensive listing of the features that set
these homes apart, as well as versatile arrangements and extra
features, such as screen fences, planters, landscaping, patios,
and outdoor fireplaces. The pamphlet also stressed the qual-
ity that went into design and construction .221 A subsequent
publication from c.1956 includes much of the same informa-
tion on the features, as well as newly introduced floorplans
and photographs of the newly established neighborhood that
highlight the community pool, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks,
and nearby schools, churches, and shopping centers (see Fig-
ure 84).229 Strauss Brothers also used newspaper advertise-
ments and model homes to promote its Eastridge subdivision.
An alternative type of advertisement used during the post-
war period was the home book publication, which compiled
plans and illustrations of homes designed by prominent
architects as inspiration for the aspiring homeowner. The
Pacific Northwest Book of Homes for 1947 is but one example
of this advertisement method. Containing 65 plans, includ-
ing 50 small home plans, this lavishly illustrated home book
identifies plans well suited for life in the Pacific Northwest,
with particular attention given to climate, topography, and
materials. These varied plans by regional architects include
both luxury and small homes, houses for corner lots and inte-
rior lots, the integration of indoor and outdoor living space,
and the provision of modern electric and gas -powered conve-
niences. One plan even establishes itself in three construction
phases to grow and expand with the family and its income .210
4. Subdivision Location, Design,
and Features
Suburban communities nationwide were influenced by
guidelines set forth by the FHA, L LI, and NAHB during the
postwar era. The guidelines were typically more restrictive
than local zoning ordinances and commonly used in the 1940s
through 1960s, with modifications for local requirements.
"'Levitt & Sons, Incorporated, `Belair at Bowie Maryland" ([Bowie,
Md. ]: Levitt & Sons, 1961).
...Strauss Brothers, There's a New Trend in Lincoln ([Lincoln, Neb.]:
Strauss Brothers, [1954]), n.p.
"'Strauss Brothers, Eastridge, A Great Place to Live ([Lincoln, Neb.]:
Strauss Brothers, [1957]), n.p.
so Francis W. Brown, ed. Pacific Northwest Book of Homes for 1947, (San
Francisco, Calif.: Home Book Publishers, 1947).
I
PrI.Ce
r0 Clay Bi1V111111p nu IMM 1110110 10 li'MAWl. l4Y:r +lmuld
y,rlYy a Very 1a111f1rlani juri, lh4i I! Yuri I:mt uhrng w+lh f117rn
•lar .Iwruld alwrya ",P"Ier She following urrne Wlnm buying
1
1111mu: PRH:E --Chia ahliuhl irrrlode a guud 1rA, alt atimial
—1ne111. mild Irre a limprnhlr prier lwr mlilm >• lw)i or diving
-lrAl fr VICA'-7)le hrlwr Fhould Lm dmirml Cur yuur con.
+1—tw'e 11y all raprrirnmdarAit.,i and Willi tlmkisu far all
lalrrilp arlivn— lhai the
phuw+l —laiaunity Aurnrnnneally keellr 1110 msalr rulu00C yuwr
Wil- inghrr. F'aiuliy .Yalreaiaall^0a and prier in uWnrlalnp u
Irl-nrr. hum almrr-ffl ILUERS E'FFICIfiACT— et ten plum
ralue 111 effielmr-v wlml ymlr haildrr drrr1n1— all t .....w.
aroi pas Ihr w+irrg• ill quamitt purrhsm on lu vau. HI !I .
1..N RfN1f—Tlu. hav 1-11 pr0van io la, dal lwkpr-lamling luull
- 11lndrnl mall mn11i-layrrcd with emsht•d rm-:L supping- 011
i.lowrng rLinpk% what dw mind resift up. g I IMP S — Sava
liltowy +tad' Inmhle Willi ailmizdVe, inalyd wu,dm windows
Willi insulated Panna. You gni Ali of dww Onnm in leer waw "57
'rmnd him —and they are all larluderd Ie that putuhaaing
pmm—TOU DONT HAVE TO BUY THEM LATER!
MM
...IM — s ..ewdrdvl lilirpl
Figure 84. Page from 1957 Eastridge promotional booklet highlighting the benefits
of the neighborhood, including sidewalks (Strauss Brothers, Eastridge, A Great Place
to Live).
Together these guidelines and ordinances, which were compa-
rable nationwide, resulted in similar subdivision appearances."'
With the exception of regional topography, vegetation, and
building materials, the curvilinear streets, lot sizes, setbacks, and
circulation patterns, and building forms did not differ much
regardless of location.
a. Location, Plat, and Layout
In 1938, prior to the postwar building boom, the FHA pub-
lished PlanningProfitable Neighborhoods. This book provided
suggestions for layout and design that contrasted greatly
from the "typical tract configuration," commonly used in
the 1920s and 1930s. In the tract configuration, houses were
sited toward the center and front third of a rectangular lot
on a rectangular block, with an average lot size of 50 to 55 ft
wide by 100 to 120 ft deep. The house placement divided the
lot into the front and back yard and created a uniform set-
back along the street."' This traditional development pattern
231 Girling and Helphand, 82.
232 Rowe, 92. Although this was the average lot size, dimensions varied
due to topography, regional and developer preferences, and availability
of land for development.
73
changed with the introduction of FHA guidelines that pro-
vided developers with advice on planning new subdivisions,
which were directed toward achieving more marketable and
interesting communities and better managed mortgage risks.
The FHA encouraged developers to work with the existing
topography, avoid dead-end streets, utilize long blocks with ade-
quate crosswalks, and create lots that made the best use of the
space and fit the topography. These early designs moved away
from the traditional grid street patterns and included curvi-
linear streets and cul-de-sacs. Suggestions included avoiding
deep lots and sharp angles, allowing adequate width, and plan-
ning lots to face desirable areas, such as parks or natural spaces.
By following these guidelines, developers could maximize the
number of lots within their subdivision, thereby increasing
their profits.233 Although many developers utilized these new
configurations, others elected to utilize the traditional grid
pattern throughout the postwar era.
The 1940 FHA publication Successful Subdivisions built on
the 1938 guidance for planning subdivisions and included
many of the same guiding principles. Among the sugges-
tions were selecting a convenient location near transportation
233 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 4-6,14-17.
74
corridors and schools; creating ample lots that preserve natural
landscape features; providing adequate streets and sidewalks;
limiting through traffic; and including shopping centers and
parks. To illustrate its guidance, the FHA provided before and
after drawings of subdivision layouts that highlighted such
issues as laying out economical street systems, conforming to
the natural topography, and incorporating natural features and
park land .114
Much of this early FHA guidance was adopted by ULI
and promoted in its Community Builders Handbook publica-
tions during the postwar era. A series of published handbooks
included information on site development and selection and
land use for both single- and multiple -family residential devel-
opments. According to the ULI, site design was equal to or
greater than building design in importance. To realize the full
potential of the site, developers were urged to consider the orga-
nization of open spaces, building and structure arrangement,
circulation patterns, light, air, noise, prevailing winds, vistas,
privacy, ease of operating and maintenance, and lot and block
size when developing a site plan 235 ULI also urged developers to
consider the following when developing lot lines within a sub-
division: usable yard space in the front and rear, adequate drain-
age away from the house, minimum grading, and the ability
to retain existing trees and vegetation .216 Although developers
were encouraged to maintain natural landscape features, much
of the landscape was removed or altered through fill and grad-
ing to best utilize overall space and maximize the amount of
buildable lots. Names like "forest," "meadow," and "hills" which
described the original landscape but not necessarily its devel-
oped state, were often incorporated into the plat name. 117
The ULI also identified several factors to be considered when
identifying a suitable location for subdivision and residential
development sites. It suggested that the location be within
walking distance to a transit system or places of employment,
or 30 minutes by car to places of employment. It also sug-
gested that fire and police protection, snow clearing, and trash
collection play a role in the selection of sites by developers.2 '
Airports, railroad tracks, cemeteries, low-income industrial
and commercial areas, poorly subdivided residential areas,
and areas prone to flooding were to be avoided.239
The NAHB provided recommendations to developers and
builders in its publication Home Builders Manual for Land
234 United States Federal Housing Administration, Successful Subdivi-
sions, 12-27.
235 Urban Land Institute, The Homes Association Handbook, Technical
Bulletin 50 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1966), 144.
236 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 55-56.
237 Girling and Helphand, 83.
231 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 5-7,25-26.
239 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 17.
Development. Similar to FHA and ULI, the guidance related
to efficient residential development, including layout of lots,
streets, driveways, and utilities; incorporation of existing
landscape features; and siting of schools, churches, parks, and
parking lots. The NAHB also advised builders to research and
understand the need for housing units and the size and styles
of houses that would sell in particular areas .240
In addition to layout and proximity to amenities, it was
viewed as important to offer a range of price points and dwell-
ing types within a single subdivision. This stabilized values and
provided greater options for families at different stages, with
different needs regarding house size. John Mowbray, a Balti-
more area builder involved in the ULI's Community Builders'
Council, warned against having houses in a single price range
within a subdivision and suggested the use of architectural
design features to transition between price ranges within the
plat. However, houses facing each other should reflect the
same general price, class, and quality. Although a variety of
floorplans and forms were recommended, the ULI advised
against placing rental housing within the same areas as single-
family, owner -occupied homes. 141
b. Inclusion of Amenities
In addition to providing guidance regarding subdivision
design, the ULI recommended that subdivision developers
evaluate the needs of potential residents to determine which
amenities would be utilized and worth including in the ini-
tial planning stages. To develop a complete neighborhood, the
ULI recommended that developers and builders reserve central
locations for parks, schools, churches, and shopping centers.242
Landscaped neighborhood parks and natural preserves were
among the most common amenities within planned develop-
ments. The FHA subdivision guidance allowed for retaining
natural areas and including parks and open spaces. In 1948 the
ULI offered guidance for community parks and playgrounds.
As a rule, playgrounds were to be centrally located so that chil-
dren would not need to walk more than one -half -mile, and
sizes were based on the subdivision population, ranging from
3.25 acres for a population of 2,000 to 6 acres for a popula-
tion of 5,000. For a complete recreational area, developers were
advised to include the following: an area for preschoolers, play
equipment for older children, open space, surfaced athletic
courts, ball fields, an area for small games, shelter with toilet
facilities, wading pool, and an area for board games. 141
24' The National Association of Home Builders, Home Builders Man-
ual for Land Development, Revised Edition (Washington, D.C.: The
National Association of Home Builders, January 1953), 10-11.
241 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 43.
242 Urban Land Institute, 167.
243 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 76.
When including parks and natural areas, developers were
also advised to consider the overall maintenance costs associ-
ated with these spaces. For example, the irrigation costs to
maintain grassy lawns were to be considered in and climates.
In addition, the extent and ease of seasonal maintenance
required was a consideration.144
The amount of public open space in residential develop-
ments was also influenced by local ordinances and existing
master plans. In some cases the amount of open space was
determined based on straight percentages or housing density.
Isolated or rural developments outside established commu-
nities often did not have requirements for including ameni-
ties within a plat.
Some developers elected to include private recreation
centers as a way to enhance a neighborhood and offer sav-
ings to the homeowner since they then would not need to
pay for recreational amenities within the home or yard .145 For
example, community recreation centers and swimming pools
offered residents an area to host parties and recreate for a
nominal fee. In the case of the Eastridge subdivision in Lin-
coln, Nebraska, the developers included a private swimming
pool for homeowners. 146 However, it does not appear that this
was a common practice during the postwar period.
In an attempt to attract young families with children, it
was common for developers and builders to set aside parcels
of land in larger developments and subdivisions for the cre-
ation of schools. To create a feasible site, they were urged to
consult with the local school board and consider pedestrian
access from all points within the subdivision, as well as its
proximity to transportation corridors in areas where bussing
would occur. In 1948 the ULI provided minimum size recom-
mendations for schools: five acres for elementary schools
and 10 acres for high schools.247 By 1954 recommendations
for school sites had increased, with five acres allocated for
each 500 students and an additional acre for each additional
100 students, and up to 35 acres for high schools.241
Although churches were a popular addition to the subdi-
vision, builders and developers were advised against placing
them in residential areas due to the volume of associated
automobile traffic and parking concerns among residents.
In 1954 the Community Builders' Council of the ULI rec-
ommended allocating a minimum of 3 to 5 acres for church
24American Society of Planning Officials, "Public Open Space in Sub-
divisions," Information Report No. 46 (Chicago: American Society of
Planning Officials, January 1953), n.p.; Urban Land Institute, 160.
245 Urban Land Institute, 143.
246 Strauss Brothers, Eastridge, A Great Place to Live, n.p. The Eastridge
swimming pool is now open to the public.
241 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 73.
248 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1954), 89.
75
Figure 85. Luther Memorial Evangelical Lutheran
Church constructed 1955-1956 in the Dillon's
Fairacres Addition in Omaha, Nebraska (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
development .149 As a result, suburban churches are often
located on the periphery of a development along a transpor-
tation thoroughfare. The church located within the Dillon's
Fairacres addition in Omaha, Nebraska, is one such example.
When Robert W. Dillon platted the addition between 1953
and 1955, he left a large parcel on the north end, fronting
a major street, for construction of a church (see Figure 85).
The FHA and ULI guidelines identified shopping centers
as a community asset. In Planning Profitable Neighborhoods,
the FHA advised that such commercial areas be located
within convenient and safe walking distances and offer ade-
quate off-street parking and delivery access. It also advised
that commercial areas be located along major thoroughfares
rather than along secondary residential streets .2511 However,
shopping centers in higher income neighborhoods were less
critical since residents with automobiles were willing to travel
outside their neighborhood to shop.251
5. Utilities and Infrastructure
Adequate infrastructure was a selling point for new home-
buyers and a contributing factor in the overall success of a sub-
division. Not only did the utilities need the capacity to handle
the potential subdivision, but they had to accommodate future
development within the subdivision and the expected develop-
ment along the periphery as a result of the new neighborhood .252
Streets and sidewalks were the most visible of the subdivi-
sion infrastructure elements and important considerations for
249 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 73; Community Builders'
Council of the Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Hand-
book (1954), 89.
210 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 12.
211 Girling and Helphand, 88.
252 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948),15-16.
76
builders during the development process. The FHA, ULI, and
other groups provided guidance for how to incorporate these
vehicular and pedestrian networks into the overall design.
Along with site condition, available water, sewer, electricity,
natural gas, and public transportation were factors that devel-
opers had to consider during the site selection process. The
FHA also urged developers to utilize public water supplies and
sewers whenever possible, rather than including individual
wells and septic systems within the subdivision design .251
a. Streets
To accommodate the automobile within the subdivision
and make sure it did not dominate the public spaces, the ULI
recommended that developers limit vehicle access points,
provide narrow secondary streets, and utilize traffic calming
measures, such as speed bumps on minor streets .254 This built
on previous guidance from the FHA, which was included in
the 1938 publication Planning Profitable Neighborhoods and
Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses and the 1940 publi-
cation Successful Subdivisions. Although the FHA did not pro-
vide specific guidance for street widths, it provided optimal
cross-sections for 30- and 50 -ft right-of-way widths, including
paved surfaces, parking areas, terraces, and sidewalks.' -55 The
FHA also suggested that developers plan subdivisions with
street patterns that follow the natural contours of the land,
discourage heavy through traffic, allow for the extension of
major streets into adjacent areas, intersect major thorough-
fares at right angles, and avoid dead-end streets .156
Within subdivisions, both the ULI and FHA urged devel-
opers to consider preparing street plans during the develop-
ment process. Major streets were to conform to the master
street plan for the adjacent or surrounding community but
avoid the traditional gridiron street patterns. In some cases,
this required that primary streets within a subdivision meet
the width of outside streets. Although street planning was to
discourage through traffic, planners were also urged to con-
sider emergency vehicle access in the design process .157
In 1948 the ULI recommended that minor residential streets
not exceed 26 ft from face -of -curb to face -of -curb, allowing for
two lanes of on -street parking and one lane of moving traf-
fic. This width also provided adequate turning radii at inter -
253 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 4-6.
254 Urban Land Institute, 173.
255 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Neighbor-
hoods for Small Houses, 13.
256 United States Federal Housing Administration, Planning Profitable
Neighborhoods, 8-11; United States Federal Housing Administration,
Successful Subdivisions, 13-18.
257 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 62.
sections and driveways. The ULI recommended that major
streets be 33 to 34 ft from face -of -curb to face -of -curb. These
wider streets were discouraged throughout the subdivision as
they were seen as inviting higher speeds and increasing initial
paving and future maintenance costs. However, local standards
for street width often dictated the developers' plans.258
Although the FHA promoted the use of cul-de-sacs in resi-
dential developments, the ULI offered guidance for limited
use. They were not recommended for streets longer than 500 ft
and turning radii guidance was provided. In addition, devel-
opers were warned from including too many cul-de-sacs and
dead-end streets as they increased sewer and drainage prob-
lems and complicated refuse pick-up and emergency vehicle
access. Loop streets, which featured the curvilinear design of
the cul-de-sac but connected with adjacent streets on either
end, were seen as advantageous because they allow for privacy
and discourage through traffic while avoiding potential drain-
age issues and the difficulty of turning vehicles around .251
b. Sidewalks
Sidewalks, like babies and cars, are here to stay. In mass-produced
subdivisions — the dominant form of city building — they are an
adjunct of a mode of life. The trends that make sidewalks desirable
or necessary now show no signs of declining in the future ... 260
Sidewalks were seen as an important amenity in residen-
tial subdivisions as they were viewed as a popular place for
children to play and allowed families safe pedestrian travel
between homes, schools, churches, and recreational areas.
The need for sidewalks in residential subdivisions and devel-
opments was based on several variables, which are described
below, as well as city and local ordinances. In the majority of
new residential developments, the developer was responsible
for the construction of sidewalks; however, this was often
passed on to homeowners through lot and construction costs.
In 1948 the ULI recommended that sidewalks be placed
on at least one side of the street within residential develop-
ments. In areas with major streets that served as approaches
to schools, shopping centers, bus stops, and other focal
points, the ULI recommended sidewalks on both sides of the
street.261 The American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO)
provided the following guidelines regarding when sidewalks
258 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 62.
259 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 69.
260American Society of Planning Officials, "Sidewalks in the Suburbs,"
Information Report No. 95 (Chicago: American Society of Planning
Officials, February 1957), 18.
261 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 64.
were not needed: if lots are large enough that children will
not play in the street—typically 100 ft of frontage or more,
and lots are large and spread out far enough from each other
and amenities to discourage walking. Subdivisions that met
these criteria were considered "open," "residential estates," or
"country home" developments.261
By 1957 design standards were in place for sidewalks, with
the American Public Works Association's Sidewalks and Curbs
considered to be the standard manual. In residential develop-
ments sidewalks were recommended to be a minimum width
of 4 ft. The width was based on the standard dimension of an
adult male from elbow to elbow (1 ft, 8 inches) allowing for
2, 2 -ft travel lanes. However, in residential developments with
large numbers of families, baby strollers, and children riding
bicycles in sidewalks, 4 ft was considered too narrow."' Wider
sidewalks were also recommended for areas with commercial
development or multi -family housing units, such as apart-
ment buildings and row houses.
Sidewalk placement was suggested to be at least 3 ft from
the back edge of the curb and at least 7 ft if trees were planned
for the terrace. The advantages outlined for this minimum
setback included a space for snow to be deposited when clear-
ing the roadway and sidewalk, a reduced "splash" zone from
passing vehicles, safe distance between pedestrians and pass-
ing vehicles, and ample space for fire hydrants, street signs,
and utility poles. In addition, the terrace was seen as a safety
mechanism, as children were less likely to ride wheeled toys
across the grassy space and into the street .264
Rolled curbs, with a rounded edge, were preferred by
developers due to a reduced cost over straight curbs and gut-
ters. Rolled curbs also eliminated the need for driveway cuts,
curbs, and aprons. However, straight curbs provided a more
definite boundary between the road and parking lanes and
the adjacent sidewalk and terrace, making sidewalks safer for
pedestrians and children .161
Although the ULI and other agencies recommended
that sidewalks be included in the initial subdivision or plat
design, they are often lacking in postwar subdivisions across
the county. Municipalities often had their own requirements
regarding the inclusion of sidewalks and terraces. In some
areas, sidewalks were required on only one side of the street
or not required at all (see Figures 86 to 88).266 For example,
postwar developments identified in Madison, Wisconsin;
Arlington, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; and throughout Georgia
do not have sidewalks.
262American Society of Planning Officials, "Sidewalks in the Suburbs," 4.
16'American Society of Planning Officials, "Sidewalks in the Suburbs, 10.
16'American Society of Planning Officials, "Sidewalks in the Suburbs, 14.
16'American Society of Planning Officials, "Sidewalks in the Suburbs, 12.
166 Due to the lack of requirements during the initial period of develop-
ment, some subdivisions with existing sidewalks may have been retro-
fitted during modern road improvement projects.
77
Figure 86. Residential neighborhood in Ottumwa,
Iowa, developed beginning in 1945, with sidewalks
on both sides of the street (photograph courtesy
of Molly Myers Naumann and the State Historic
Preservation Office of the Iowa Department of
Cultural Affairs).
Figure 87. Waynewood Subdivision in Fairfax
County, Virginia, developed in the early 1960s with
sidewalks on one side of the street (photograph
courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway
Administration).
Figure 88. Postwar Golf Green Subdivision in
Madison, Wisconsin, platted in 1954-1955, without
sidewalks on either side of the curvilinear street
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
78
c. Entrances and Perimeters
In the postwar era, subdivision entrances and perimeters
often incorporated distinctive fences, gates, and signage. Fences
or plantings along the perimeter defined the plat or neighbor-
hood, added privacy to outer lots, and also decreased the audi-
ble noise from adjacent streets. When used in conjunction with
a gate, the fences or plantings also provided a sense of increased
security or affluence. Signs with the name of the subdivision or
neighborhood were used throughout the county and may have
been a way for developers to lend identity to similar -looking
residential developments. Signs range from simple markers
along the periphery (see Figure 89) to elaborate structures that
reflect the architectural styles or namesakes of the subdivision
or neighborhood (see Figures 90 and 91).
d. Plantings
Although much of the plantings in residential subdivisions
were the responsibility of the homeowner, developers and
builders were responsible for the overall landscape of the devel-
Figure 89. Simple sign along the perimeter of the
c. 1950 Interlachen Park neighborhood in Hopkins,
Minnesota (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 90. Sign at the entrance to the early
1960s Amberwood subdivision in north DeKalb
County, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division).
Figure 91. Decorative signage at the entrance to the
c. 1960 Eastridge subdivision in El Paso, Texas (Mead
& Hunt photograph).
opment and installing plantings in public, open space that fit
with the overall neighborhood character. The ULI provided
developers with guidance for plantings within residential subdi-
visions. Shrubs were recommended only for areas where erosion
control and screening were necessary. Hedges were suggested
for strategic locations, including boundaries; however, varieties
that maintained an acceptable appearance and required little
pruning were preferred. Vines were considered to reduce noise
and glare and were acceptable for use on masonry walls .167 See
Section G.5 for more on residential plantings.
Planting trees in terraces or boulevards, the space between the
road and sidewalk, and along streets in areas without sidewalks
was seen as standard practice for developers. To accommodate
trees, the ULI suggested a terrace width of 8 ft since lesser widths
could prove too narrow for proper tree growth, and the roots
167 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 79-80.
could cause sidewalk heaving. If the streets were too narrow to
accommodate tree plantings on each side, the south or west side
was preferred as those sides provided the most opportunity for
shading the walk and yards. The use of flowering trees was rec-
ommended for neighborhoods with higher price points. Vari-
eties such as cherry, flowering crab, and dogwood could entice
visitors during flowering season, thereby attracting potential
homebuyers. 168
6. Conclusion
Developers were willing to accept the FHA and ULI stan-
dards and guidelines, including the inclusion of neighborhood
amenities, because compliance improved their possibility of
home sales. It also meant that potential homebuyers had a
higher probability of securing an FHA loan, contributing to
a greater chance of selling homes in a development. 269 Adher-
ence to these FHA guidelines for planning and development
resulted in very similar subdivision appearances across the
country. See Section C for more information on FHA pro-
grams and policies.
F. Postwar Building Materials
and Construction Techniques
1. Advances in Materials
Advances in materials technology and availability of new
building materials played a significant role in the structure
and appearance of residential architecture in the postwar era.
Many materials, such as steel, were rationed during the war as
the construction industry ground to a halt. However, new and
non-traditional materials that were often heralded as mainte-
nance free, fireproof, and energy efficient emerged during the
war years and found new uses in postwar residential architec-
ture. Research into new materials technology as a means to
stimulate housing production found political support in the
1946 Veterans' Emergency Housing Act, which provided fed-
eral subsidies for producers of new materials. Supported by
federal funding, materials that were experimented with dur-
ing the Great Depression and the war years were applied to
the residential housing market after the war. Some of the more
prominent new home-building materials included stressed -
skin plywood panels and steel frame wall panels. As an example
of the federal government's investment in new home-building
techniques and materials, the Lustron Corporation received
$22.5 million in government loans in the late 1940s.270
268 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 70, 78.
269Girling and Helphand, 89.
270 Wright, 244.
79
Material innovations and new materials, including alumi-
num, steel, concrete block, simulated stone, fiberboard, ply-
wood, glass block, fiberglass, and plastics, were all used for
residential construction during the subject period. They are
discussed in detail in this section, which is organized by mate-
rial type .171 Established materials, such as asbestos shingle
siding and stucco, continued to be used during the postwar
period but are not addressed in this section. In addition to
descriptions of materials and their technological histories,
the range of material uses is considered, from structural sys-
tems to exterior cladding, insulation, and decorative details.
In particular, the postwar period witnessed considerable
experimentation and innovation with structural systems, as
wood and steel panel construction provided an alternative to
the historic pre-cut lumber and balloon framing techniques.
Construction techniques, including standardization and pre-
fabrication, are addressed in a separate section that looks at
the phenomenon of mass production.
a. Metals
Aluminum. Although aluminum was used as an interior
building material as early as 1892 in Chicago, it gained wide-
spread popularity in the early and mid -twentieth century as a
lightweight material that could be easily fabricated and erected.
The A.O. Smith Corporation Research and Engineering Build-
ing (1930) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was one of the first
American buildings to be clad in aluminum; sheet aluminum
faced the walls, cornices, and parapets. With the advent of the
Great Depression, aluminum's use for architectural purposes
declined. However, the aircraft industry reinvigorated the alu-
minum industry during World War II, conducting research
on aluminum alloys and requiring aluminum for wartime
aircraft. Fabrication technologies improved considerably as a
result of this improved knowledge. Aluminum was produced
at a high level during the war, resulting in a considerable stock-
pile and a plethora of large manufacturing facilities, and yet by
1952 aluminum production surpassed wartime level S.271
During the postwar period, aluminum became a critical
component of the glass and metal curtain wall system of com-
mercial construction. The possibilities of an all -aluminum cur-
tain wall were also demonstrated by the Aluminum Company
of America. (ALCOA) Building of 1953, which featured prefab-
ricated panels of sheet aluminum. In 1957 ALCOA partnered
with architect Charles Goodman to develop their line of Care-
free Homes (see Figures 92 and 93). Reflecting the popular
Ranch form, the innovative design utilized ALCOA-produced
271 Innovations in interior materials and features is not covered in this
study.
21 Stephen J. Kelley, Aluminum," Twentieth Century Building Materials:
History and Conservation, ed. Thomas C. Jester (New York: McGraw
Hill, 1995),47-49
80
11
Figure 92. ALCOA Care -free House in Lincoln,
Massachusetts, with a white anodized standing seam
roof, purple anodized corrugated wall panels, and
anodized yellow door cladding (photograph courtesy
of John A. Burns, FAIA).
.�
Figure 93. Detail of ALCOA Care -free House in
Lincoln, Massachusetts (photograph courtesy of John
A. Burns, FAIA).
aluminum exterior panels and roof materials, as well as inno-
vative interior features that reduced maintenance, making the
homes "care free.' The production cast was higher than antici-
pated and only 24 were constructed nationwide .271
Small-scale sheet aluminum houses were also developed
by two prefabricated home companies: National Homes
of Chicago and Reliance Homes of Philadelphia. National
Homes fabricated aluminum houses at the factory and deliv-
ered the home in two sections to be joined on site. Reliance
Homes used corrugated aluminum panels that were shipped
to the house site in seven sections and featured flat roofs.274
Within the residential building market, aluminum also
emerged as a popular material, used for doors, windows, and
siding. Frank Hoess of Hammond, Indiana, is often credited
as the father of aluminum siding with his 1937 invention of
an aluminum siding configuration that imitated the more tra-
273 Robert T. Englert, Alcoa Care -free Home National Register Nomina-
tion, 8-2 - 8-6.
214 Jennifer Sale Crane, "Postwar Prefabricated Homes in the Washing-
ton, D.C. Suburbs," Unpublished paper presented at the Vernacular
Architecture Forum Conference, May 2010, 12.
Figure 94. Three c. 1945 Minimal Traditional
residences in St. Cloud, Minnesota, with aluminum
siding (Mead & Hunt photograph).
ditional wood clapboard appearance. However, his 1939 pat-
ent for a locking joint was perhaps his greatest invention. A
small flap at the top of each panel of metal siding locked with
a flange on the bottom of the panel above it, creating a water-
proof seal. Successfully marketed to the American public as a
weather-proof, fireproof, and vermin -proof wall cladding that
did not need painting, aluminum clapboard siding was used
on more than three million homes by 1960 (see Figure 94).275
In 1946 Hoess entered into a distribution deal with Metal
Building Products of Detroit, which sold his patented designs,
including unpainted, 4-, 6-, and 8 -inch -wide clapboard -style
panels. By the end of 1946 several housing projects featured
aluminum siding, including a 31 -unit development near Pitts-
burgh. This subdivision was reportedly the first in America
to exclusively feature aluminum siding. Nonetheless, due to
increasing competition, Metal Building Products was out of
business by the end of 1948. Perhaps the most successful alu-
minum siding producer of the postwar era was Reynolds Metal
of Richmond, Virginia, which leased an aluminum sheet -
rolling mill from the federal government after the war in an
effort to alleviate the housing shortage. In 1946 the company
released plans for a Cape Cod -style residence with an alumi-
num frame, sheet aluminum interior and exterior, a cement
insulation system that would make the house rigid, and wide -
lap aluminum siding. Although Reynolds abandoned efforts
to market this factory -built house, the company did continue
efforts to apply aluminum to the residential housing market.
By August 1946 the company featured a full line of aluminum
materials, including siding and roof shingles .276
225Kelley, 49; John Lauber, `And It Never Needs Painting: The Devel-
opment of Residential Aluminum Siding," APT Bulletin 31, no. 2/3
(2000),17-19.
276 Lauber, 19-21. Reynolds Group Holdings is still in operation; it was
acquired by ALCOA in 2000.
The key product in the Reynolds Metals building material
line was the clapboard -style siding with an 8 -inch exposure.
The siding came in either a plain or embossed (weather-
board) surface and was marketed as weather-proof and low
maintenance. Reynolds Metals pursued an aggressive adver-
tising campaign in both trade publications and the popu-
lar press. Full-color advertisements in the Saturday Evening
Post occurred with regularity and persuaded the American
homeowner to consider this novel product's beauty and con-
venience. Within 18 months (by 1947) Reynolds Metals esti-
mated that its production of aluminum was enough to side
and roof 141,113 five -room homes.277
Like Reynolds Metals, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Company of Washington State acquired federally owned
aluminum plants in an effort to support the increased pace
of new home construction. Kaiser's signature product was
7 -inch -wide aluminum siding with a curved face, which was
purportedly so strong that it would not need intermediate
sheathing when attached to the house's studs. Kaiser's market-
ing methods included the use of model homes in California
and a national network of jobbers who would sell the product
wholesale from their warehouses to local contractors .271
One of the most innovative developments in aluminum
siding during the postwar years was the development of
baked enamel siding, marketed in a variety of colors. In 1947
Jerome Kaufman of Akron, Ohio, teamed up with chemists
from Sherwin-Williams to develop a factory -applied coat-
ing system with a life -span of 10 to 15 years. His company,
Alside Incorporated, began selling pre -painted siding in the
spring of 1948. Advertisements presented this product, which
came in white, cream, or gray, as "permanent, fireproof,
lightweight, coldproof, heatproof, termiteproof, and water-
proof." The success of Kaufman's enterprise was immediate,
and within several months, Reynolds and Kaiser also offered
factory -painted aluminum siding. 179
Among the other companies that distributed aluminum
siding was Sears, Roebuck & Company, whose 1949 prod-
uct was akin to Reynolds' aluminum weatherboard siding.
By 1954 Sears offered factory -painted green, white, gray, and
buff aluminum clapboards as the "newest thing in siding for
homes. 280 Despite the early success of the aluminum indus-
277 Lauber, 21.
278 Lauber, 22. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company is now head-
quartered in Foothill Ranch, California, but was founded in Washington
state in 1946.
279 Lauber, 22-23. Alside, Inc. is now a subsidiary of Associated Materials,
Inc. Headquartered in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, the company specializes in
vinyl siding, windows, doors, and fencing.
210Holly Hope, "The Thrill of a New Home Without the Cost: The
Evolution of Residential Siding Materials in Arkansas," http://www.
arkansaspreservation.com/historic-properties/national-register/
siding_materials.asp (accessed 3 March 2011), 36.
81
try in the aftermath of World War II, the Korean War quickly
curtailed aluminum production for the civilian market in
1950 as the National Production Authority (NPA) leveled
constraints on the use of aluminum .281
As the housing crisis ended in the mid-1950s and the pace
of new construction slowed, the residential aluminum sid-
ing industry responded by promoting the material for home
improvement projects. The industry did see a renewed inter-
est in using the material for new construction in 1959 when
National Homes and ALCOA developed a prefabricated house
sided with clapboard -style aluminum (see Section G.3 for
more information on National Homes). With siding offered in
white, green, gray, yellow, or beige, ALCOA used an aggressive
advertising campaign to gain considerable market share in the
residential market. By the end of the postwar period, many
small fabricators of aluminum siding fell to the name recogni-
tion of larger producers .282 Nonetheless, aluminum proved an
important material in the residential postwar housing market,
and its use as durable wall cladding continues today.
Steel. Steel was a prominent architectural and engineering
material prior to World War II. However, the development of
high-strength weathering steel impacted the material's usage
during the postwar years. Weathering steel is a low -carbon
steel alloy that develops a thin, protective brown patina when
exposed to outdoor conditions. This patina differs in chemi-
cal composition and appearance from rust that commonly
develops on most steel types. Corrosion -resistant, low -alloy
steels were first developed by U.S. Steel Company in 1929.
Four years later, U.S. Steel introduced a low -alloy, high -tensile
product line that included Cor -Ten A and Cor -Ten B. Initially,
U.S. Steel promoted this product for railroad equipment; how-
ever, the architectural industry quickly adopted this product
for its purpose. Structural shapes including I -beams, channel
beams, sheets, plates, ledges, columns, and light standards
could be fabricated of weathering steel and installed by weld-
ing or bolting. The first unpainted weathering steel building
in the United States was Eero Saarinen and Associates' Deere
Company Administrative Center (1958) in Moline, Illinois.211
Postwar architectural steel usage is perhaps most often
linked to the history of prefabricated housing and the "steel
house.' As a result of developments in the steel industry dur-
ing the Depression era and World War II, in both steel com-
position and manufacturing processes, "all steel" was seen as
a symbol of progress. Improvements in machine fabrication
led to improved design and lowered cost. In particular, metal
281 Holly Hope, 36-37.
282 Holly Hope, 36-38.
283 John C. Scott and Carolyn L. Searls, "Weathering Steel," Twentieth -
Century Building Materials: History and Conservation, ed. Thomas C.
Jester (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995), 73-77.
82
panel systems were a popular, if somewhat limited, prefabri-
cated house system during the period. Although steel supplies
were tight immediately following World War II, the federal
government would soon allocate its surplus to alleviate hous-
ing needs. Companies including the Lustron Corporation, a
division of the Chicago Vitreous Enamel Products Company
with a plant in Columbus, Ohio, and the William H. Harman
Corporation of Philadelphia used steel panels to develop
prefabricated housing systems. The Lustron Corporation's
material innovations are discussed herein. Another lesser
known example of repurposed steel was the Harman Corpo-
ration's riveted steel panel Ranch home designed by architect
Oscar Stonorov. However, in 1946, only seven of a planned
105 -unit subdivision in Arlington County, Virginia, were ever
constructed, and only one model home was built in an unre-
alized College Park, Maryland, subdivision .214
Porcelain Enamel. German and Austrian engineers first
developed the process of enameling metal sheets in the mid -
nineteenth century. Porcelain enamel was durable and easy to
clean, so it is not surprising that the manufacturers of appli-
ances and bathroom and kitchen fixtures adopted this material.
Within the United States, metal enameling was accomplished on
an industrial scale by the turn of the twentieth century. Before
sheets of low -carbon steel were available in the early twenti-
eth century, manufacturers used iron as the base metal for the
enameling process. However, during World War II, a break-
through allowed lower heat to be used for the process, which,
in turn, allowed manufacturers to use lighter -gauge metal. This
resulted in lower, more affordable prices for the panels .285
One of the leading manufacturers of porcelain enamel
was the Chicago Vitreous Enamel Products Company, which
produced tank armor during World War II. During the war
years, the company hired engineer and inventor Carl Strand-
lund to retool and run the production plant for the war effort.
Strandlund's production plant innovations resulted in dra-
matically increased production with decreased production
time. He also developed an architectural panel at the end of
the war, which featured "a novel and improved construction
with an arrangement of interlocking and sealing adjacent
porcelain enamel panels, units, or adjoining connecting parts
of the exterior or interior walls of a building or structure
of any type or design" (see Figure 95).256 This panel would
become the critical component of the well-known Lustron
house, a prefabricated porcelain enamel house.
In 1947 Strandlund established the Lustron Corporation
and was granted the first of several multi-million dollar loans
284 Crane, 11-12.
211 "Lustron History," Lustron Preservation, http://wwwlustronpreservation.
org/meet-the-lustrons/lustron-history (accessed 10 March 2011).
216 "Lustron History," n.p.
Figure 95. Porcelain enamel coated steel panels on
a c. 1950 Madison, Wisconsin, Lustron home (Mead &
Hunt photograph).
from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), through
the Veterans' Emergency Housing Act, to begin production.
Within the former warplane manufacturing plant in Colum-
bus, Ohio, the Lustron Corporation began producing dem-
onstration houses, of which 100 were erected in almost every
major city in the Midwest and eastern United States by April
1949. Lustron houses were sold through a network of dealers,
and at its peak the Lustron Corporation had 230 dealers in
35 states. Despite Strandlund's optimism, the Lustron Corpo-
ration ultimately declared bankruptcy in 1950 as production
levels proved lower than originally predicted, building inspec-
tors balked at the new structural system, and the U.S. Senate
banking subcommittee investigated RFC loans and recalled the
Lustron Corporation's loan. More than 60 years later, as many
as 2,000 of these homes survive across the country. Lustron
homes are discussed in more detail in Section G.3.287
b. Masonry
Concrete. Like the metals discussed in the previous sec-
tion, concrete was a well-established building material before
World War II. However, its use for precast concrete blocks or
concrete masonry units (CMUs) was expanded upon during
the 1940s and 1950s as a means to quickly construct lower
cost housing. Concrete could be poured into molds and hard-
ened into strong, rigid sections of nearly any size and config-
uration. As such, it provided great flexibility for prefabricated
housing during World War II and the postwar era.
Hollow concrete blocks were first manufactured in the early
twentieth century after Harmon S. Palmer invented the cast
iron block machine. The popularity of the concrete block grew
217"Lustron History," n.p.
tremendously during the first two decades of the twentieth
century. As portland cement became more available, block
manufacturers organized to create standard block sizes, and
the industry began to use testing to improve the material's
reliability and durability. Trade organizations also began to
promote concrete block usage in magazines, catalogues, and
books. Usage of the material grew consistently except for a
short decline during the Depression, and by 1951, 1.6 billion
concrete blocks were being produced in the United States.28'
One of the primary innovations in concrete block manufac-
turing was the introduction of lightweight aggregates to address
the heaviness of the product. The results were products such as
cinder blocks; Haydite, which incorporated shale; Pottsco (later
Celocrete), which incorporated furnace slag treated with water;
and Waylite, which introduced a slag expanded with steam.219
By 1943 precast CMUs were used in more than 10 percent of
the nation's new homes per year. The material continued to be
used as a structural system and wall material during the postwar
period, particularly for lower cost home building.290
During the 1950s and 1960s perforated precast concrete
block units became a popular feature of American architec-
ture. Used for both interiors and exteriors in postwar archi-
tecture, screen blocks were inexpensive, durable, stylish, and
adaptable to many uses. As an architectural screen, decora-
tive pierced concrete blocks could obscure fenestration and
walls while adding a stylistic touch to otherwise undecorated
modern structures. They also saw frequent use as privacy
fencing within the larger postwar subdivision landscape (see
Figures 96 and 97).29'
Architects Frank Lloyd Wright and his son Lloyd Wright were
among the first to experiment with pierced concrete walls. In
their mid -1920s textile -block houses, the Wrights filled pierced
blocks with glass to add windows within the houses' exterior
walls. Despite their early efforts, it was not until the 1950s that
perforated concrete blocks enjoyed widespread popularity.
The architect perhaps most responsible for the material's rise
to popular consciousness was Edward Durrell Stone. Stone
used his signature concrete block grille in the noteworthy 1956
American Institute of Architects (AIA) award-winning Stuart
Company headquarters in Pasadena, California, and the Amer-
ican embassy in New Delhi, India. Stone's frequent use of con-
crete grilles on widely publicized high -style buildings resulted
288 Pamela H. Simpson, Harry J. Hunderman, and Deborah Slaton,
"Concrete Block," Twentieth Century Building Materials, ed. Thomas C.
Jester (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995), 80-83.
289 Simpson, Hunderman, and Slaton, 82-83.
290Alfred Bruce and Harold Sandbank, A History of Prefabrication
(Raritan, N.J.: John B. Pierce Foundation, Housing Research Division,
September 1945), 40.
29'Anthony Rubano, "The Grille is Gone: The Rise and Fall of Screen
Block;' Preserving the Recent Past Z 109-117.
4
83
Figure 96. Concrete screen providing increased
privacy at the rear patio of this c. 1966, Worthington
Hills, Ohio, Ranch house (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 97. Concrete screen at the front entrance
of a c. 1964 Ranch house in Sacramento, California
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
in increased popularity of perforated concrete block for more
modest, vernacular buildings. The material was frequently
used for detailing store fronts, partitioning offices, fencing
parking lots, and constructing half -walls (such as fences or at
entryways) for many single-family residences.292
In the mid- 1950s,17 of California's largest block manufactur-
ers combined into Quality Block Producers. They initiated mar-
ket studies and publicity campaigns in an effort to appeal to both
prospective home buyers and existing homeowners looking for
a way to renovate or brighten their house. Quality Block Pro-
ducers' marketing efforts cleverly associated the concrete screen
block with Californian lifestyle and the "Populuxe" style. Con-
crete screen blocks were intensely popular during the postwar
period, but by the late 1960s, the material was becoming passe 293
Simulated Stone. Simulated stone products of the post-
war period can be understood as an extension of previous
292Rubano, 110-111.
291Rubano, 111-114.
84
Figure 98. Simulated stone on facade of a c. 1945
Minimal Traditional house in Lansing, Michigan
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
efforts to imitate masonry. From late -nineteenth-century cast
stone to early -twentieth-century rock -faced concrete block,
numerous efforts had been made to simulate stone. However,
the products of the Depression era and postwar period, which
were comprised of a variety of materials including cement,
minerals, epoxy, and fiber glass, provided a more flexible
product. Using an established technology, simulated stone
products were popular in many styles and forms of postwar
residential construction, particularly as a facade treatment.
Typically manufactured on site and applied as a facing mate-
rial, these products were marketed for both new construc-
tion and home renovation projects as an easy way to update
a building's exterior (see Figure 98).294
One of the best known of the proprietary simulated stone
products is Perma-Stone, produced by the Perma-Stone
Company of Columbus, Ohio, which is often considered
the "originator of moulded stone wall -facing.' 195 A cementi-
tious product, Perma-Stone was marketed and sold through
trained dealers by 1929. The company provided molds and
materials, including portland cement, aggregate, crushed
quartz, mineral colors, and metallic hardeners, to dealers
across the country who installed the product. The success
of Perma-Stone led to the growth of competing companies
and innovations in simulated stone products. Formstone, a
product of the Lasting Products Company in Baltimore, was
first available in 1937. The on-site manufacture and applica-
tion of Formstone was done by registered contractors who
were trained by the company. Another competitor was the
Rostone Company of Lafayette, Indiana. Made of pressurized
shale, alkaline earths, quarry waste (lime), and water, Ros-
tone was first used on the Wieboldt-Rostone House for the
294Ann Milkovich McKee, "Stonewalling America: Simulated Stone
Products," CRM No. 8, 1995, 30-33.
"McKee, 30.
Century of Progress Exhibition of 1933. While concrete was
the most frequently used base material for simulated stone in
the postwar period, fiber reinforced plastic panels became an
available alternative by 1960. For instance, the product Terox
was "moulded in dies cast from selected quarry stone" and
colored with pigments to imitate stone.296
Simulated stone could be manufactured off site or mixed
on site and then applied to existing houses or used for new
construction. These products capitalized on the signifying
power of stone as a product of wealth and stability, and were
marketed to middle-class America as an inexpensive material
and way to enjoy the prominence of stone. Like aluminum,
simulated stone companies advertised their product as main-
tenance free, fireproof, and energy efficient, thus appealing
to buyers looking for an inexpensive product for their new
home or their modernizing renovation project. Perma-Stone,
Formstone, and Rostone saw their popularity peak in the
1950s and decline by the 1980s as mass-produced aluminum
and vinyl siding overtook the market.297
c. Wood
Fiberboard. Fiberboard is a sheet building material
comprised of wood fiber and/or other vegetable fiber. It can
be manufactured in numerous densities and thicknesses and
has been used historically for insulation, sheathing, and fin-
ishing of both interiors and exteriors. There are three cat-
egories of fiberboard: insulation board, medium density
fiberboard, and hardboard. Fiberboard was often laminated.
Both mechanically produced and chemically processed fiber-
boards were treated with adhesives to prevent termite dam-
age and fungal growth. Additional materials, such as rosin,
turpentine, asbestos, and asphalt, could be incorporated
into the processing to improve tensile strength or resistance
to water, fire, and vermin. The greater density of hardboard
was accomplished by applying increased pressure and higher
temperatures during processing. As a building product, fiber-
board is best known by its trade names, including Masonite,
Homasote, American Wallboard, Beaver Board, Cornell
Board, Feltex, Fir-tex, Insulite, Nu -Wood, Upson Board, and
others.29s
Although fiberboard was first patented in the United States
in 1858, housing shortages in the 1930s and during World
War II provided the impetus for continued development of
insulation and wallboard materials. Prior to World War II,
the Homasote Company of Trenton, New Jersey, developed
...Holly Hope, 44-45; McKee, 30-31.
297 McKee, 30-33.
"I Carol S. Gould, Kimberly A. Konrad, Kathleen Catalano Milley, and
Rebecca Gallagher, "Fiberboard," Twentieth Century BuildingMaterials,
ed. Thomas C. Jester (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995),120-122.
specific products for prefabricated housing. In particular,
their products and structural system enabled the quick erec-
tion of wartime homes needed to serve the defense indus-
try, including 977 homes constructed in 73 days in Vallejo,
California, and 54 houses erected each day for a community
of 5,000 single-family homes in Norfolk, Virginia.
The fiberboard industry responded to the postwar hous-
ing crisis by developing rapid production and finishing tech-
niques in order to mass produce insulation boards. Some of
the techniques included applying paints, lacquers, plastics, and
metals to improve boards for interior and exterior finishing.
By 1957 more than 600 patents existed for fiberboard -related
products, ranging from architectural products to furniture.
Emphasizing fiberboard's ability to lower home-building
costs, a Time Magazine article from 1958 recognized the inno-
vations behind a Masonite product featuring wall sections
with built-in insulation. The product also included an exte-
rior hardboard surface with an interior plastic -coated surface,
soundproof ceilings in composition sections, and an exterior
paint by Du Pont with a 20 -year lifetime .219 The fiberboard
industry witnessed increased competition from plywood and
particleboard companies beginning in the 1960s.300
Plywood. Assembled of hardwood or softwood veneers
bonded by an adhesive, plywood is recognized for its resistance
to splitting, ability to be molded into curves, high strength -
to -weight ratio, and stability. As such, it was well suited for
architectural purposes, both structural and decorative. First
patented in 1865, plywood panels were most frequently used
for furniture, door panels, sewing machine covers, and pin
planks in pianos during the late nineteenth century. It was not
until World War I, when testing was done to develop plywood
for airplane construction that the plywood industry began
to develop more rapidly. The growth of plywood as a struc-
tural material was inherently linked to the quality of adhesive
used to glue the veneers. In the 1930s experiments and test-
ing improved upon the properties of incorporated adhesives
in order to offer water resistance. Other important manufac-
turing advances occurred during World War II, including the
development of electronic heating devices that could cure
plywood adhesives at lower temperatures without changing
the moisture content of the panels, and the development of
the bag molding process that enabled molding plywood into
curves. The greatest growth in the industry was seen after
World War II; between 1939 and 1947 the total output of
plywood increased 380 percent, and the number of plywood
manufacturers increased to 150 (from 50 in 1932).30'
299 "Housing: More for Less," Time Magazine, 27 October 1958.
300Gould, Konrad, Milley, and Gallagher, 121-124; Bruce and Sandbank, 59.
301 Thomas C. Jester, "Plywood," Twentieth Century Building Materials,
ed. Thomas C. Jester (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995),132-134.
85
Stressed -skin plywood is a type of structural plywood that is
formed with plywood sandwiched with layers of insulating or
finishing materials and glued under pressure to a thin -ribbed
frame to create a load-bearing unit. Foster Gunnison's pre-
fabricated housing company, located in New Albany, Indiana,
was an industry leader in the production of stressed -skin ply-
wood panels. The Gunnison Housing Corporation was the
first to use a moving production line for the manufacture of
stressed -skin plywood panels. The panels were 4 ft wide and
one-story tall with preinstalled doors and windows. Gunnison's
efforts to build prefabricated homes of plywood panels began
during the Depression and World War II eras, and at the peak
of the war, his factory produced 600 homes per month for war
housing projects. Gunnison Housing Corporation was pur-
chased by U.S. Steel in 1944, and the company continued to
manufacture stressed -skin plywood panel system houses for
their postwar prefabricated housing line (see Section G.3 for
more on Gunnison Homes).302 Another fabricator of stressed -
skin plywood prefabricated homes was TechBuilt Homes of
Boston. TechBuilt's system featured 4 -ft wide stressed -skin
plywood panels attached to a wood framing system.303
Although efforts were made to use plywood in prefab-
ricated houses, it was more widely used for sheathing and
subflooring. Facto ry-prefinished plywood panels were first
introduced by the U.S. Plywood Corporation in the mid -
1940s as Plankweld, and were used frequently through the
1950s. The panels were coated with a color compound and
sealed with either lacquer or a clear synthetic coating. Striated
panels were also produced for exterior sheathing under the
name Weldtex, which featured V-grooves.104 Plywood served
as a lower cost substitute for traditional wood siding in the
postwar years, with Texture 1-11 (frequently referred to as
T 1-11) as one of the best known examples.
d. Glass
Glass Block. Hollow glass block was first brought to the
commercial market by Structural Glass Corporation in 1929
just before the stock market crash. As a result of the Great
Depression, two major glass manufacturers, Owens Bottle
Company and Illinois Glass Company, merged into Owens-
Illinois of Toledo, Ohio. In 1932 the company produced the
first Owens-Illinois glass block, a machine -pressed, soda -lime
glass unit sealed with flat glass plates. This product was promi-
nently featured at Chicago's 1933 Century of Progress Fair in
the Owens-Illinois Company's glass block building. The com-
pany continued to innovate during the Depression years to
improve the strength and cost of the product. Competition
302 Crane, 9-10; Bruce and Sandbank, 64.
303 Crane, 10-11.
304 Jester, 135.
86
Figure 99. Raised Ranch house in Cozad, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1955, with curved glass block windows
near the entrance and at the basement level (Mead &
Hunt photograph).
also quickly developed from NewYork's Corning Glass Works,
which developed the Pyrex construction block in 1935. Corn-
ing Glass Works and Pittsburgh Plate Glass merged to manu-
facture Pyrex blocks under the Pittsburgh -Corning Company
name, and featured the block in their Manhattan headquar-
ters building. 105
Glass block was quickly adopted for residential use as
manufacturers and architects developed applications for the
home. Common uses included framing plate glass windows,
rounding off building corners, constructing entire end walls
of glass block, and combinations of glass block and steel
casements for operating windows (see Figure 99). Resistant
to mold, mildew, and grease, glass block also saw increased
use in bathrooms and kitchens. Although glass block was
used during the postwar period for residential construction,
its heyday was in the 1930s. Nonetheless, Owens-Illinois and
Pittsburgh -Corning continued to develop new glass block
products in the 1950s, including the ceramic -faced and blue -
tinted glass block (Owens-Illinois) and the redevelopment of
rectangular glass blocks (Pittsburgh-Corning).306
Fiberglass. The development of fiberglass insulation
for residential construction was the result of innovation
during the Depression and World War II eras. In 1932 Dale
Kleist, a scientist with Owens-Illinois, a leader in develop-
ing and marketing new glass products, began experimenting
with methods to melt glass rods. During his experiment, he
unexpectedly produced a fine glass fiber. Predicting that this
sos Elizabeth A. Patterson and Neal A. Vogel, "The Architecture of Glass
Block;' Old -House Journal, January -February 2001, 221-226.
106 Patterson and Vogel, 221-226.
product could have many uses, Owens-Illinois and Corning
Glass Works, the country's premier manufacturers of glass
products, formed a joint venture in 1935. By 1937 the part-
nership had developed numerous new products, including
the first continuous filament fibers. The following year, the
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Company was incorporated to
manufacture glass -fiber products for residential construc-
tion and industry and to develop related technologies. World
War II provided the well-timed arena for developing these
new technologies, including manufactured insulation and
fireproof materials for naval ships and aircraft. After the war
ended, Owens-Corning Fiberglass' business boomed as it
converted from wartime production. In particular, the com-
pany expanded into new home construction with its new
process for manufacturing building insulation and its distri-
bution of Kaylo fiberglass pipes. Highlighting its signature
insulation product, Owens-Corning launched its "Comfort
Conditioned Home" marketing campaign in 1957 to pro-
mote fiberglass insulation in homes across the country. The
company continued to dominate the market for fiberglass
home insulation throughout the postwar period. 107
Another use of fiberglass during the postwar period was
for home improvement projects. The Glasteel Company of
California is one company that promoted fiberglass panels
for use as garage doors, carports, fences, pool enclosures,
patio and porch roofs, balcony railings and dividers, green-
houses, room partitions, folding doors and screens, window
awnings and canopies, and luminous ceilings. Marketed as
easy to work with, shatter proof, weather resistant, and dura-
ble, the Glasteel Company's products included translucent
panels in a variety of configurations, including corrugated,
twin rib, flat, shiplap, and alternating curves. The products
were also available in a number of colors such as tan, green,
yellow, turquoise, mint, white, coral, and clear. Within their
illustrated advertisements, the Glasteel Company provided
instructions to the home improvement enthusiast for con-
structing fencing, patio, carport or porch roofs, greenhouses,
and awnings of fiberglass panels.301
Glass Panes. One of the defining features of postwar
residential architecture is the incorporation of elevated and
broad expanses of glass panes, particularly in picture win-
dows, casement windows, and sliding glass windows and
doors. One of the most innovative window manufacturers
of the period was the Andersen Corporation of Bayport,
Minnesota. Although the company got its start in the 1900s
i°'"Owens Corning Corporation: Company History, Funding Universe,
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Owens-Corning-
Corporation-Company-History.html (accessed 10 March 2011).
sos Glasteel, Inc., A Guide for Building with Glasteel Fiberglass Panels"
(El Monte, Calif: Glasteel, Inc., [1957]).
I�
Dw aro Andnr.rn bedal, I.Iur 1S"iadirw s
rwtt Ihr 1 Q87 Trend Marne.. Feel will rn+lirr at
that tlw rail in the rtaner al the winbrw i. moph
Ist"lrrr rd the fomlly r4411 Y ratl. theta I. MI uL.lrauli
*vr Irtrl. Antion"t wirulow. arr Ihr finrw witalowo timid
they Rite You 1he nolural lawaly al wool plus lire iraatl
wlaalil,f of wraad- All of Ila, wrael a rluaa"lfy In rind of
tMNnlrr« awl drray, Tln.w wtmh+wl air de.iiprhd for a mod
an, and walm lwlspa. F.arll window i* mmp"r will
.ttilrpoal and erinllrfatil milli f"Iil.laarftll welded Inrolitintl I
'year oill nr+rr hese u0rhsap filial. QUIP trUIIIII WIMW i
wisulowtr nr »errant 71w am-ruainp alnmltmm aermm
as intt+Iltal $art at 11W window unit sad IlwunI iitae
bare to he rwrnnwal i. at if* ltme of nle"111% 4 frail"
SYlndea. illy the itagtsl nit.idr thtreer, a n
rlap and tluruyiityl, arr Muedtal part. of the hwnrae
he mtdlyr at as.ily rdianimd witlurul o ladle rant tu
owner. That w why 9tnu.. linty "Se lite
fltlaw wi+
aldw Alaleiara R"i 4mm rm Anderml corliartilion it
opnlard a. ear of tier leading mauuf r,afutwtr of Waal will
me IITte rgrld.
Figure 100. Details regarding Andersen Beauty Line windows from Strauss Brother's 1957
promotional booklet.
with the development of a mass-produced window frame, its
innovations during the Great Depression and World War II
contributed greatly to the period's architecture. After initiat-
ing standard window sizes across the industry, the Andersen
Corporation began developing the first prefabricated win-
dow unit in 1932. As a result, a finished window could be
installed in a matter of minutes. During World War II, the
corporation converted to making gun cases and ammuni-
tion boxes. To speed up production, the Andersen Corpora-
tion developed high-speed machines to cut the parts quickly
and to spray -paint and mark parts before assembly. After the
war, the company transferred its machinery and produc-
tion techniques back to window manufacturing. New post-
war concepts in window design developed by the Andersen
Corporation included a "Pressure Seal" window, which elim-
inated pulley -and -weight systems; a gliding window; a pic-
ture window flanked by casements, which was advertised as a
"Window Wall"; and a new awning window called "Flexivent"
(see Figure 100).309
Using marketing techniques, such as Andersen Corpora-
tion's Home Planner's Scrap Book during World War II, com-
panies played on consumer frustration that building materials
were unavailable. Manufacturers, including Andersen, sold
scrapbooks for consumers to save ideas for future construc-
tion, essentially serving as a dream book for home planners.
To promote Andersen Corporation's product, the scrapbook
included a section on "Window Beauty Ideas.' By the end of the
309 Andersen Corporation;' Funding Universe, http://www.fundinguniverse.
com/company-histories/Andersen-Corporation-Company-Historyhtml
(accessed 10 March 2011); Clark, 194-196.
87
war, more than 350,000 copies of the scrapbook had been sold,
and not surprisingly the advertising techniques succeeded as
Andersen saw its market share grow considerably during the
postwar period. In particular, its growth in the 1950s was
fueled by the development of the Flexivent awning window
in 1952, which featured welded insulating glass that effec-
tively eliminated the need for conventional storm windows.
The Flexivent window was originally available in nine sizes,
and a follow-up Flexiview picture window was introduced
in 1954 (see Figure 101). By 1958 the Andersen Corporation
offered Flexivent windows in 15 sizes and picture windows in
three sizes. Within 2 years of releasing the Flexivent awning
window in 1952, the Andersen Corporation's market share
doubled, and by 1963 more than 10 million Flexivent win-
dows had been manufactured and sold. During the 1960s the
company introduced the gliding door and Perma-shield sys-
tem, which featured a low -maintenance vinyl cladding to pro-
tect wood sashes from exposure to the elements. According to
Figure 101. Grouping of 12 Flexivent windows on
the rear elevation of a c. 1953 Ranch home in Lincoln,
Nebraska (Mead & Hunt photograph).
88
the company, this vinyl -clad window was its most important
innovation, and became an industry standard.310
e. Plastics
As with many of the materials previously discussed, inno-
vations in plastics occurred during the Depression and World
War II eras as manufacturers looked for cheaper and more
durable building materials. Exhibitions at Chicago's 1933
Century of Progress and the 1939 New York World's Fair
demonstrated many of these new products, including plas-
tics. As a result of these innovations, plastics became a com-
mon material in the postwar home, particularly in interior
furnishings and built-ins. For example, Formica, which was
invented in 1913 as an insulating material, was improved
upon and adopted as a popular counter -top surface in the
postwar home. Clear Lucite was often used in custom fur-
niture in the 1950s, and Bakelite was re -designed and mar-
keted in bright new colors during the period for use as drawer
knobs, light bulb sockets, handles, radios, and jewelry." '
Fiber Reinforced Plastics. Fiber reinforced plastics (FRPs)
can be comprised of a variety of polymers, including acrylics,
vinyls, polyolefins, phenolics, and polyesters, in combination
with reinforcing fibers such as asbestos, carbon fibers, and glass
fibers. For building applications, glass fibers with polyester res-
ins are the most typical combination and are often referred to as
fiberglass. Because glass fibers were not manufactured until the
late 1930s by Owens-Corning, FRPs were not used frequently
until World War II. Between 1941 and 1942 the introduction
of cold low-pressure molding resin polyesters and allyl digly-
col carbonate, a low-pressure laminating resin, transformed
the industry and enabled the use of glass fibers for reinforce-
ments. Within 2 years, Winner Manufacturing was fabricating
FRP boats, and the war continued to spur interest and develop-
ment of this new material. Following World War II, the material
proved well suited for the building industry.
Corrugated fiber reinforced translucent sheets were the
dominant form of the material in the building industry and
were introduced in the late 1940s. By the mid-1960s the two
major FRP products were Sanpan panels, manufactured by
Panel Structures of East Orange, New Jersey, and Kalwall pan-
els, manufactured by Kalwall Corporation of Manchester, New
Hampshire. During the postwar years, the development of FRPs
focused on the material's plasticity and moldability, as well as its
adaptability to structural applications using sandwiched con -
31° Andersen Corporation'; Clark, 196; Andersen Windows and Doors,
"Product Features and History," http://www.andersenwindows.com/
homeowner/pdfs/History.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011).
31 Shirley Maxwell and James C. Massey, "From Dark Times to Dream
Houses," Old -House Journal (September -October 1999), 187.
struction techniques. FRP was also developed as a wall cladding
for buildings with steel or concrete structural frames, roofing
trim, gutters and flashing, corrugated sheeting, roof lights, and
plastic forms for concrete. Moreover, FRP was often used on
interior walls to create a sanitary wall surface in moisture -prone
and hard -to -clean areas such as kitchens and bathrooms.3'2
Vinyl Siding. Vinyl siding was first introduced as wall
cladding in the late 1950s to early 1960s by a manufacturing
plant in Columbus, Ohio.313 Manufactured primarily with
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), vinyl siding's properties include
impact resistance, rigidity, and strength. Vinyl siding was
initially plagued by manufacturing difficulties that resulted
in an inconsistent product. However, by the early 1970s the
manufacturing process had evolved to improve the product's
speed of production, impact resistance, and range of pre -
applied colors. The manufacturing process is accomplished
by co -extrusion, whereby two layers of PVC are laid down
in a continuous extrusion process. The top layer includes
approximately 10 percent titanium dioxide, which is a pig-
ment providing resistance to UV light breakdown. The sub-
strate layer typically features 15 percent calcium carbonate,
which balances the titanium dioxide during the manufactur-
ing process. The weight of vinyl siding is predominately PVC
resin (80 percent), with the remaining 20 percent composed
of ingredients that establish color, opacity, gloss, impact resis-
tance, flexibility, and durability. Although vinyl siding was
introduced primarily as a remodeling wall cladding material,
its use grew steadily over the next decades, and it is now the
most commonly used siding product in the United States, as
it surpassed aluminum siding in the early 1980s.314
2. Mass Production, Standardization,
and Prefabrication
Although the prefabricated, mass-produced house is often
associated with the post -World War II period, its history is
heavily routed in the Depression era, which gave rise to many
new material and technological innovations as a way to lower
the cost of housing.315 For instance, U.S. Steel, American Rolling
312 Anthony J. T. Walker, "Fiber Reinforced Plastic;' Twentieth Century
Building Materials, ed. Thomas C. Jester (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995),
142-146.
313 The name of the independent manufacturing plant is unknown.
314 Vinyl Siding Institute, "History," American Vinyl Siding Institute, http://
www.vinylsiding.org/aboutsiding/history/index.asp (accessed 10 March
2011); "Brief History of Aluminum and Vinyl Siding;' House Home
Repair, http://www.houschomerepair.com (accessed 1 April 2011).
313 Prefabrication, particularly in the sense of pre-cut and ready -built
homes, did exist as early as the nineteenth century; however, it was not until
the Depression and World War II eras that efforts to prefabricate housing
resulted in a wholesale modernization of the home-building industry.
Mills, and Republic Steel used housing subsidiaries to develop
steel housing suitable for prefabrication; the Harnischfeger
Corporation, a Milwaukee machinery manufacturer, applied its
manufacturing processes to attempt mass-produced housing;
and plywood companies sought new ways to use their product
(see Section G.3 for more information on the Harnischfeger
Corporation). Despite their innovations, none of these compa-
nies, or the many others tackling the problem of prefabricated
housing and new materials, achieved great production volumes
prior to World War II.316
In addition to corporate development, several non-
commercial foundations experimented with prefabricated
housing prior to World War II. The Albert Farwell Bemis Foun-
dation, established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1938, continued the work of Albert Bemis of Bemis Indus-
tries, who experimented with structural materials and construc-
tion methods throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Even prior to
a growing national interest in prefabrication, Bemis Industries
experimented with steel, gypsum blocks, precast gypsum slabs
for walls, and composition board and steel panels for houses.
Bemis Industries also advocated the development of modular
systems for home building in order to simplify construction
by using standard repetitive members. 117 The John B. Pierce
Foundation of New York City also contributed greatly to the
early prefabrication movement during the 1920s and 1930s.
The foundation, endowed by John B. Pierce, Vice President of
the American Radiator Company, was chartered to promote
scientific and technical improvements in heating, ventilation,
and sanitation. The Foundation also expanded its work to pro-
mote economic uses of building materials to provide a home
at the lowest cost possible. In addition to materials, the Pierce
Foundation also studied the most efficient floor plans for low-
cost housing. Completing a review of work by other agencies,
the Foundation concluded in the early 1940s that a single -story,
24 -ft by 28 -ft house would become standard in prefabrication.31'
The federal government was also involved with the move-
ment to develop materials and systems for prefabricated
housing. In particular, the Bureau of Standards in the Depart-
ment of Commerce undertook tests of structural methods,
materials, equipment, and prefabricators to establish univer-
sal standards throughout the industry. Additionally, the Forest
Products Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service, located in Madison, Wisconsin, continued its
research and development and testing of wood, especially ply-
wood, as applied to prefabrication methods."'
Through its purchase of prefabricated dwellings for war
workers, the federal government helped push the prefabricated
"'Bruce and Sandbank, 6-9.
"'Bruce and Sandbank, 10-11.
"'Bruce and Sandbank, 11-12.
31'Bruce and Sandbank, 13-14.
89
movement from a period of experimentation to mass produc-
tion. In the immediate postwar years, the U.S. government
continued its involvement with the housing and prefabrica-
tion industries in an effort to alleviate the country's acute
housing shortage. The 1946 Veterans' Emergency Housing Act
included federal funding and material allocations for prefabri-
cated housing companies. Moreover, the Truman administra-
tion appointed Wilson Wyatt to be Federal Housing Expediter;
his mandate was to solve the postwar housing crisis. Wyatt
promised to stimulate construction by providing subsidies for
producers of factory -built homes and new materials. With the
1946 Veterans' Emergency Housing Act and the RFC's federal
loans for the erection of large prefabricated housing plants,
Wyatt paved the way for increased numbers of prefabricated
home companies. By 1947 nearly 100 prefabrication compa-
nies were operating across the country, and in the same year,
the prefabricated home companies Kaiser Community Homes
of Los Angeles, California, and National Homes of Lafayette,
Indiana, constructed 2,500 houses. Subsequent legislation in
the 1950s, including Congress' 1951 authorization of loans to
facilitate prefabricated home production, bolstered the indus-
try. Prefabricated home construction peaked in the mid-1950s,
comprising nearly 10 percent of total American housing pro-
duction at its height.310
The factory -built or prefabricated home represented
America's industrial power and mass production capabilities.
Innovators, manufacturers, and developers such as Foster
Gunnison (of Gunnison Homes) and William Levitt aspired
to large-scale mass production and standardization after the
model of Henry Ford. Through economies of scale, mass pro-
duction provided lower cost housing while also eliminating
the inefficiencies of on-site home building.32' William Levitt
of Levitt and Sons, in particular, exemplifies trends in large-
scale home building.
Using his experience building low-cost housing for gov-
ernment defense developments during World War Il, Levitt
began to experiment with standardization, mass production,
and large-scale home building. In 1947 Levitt purchased
1,400 acres of farmland in Long Island, New York, and began
to develop the first of several Levittowns. Within a year he
was erecting more than 35 houses per day and 150 houses per
week by using an assembly line technique. By 1950 Levitt's
crews could erect a house every 16 minutes. His home con-
struction system began with the delivery of packaged mate-
rials at 100 -ft intervals in the development, followed by the
excavation of rectangular foundations in which heating pipes
were installed. Afterward, each home site became an assem-
bly line of sorts, as crew members, materials, and machines
321 Crane, 3-4; Lauber, 17-19; Checkoway, 31-32; Maxwell and Massey,
"From Dark Times to Dream Houses," 187.
321 Crane, 1-2.
90
moved past each home site in teams, each team repeatedly
performing one of 26 operations. Each part of the house was
pre -assembled, prefabricated, or precut to specification in the
factory and then assembled on site.
Not only did Levitt incorporate assembly line production,
he used vertical organization to help standardize the process
and reduce costs. Levitt's own company supplied the lumber,
which was cut from his timber using his equipment to the
exact specifications and sizes required for the house. Nails
and concrete blocks were manufactured at a Levitt -owned
factory. Materials that were not produced by Levitt were
delivered directly from manufacturers in order to eliminate
the middle -man and inevitable cost mark-ups. By reducing
charges and acting as his own supplier, Levitt eliminated the
potentially costly distribution web .121
In addition to large builders such as Levitt and Sons, who
perfected the methods for on-site mass production, a number
of prefabricated housing companies changed the residential
landscape. Immediately following the war, numerous compa-
nies produced and marketed steel or aluminum prefabricated
houses; however, wood, in general, was the preferred housing
material for both prefabricated and conventional methods.
Changes in technology and manufacturing led to the adop-
tion of the panelized method of construction during the
postwar period, a contrast from the preferred pre-cut lumber
construction method of twentieth century catalogue homes.
The panelized method involved large, factory -constructed,
wall -height panels that would be joined on-site with nails or
patented joinery methods. By the early 1950s, these panels
were typically made of stressed -skin plywood. 121
Between 1945 and 1960 more than 800,000 prefabricated
homes were erected across the country, particularly on sub-
urban lots in the upper Midwest. The states of Indiana, Illinois,
and Ohio were the center of the prefabricated home industry
and home to companies such as Lustron, Gunnison, and U.S.
Steel. The home designs of specific prefabricated manufactur-
ers are discussed in Section G.3. Although prefabricated hous-
ing, standardization techniques, and mass production did not,
on their own, solve the postwar housing crisis, they were sig-
nificant trends in home building during the period. With gov-
ernment support, prefabricated home companies and material
fabricators utilizing standardization methods developed into
solid businesses serving customers across the country. 124
3. Conclusion
The proliferation of new and innovative building materi-
als during the postwar period, resulting from experimenta-
322 Checkoway, 26-27.
323 Crane, 4-5.
324 Crane, 1; Wright, 245-246.
tion during the Great Depression and World War II, greatly
impacted the design, construction, appearance, and market-
ing of the postwar house. Coupled with these new materials
was the invigoration of prefabrication and mass produc-
tion techniques to meet the increased postwar demand for
housing. In addition to the materials discussed, a number of
already established cladding materials continued to be used
during the post -World War II period, including asbestos,
shingle siding, and stucco. Exterior cladding and regional dif-
ferences in material usages are addressed herein as the post-
war home is discussed in greater detail.
G. Architecture, Site, and Landscape
The majority of homes constructed during the 1940s
through 1970s displayed the popular architectural forms and
styles of the period, resulting in a similar appearance regardless
of their location. This uniformity was a result of close adher-
ence to FHA guidelines by local and regional builders, the
ready availability of standardized building materials, and the
influence of plan books and nationally distributed magazines
that promoted the architectural styles of the era. As a result,
with the exception of regional variations in materials and set-
ting, Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Split-level homes built
across the country looked alike (see Figures 102 and 103).
The form and layout of popular homes of the postwar era
were greatly influenced by the concept of livability. The early
FHA small houses were praised for their livability, and these
compact homes became the basis for the architectural styles
and forms that evolved during the following decades. The
Ranch house, which came to dominate the postwar era, best
represented this concept of livability with its open and casual
floorplan and incorporation of outdoor living spaces.
Figure 102. Ranch house in Westminster, Colorado,
with a hip roof, partial brick veneer, recessed
entrance with decorative wrought iron details, and
decorative shutters (photograph courtesy of Dianna
Litvak, Colorado Department of Transportation).
ply..
Figure 103. Ranch house in Upper Arlington, Ohio,
constructed c. 1955, with a hip roof, brick veneer,
recessed entrance with decorative wrought iron details,
and decorative shutters (Mead & Hunt photograph).
1. Residential Design Characteristics
As the FHA influenced the design of suburbs, it also greatly
influenced standard residential designs of the period. In the
1936 edition of Principles of Planning Small Houses, the FHA
provided minimum requirements related to the design and
construction of homes. 125 The small house, defined as having no
more than six rooms, was an attempt to minimize the cost of a
single-family home and create a livable space that met the needs
of the family. In reducing the size of the house, many features of
pre -Depression era homes were eliminated, such as fireplaces;
room size and storage areas were reduced; room functions were
combined; and, in some cases, basements were eliminated .116
During the early 1920s, when the American economy was
recovering from World War I, the FHA developed guidelines
for small houses that continued to influence residential con-
struction in the postwar era and were revised periodically.
During the postwar era, the FHA relied on these minimum
standards as developers and builders constructed large num-
bers of low-cost homes to meet the increased housing demand.
The 1936 edition of Principles of Planning Small Houses
included five house types that offered "a range in comfort of
living" with slightly increased sizes. 127 The exterior designs
of these homes were conventional in appearance and mim-
icked "traditional" architecture, including a simpler form
of the Colonial Revival style that had been popular in the
previous decades, often referred to as Minimal Traditional.
However, the interiors were newly modern as they incorpo-
rated updated kitchen and bath designs as well as modern
plumbing and electrical systems. The concept of the tradi-
325 Ames and McClelland, 61.
Sze United States Department of Labor, New Housing and Its Materials,
1940-56, Bulletin No. 1231 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1958), 3.
327Ames and McClelland, 61.
91
Figure 104. Minimal Traditional house in Madison,
Wisconsin, constructed c. 1945, with Colonial Revival
details, including the decorative pendants and
compass window (Mead & Hunt photograph).
tional exterior and modern interior was promoted in Good
Housekeeping in 1945: "We believe a house can be completely
modern in plan and equipment but still retain the friendli-
ness and charm of traditional design 121
The five house types in the FHA's 1936 publication began with
the most basic and scaled up in small increments. House A, which
became known as the "FHA minimum house,' was a one-story,
two-bedroom, 534 -square -ft house. Its average cost was esti-
mated at $1,200 to $1,500 depending on the exterior treatments,
which could include wood siding or shingles, brick, stucco, or
stone. The FHA advised that the house should be set on a con-
crete slab on grade rather than a basement, which would increase
costs. House B had a slightly larger floorplan, with 624 ft2 of liv-
ing space. It was similar to House A, but the living room and
kitchen were separated. FHA sketches included both a gable roof
and hip roof version. Houses C and D were similar to House B:
both had two bedrooms, but they were located on the second
story along with the bathroom. House D included an optional
detached garage, connected to the house by a covered walkway.
The largest type, House E, featured three second story bedrooms.
The exterior designs included in the publication for all five types
feature classically inspired entrances, which were an attempt "to
demonstrate that houses of this sort may be attractively designed
without excessive ornamentation" (see Figure 104).329
Across the U.S., companies and builders developed plans
for the "small house" during the 1940s and 1950s, following
the requirements set forth by the FHA. To make up for the
compact size and small space, the following factors were taken
32sAs quoted in Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving
PostwarDwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer
World 1945-1970,130.
329 United States Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Planning
Small Houses (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1936),
24-33; Ames and McClelland, 62.
92
Table 4. Average house sizes by year.
Year
Average square footage
1940
1,177
1950
983
1954
1,140
1955
1,170
1956
1,230
1970
1,400
1975
1,645
Source: United States Department of Labor, New Housing and Its Materials, 1940-56, 27;
U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
(accessed 4 April 2011).
into consideration: minimizing the use of interior partitions
to increase the room size; adding the appearance of height
through the use of floor -length windows, skylights, and open
ceilings; minimizing hall space by incorporating it into other
rooms; utilizing built-ins and storage walls; grouping rooms by
function; isolating the private "quiet" areas of home; and plan-
ning the circulation and zoning to include adequate receiving
space at the main entrance .330
The FHA house types could be placed on lots as narrow as
35 ft, although 40 ft was the preferred minimum width. The
1936 version of Principles of Planning Small Houses included
an illustrated layout for a two-story house with a detached
garage on a lot measuring 50 ft wide by 100 ft long. Both the
FHA and ULI advised developers to consider lot conditions,
vistas, sunlight, and prevailing breezes when siting homes.
The kitchen was to be protected from the afternoon sun, if
possible, and the living room and bedrooms were to have
sunlight during part of the day. Garage placement was recom-
mended to be near the front of the yard and attached to the
house by a shared wall or covered walkway. This placement
provided maximum space in the backyard and shortened the
driveway, thereby reducing the cost.331
During the postwar baby boom, as the birth rate increased
and average family size grew, the small size of a typical house
was perceived as a limitation, and the demand for a larger
house emerged. The Ranch house, with its increased square
footage and more bedrooms and baths, was seen as an answer
for growing families in a time of economic prosperity.332
130Norman Cherner, Fabricating Houses From Component Parts (New
York Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1957), 17-18.
331 United States Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Plan-
ning Small Houses (1936), 34-35; Community Builders' Council of the
Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Handbook (1954), 101.
332 California Department of Transportation, Tract Housing in Cali-
fornia, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation (Sacra-
mento, Calif.: California Department of Transportation, 2011), 71. By
the mid-1960s the average house was 1,500 ft2 or 50 percent larger than
the average house constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
The massing of the Ranch expanded to create a one-story
rambling floorplan occupying the larger suburban lots that
were predominant in the 1950s and 1960s. The Ranch form
and other modern and spacious styles of housing quickly
came to dominate postwar architecture beginning in the
mid-1950s.
The transition away from the small, or Minimal Tradi-
tional, house led to an increase in house sizes as measured
by square footage. In 1940 the average detached single-family
house was 1,177 ft' with five rooms. By 1950 the average size
had decreased to 983 ft'. A significant spike in home con-
struction in 1950, as compared to 1940, may have affected the
average size."' Beginning in the mid-1950s, the average size
began an upward trajectory (see Table 4). With this increased
square footage came an increased number of bedrooms and
bathrooms. In 1950 only 34 percent of homes had three bed-
rooms; however, this number had increased to 70 percent by
1956.334
The design of postwar homes specifically responded to
the needs of the young family. Although Ranch houses of
the 1950s featured less square footage than the average 1920s
house, their one-story layout was well suited to women who
envisioned fewer trips up and down stairs and were attracted
by the advertised modern conveniences. 335 Also key to the
postwar home design was an open floor plan based on zoned
planning that granted the housewife the visibility required to
watch her children play in the living room from her perch in
the kitchen or dining area. Similarly, large picture windows
and sliding glass doors provided both visual and physical
access to the backyard and the patios that became outdoor
extensions of indoor living space.
333 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 151, 183.
334 United States Department of Labor, New Housing and Its Materials,
1940-56,3.
335 Wright, 251.
Although the public areas of the house featured minimal
walls and openness, bedrooms in the postwar house were
enclosed in the traditional fashion and discretely separated
from the family area of the house. Split-level houses, in par-
ticular, segregated function by putting bedrooms on a dif-
ferent half -level up or down from the recreation room. The
parents' bedroom was often isolated from the children's area.
In separating children from parents in both bedrooms and
recreational rooms, the postwar house became the "first
child -oriented architecture in American history. 1,116
In developing the ideal home for the modern family, some
builders surveyed potential home buyers and young fami-
lies to identify the features they felt were important in resi-
dential design. The majority of new home buyers wanted a
new house rather than an older home or apartment, with a
modern floor plan and appliances, large windows or patio
doors, and an outdoor patio area. 117 The Strauss Brothers of
Lincoln, Nebraska, used the survey approach when develop-
ing the Eastridge subdivision in Lincoln. The builders worked
with the University of Nebraska at Lincoln to survey modern
families on the features they were looking for in a home. Their
design team then incorporated these ideas into a limited num-
ber of models and floorplans, which the builder then mar-
keted. Known as Trendhomes, they featured open floor plans,
modern kitchens, attached carports and garages, and patios."'
The one-story house came to dominate the postwar era.
The compact yet open floorplan was ideal for young families
with children and couples with grown children who wanted
a retirement home. There were several one-story floorplans
available to meet the needs of homebuyers, including the FHA
small house models, the modern Ranch form, and Contem-
porary styles with sprawling floorplans. A small percentage
of homes constructed during the period contained one -and -
one -half or two stories. The Minimal Traditional and Cape
Cod styles often had an additional half story that contained
bedrooms, or were left unfinished at the time of construc-
tion completion for the home buyer to finish at a later date.
The two-story floorplan was more popular in the Colonial
Revival and Split-level homes of the period. As a result of
the increased living space, two-story homes were typically
more expensive than their single -story counterparts and
were usually purchased by families in higher income brackets.
Multi -story homes were more popular in New England and
the Mid -Atlantic, representing 34 percent of the homes con-
structed in 1953. However, that same year they represented
336 Wright, 254-255; Clark, 212; Shirley Maxwell and James C. Massey,
"Postwar Houses and the Cape Cods and Split-levels of the 1940s,"
Old -House Journal (July -August 1992), 58.
337 Wright, 253-254.
33s Strauss Brothers, There's a New Trend in Lincoln, n.p.
93
less than 2 percent of the homes constructed in the southern
United States.339 This popularity in the east may be due in
part to the predominance and lingering influence of the more
traditional Colonial Revival style.
One of the more noticeable changes to residential design in
the postwar era is the removal of the front porch. Homebuy-
ers still wanted porches, but they preferred them at the back
where they had increased privacy. As a result, the traditional
porch shifted from its prominent location on the front to
the rear of the house, where it became the patio .140 Builders
were agreeable to eliminating the porch because they were an
added construction expense. The popular Cape Cod, Ranch,
and Split-level homes of the postwar era did not lend them-
selves to porch additions and most "outdoor living" improve-
ments were completed on the patio .141 See Section G.5. for
more information on patios.
a. Material Use
Although similar styles and forms were popular throughout
the country, regional variations influenced exterior materials,
as certain construction, siding, and roofing materials were
more common in particular areas of the country. Nationally,
wood had been the predominant exterior treatment during
the early postwar period; 35 to 45 percent of conventional
houses featured wood siding in 1950.342 Asbestos shingle
was also common between 1940 and 1950, partly due to the
scarcity of lumber during wartime rationing. However, brick
veneer became more popular than wood by 1956, with stucco
ranking as the second most popular material and wood as the
third. Brick houses were popular in the South and North Cen-
tral regions, as well as the Mid -Atlantic, and wood was more
common in the Northeast. Regional variations also include
stucco, which was predominant in the South and Southwest,
especially California. In addition to being an inexpensive
building material, stucco -on -frame construction was consid-
ered to be earthquake resistant. As discussed in Section F, alu-
minum siding also gained popularity in the postwar era and is
often an original exterior siding material on postwar homes. 141
339 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 169-170.
340 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 88.
341 Michael Dolan, The American Porch, An Informal History of an Infor-
mal Place (Guilford, Conn.: The Lyons Press, 2002), 231-234.
342 Carpenter and Guess, 96.
343 Murphy, 12-13. The Field Bill, passed by the California legislature in
1933, required that construction be designed to resist seismic distur-
bances. Under the bill, brick and other veneer construction was per-
mitted only if it conformed to strict standards.
94
Figure 105. Awning -style windows grouped to form
a picture window on a Jekyll Island, Georgia, Ranch
house (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department
of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division).
In 1940, nine out of 10 windows featured wood window
frames, with steel windows accounting for the second most
popular window frame material. By 1950 wood was still the
most dominate material, accounting for 69 percent of win-
dows, but steel accounted for 22 percent of windows, and
aluminum represented 5 percent. By 1955 wood was still the
most popular choice at 57 percent, but aluminum accounted
for 24 percent and steel had dropped to 16 percent. Also dur-
ing this period, an increased number of window types became
available. Double -hung and casement remained the two most
popular styles, followed by horizontal slide, picture, awning,
and jalousie windows (see Figure 105). The postwar trend
toward aluminum is witnessed by the use of the horizontal
slide, awning, and jalousie varieties.144
Asphalt shingles were the most common roof mate-
rial nationwide. However, wood shingles and built-up roofs
accounted for a large number of homes in the West, and tile
roofs were also more common where they fit with the Spanish
Colonial -influenced architectural styles. The built-up roof was
best suited for flat or low-pitched roofs, which were more com-
mon in areas with mild winters; however, built-up roofs were
used in the Midwest. The Eastridge subdivision in Lincoln,
Nebraska, utilized built-up roofs for the majority of homes,
comprised of four layers of roofing felt sandwiched between
asphalt and covered in crushed white rock to reflect the sun .141
b. Interior
The homes of the early twentieth century, including pre-
vious versions of the Colonial Revival style, distinguished
between the public or communal areas and the private areas,
specifically the bedrooms. The layout, referred to as two -zone,
344 Murphy, 6, 29.
341 Murphy, 6; Strauss Brothers, Eastridge, A Great Place to Live, n.p.
was designed for more formal use without much consideration
for informal family recreation. The FHA small house and other
homes constructed in the early postwar era, including the Min-
imal Traditional form and Colonial Revival style, maintained a
similar distinction between zones, with the bedrooms grouped
together at the rear or on the second story (see Figure 106).346
This standard interior layout changed with the introduc-
tion of the Ranch house, which utilized a three -zone layout
that provided for private areas and informal and formal liv-
ing areas (see Figure 107). The bedroom area did not change
much from its architectural predecessors and was removed
from the public areas by a hallway. The more public rooms,
including the living room, were located at the front of the
house, with the less formal rooms situated at the rear, adjacent
to the backyard and rear patio, which served as an extension of
the interior living space. The attached garage, which became a
common feature in the postwar era, was seen as an extension
of the informal living area, along with the outdoor yard and
patio .147 See Section G.5 for more information on patios.
The number of rooms in the postwar house decreased
with the open planning concept, which resulted in reducing
the number of interior walls to allow rooms to serve multiple
functions and small homes to feel more spacious. According to
Good Housekeepingmagazine, this practice of multi -purposing
rooms was attributed to "keeping with our new-found love for
easy, casual living.' 141 The formal entry way was often elimi-
nated in an attempt to add more living space to the floorplan,
and in many cases, the living room became the primary point
of entrance. Decorative shelving, planters, or interior screens
provided a separation between the entrance and the overall
living space .141
A great deal of thought went into the design and layout of
postwar kitchens, believed to be the most important factor in
the sale of a house. With the kitchen more than any other room,
women were able to influence the purchase of a home. An effi-
cient layout, ample light, and modern amenities and appli-
ances, such as dishwashers and garbage disposals, were critical
(see Figure 108).351 Overall, the planning and design took into
consideration the three main kitchen activities: food storage
and preparation, cooking and serving, and cleaning and dish
346 Rowe, 87.
347 Rowe, 89.
341 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,152.
349 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 158.
311 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,130-135.
95
r — BATH j UTILITY
ja
KITCHEN LO
BEDROOM
C1N r
DINING
ROOM
LIVING ROOM 1
BEDROOM
Figure 106. Typical Minimal Traditional floorplan, not to scale
(Mead & Hunt).
Figure 107. Typical Ranch floorplan, not to scale (Mead & Hunt).
96
Figure 108. A Wisconsin homemaker poses in her
c. 1950 kitchen with modern conveniences, including
a wall -mounted oven and television (photograph
courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Image
ID: 8406).
storage. Although floorplans differed, the layout of compo-
nents was important. It was understood that storage and coun-
ter space were essential, the sink should be placed between the
refrigerator and the range, the refrigerator and pantry should
be near the exterior door for easier unloading, and the range
should be nearer to the dining room for easier serving.35'
The formal dining room, a staple of the prewar house, was
displaced in some postwar homes. The open planning con-
cept and the general desire of housewives to feel less isolated
in the kitchen often resulted in a combined living -kitchen
space that included space for a dining table and chairs. 151 One
reason for the decline in dining rooms was the reevaluation of
interior rooms and their usage in relation to allocating build-
ing costs. As dining rooms were used less frequently with the
more casual approach to day-to-day living, they were deemed
unnecessary by many builders and home buyers.353 Where the
dining room was still in keeping with the open planning con-
cept, it was no longer a formal space and served other func-
tions, such as a secondary living room.
The postwar bathroom was also a modern selling point in
a home. A 1950 article in House & Garden magazine stated
"there is more to a new bathroom than a tub, toilet, and lava -
151 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,140-141.
351 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,202-204.
353 Kate Ellen Rogers, The Modern House, U.S.A. Its Design and Decora-
tion (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 147.
tory just as there is more to the kitchen than the range, refrig-
erator, and sink.' 154 Although it was still typically the smallest
room in the house, several postwar innovations were expected
to become standard, including in -wall hampers, fluorescent
lighting, vanities with storage, heat lamps, and towel warm-
ers. The concept of a second bath or powder room also
gained popularity in the postwar period. Compartmental-
ized baths were promoted as a way to add additional private
bath space without the added expense of an additional room.
Compartmentalized bath options included dressing rooms or
toilets and showers separated from the sink and vanity. To
increase capacity, double sinks and powder rooms were also
recommended. 355
Perhaps one of the most popular interior spaces to come
out of the postwar era is the family room, which is still a pop-
ular feature in twenty -first -century homes. Also known as the
recreation (or "rec") room, den, or game room, the family
room developed as middle-class families embraced the relaxed
home atmosphere and family togetherness. Introduced in the
1950s, it became standard by the mid-1960s; an NAHB poll
found that 70 percent of homes constructed in 1965 included
a family room (or rec room) .116 In the 1950s, during its early
period of use and "experimentation" the family room's rela-
tion to other established living areas varied from house to
house. The early family rooms were multi -functional and
served as a catch-all for family leisure and work activities.
However, its function changed by the 1960s to focus more on
leisure, and its location in the home became standardized. It
moved from its early position next to the formal living room
to a third zone of the house that was more isolated, typically
separated from the living room by the kitchen or located in
the basement. 157 When discussing the difference between the
family room and living room in a 1964 study, a woman from
Boston, Massachusetts, mentioned that she liked "an active
family room, and that is where the TV is" as compared to a
quiet living room for reading, knitting, and drinks .158
The utility room also developed during the postwar era,
although it was more popular in areas without basements.
It was often located adjacent to the kitchen so that it could
be plumbed without adding significantly to overall plumb-
ing costs. It housed the automatic clothes washing machine
354 As quoted in Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evoly-
ing Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within aRenewed Con-
sumer World 1945-1970, 143.
"'Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,144-145.
356 Jacobs, "Social and Spatial Changes in the Postwar Family Room," 70.
357 Jacobs, "Social and Spatial Changes in the Postwar Family Room,"
71-78.
"I Gilbert,164; Jacobs, "Social and Spatial Change in the Postwar Family
Room," 73.
and dryer, furnace, and water heater. In some cases it had an
exterior entrance open to the backyard, allowing the room to
function as a mud room as well.359
The need for basements was debated during the postwar
period, with the largest "detraction" being the increased costs
resulting from excavation, building materials and labor. The
concrete floor slab on grade was less expensive because it
required less construction time and eliminated the possibility
of weather delays when the ground could not be dugout. Some
estimates reduced the cost of a home by 10 percent through
the elimination of the basement. The introduction of the util-
ity room on the main floor lessened the need for basement
space. Basement proponents argued that the space was the
most cost-effective way to expand the house and was an ideal
location for a family room, workshop, or integrated garage.
Although banks and marketing advisors warned builders that
floor slabs on grade would not be popular, they sold quickly in
most areas .160 Regional differences in climate and geography
also affected the use of basements, which were popular in the
Midwest, where an insulated sub -level helped warm the living
space above, and rare in the South and on the West Coast.
Interior layout evolved with the architectural styles and
forms in the 1960s and the rise of zoned spaces as exempli-
fied by the Split-level's popularity; however, some things
remained consistent. The bedroom configuration remained
very much the same, with a "suite" or grouping of rooms
around a hallway. The average number of bathrooms also
increased in the postwar house.361
Home layout continued to evolve into the 1970s as a result
of the reduced number of children as the baby boom sub-
sided and changing roles of family members, including the
increased number of women working outside the home.
During this period the change in the master bedroom was
the most noticeable. The room, also referred to as a suite,
evolved into a much larger space that included increased ceiling
heights and specialized windows, private patios or decks, and
spacious closets. Separate bathrooms were a popular feature,
and in some cases, the bathrooms included customized tubs,
whirlpools, and showers. The size of the master suite also grew
in comparison to other bedrooms in the postwar house. 161
2. Use of Plan Services and Architects
During the postwar construction boom, individuals who
wanted to construct a house outside a planned subdivision
"'Wright, 255.
360 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 163-164; Eichler 67-68.
361 Rowe, 89-90.
362 Rowe, 91.
97
had the option of using an already prepared plan or hiring
an architect to develop plans. They would then work with
the architect and contractor during the actual construc-
tion process. In much the same way, developers and build-
ers could rely on stock plans or hire an architect. Although
the FHA provided minimum design standards and examples
of acceptable floorplans, they did not intend to create stock
plans for general use. Rather, they encouraged builders to
retain an architect to develop plans that were appropriate for
the specific location and climate .161 Popular Mechanics maga-
zine and other publications of the period also urged prospec-
tive home builders to work with a professional architect and
experienced contractor to complete the job. 164
Although the use of architects was highly encouraged, it
appears that only a small number of homes were built with
architect -designed plans. According to FHA estimates, no
more than 5 to 10 percent of privately built, single-family
homes were designed or supervised by architects in 1949.
However, it appears that their role increased in the 1950s. At
that time, a survey of NAHB members revealed that 27 per-
cent had hired a registered architect for a fee while 46 percent
had hired a design professional. Only 7.2 percent of builders
had an architect on staff, and 6 percent used a plan service .161
Few merchant builders retained architects to draw up
plans. Rather, they typically relied on draftsmen or building
designers whose role in the process was to get the builder's
concepts into a form suitable for bidding and construction.
These designers were often familiar with the FHA require-
ments, site conditions, and local codes. 166 If builders did not
have in-house draftsmen or designers, they could purchase
plans from a plan service or consult plan books, often writ-
ten by architects. 167 Edward Hawkins is an example of a mer-
chant builder who completed design work for his Arapahoe
Acres subdivision in Englewood, Colorado. Although archi-
tect Eugene Sternberg was responsible for approximately
20 homes in the subdivision, Hawkins completed the major-
ity of the design work himself and was eventually aided by an
architect. 168
The influence of architects can be seen in a range of gener-
ally upscale residential subdivisions. Noted architect Charles
Goodman worked with different builders in the Washington,
D.C., area to design Contemporary style homes for several
363 United States Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Plan-
ning Small Houses (1936), 2.
364 Carpenter and Guess, 57-59.
161 Christopher T. Martin, Tract -House Modern: A Study of Housing
Design and Consumption in the Washington Suburbs, 1946-1960 (PhD
Dissertation, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Wash-
ington University, 2000), 113.
366 Eichler, 86.
367 Martin, 112.
36s Tomasso, 7-2.
98
subdivisions during the 1950s and 1960s (see Figure 109).369
Eichler Homes was one of the few merchant builders to use
architects on a regular basis. Between 1950 and 1974, Joseph
Eichler partnered with some of the most progressive and well
respected architects and architectural firms to build more
than 11,000 modernist Eichler Homes (see Figure 110). His
architectural partners included Anshen and Allen, A. Quincy
Jones, Claude Oakland, and Raphael Soriano. 170 Other mer-
chant builders who relied on architects include the Strauss
Brothers of Lincoln, Nebraska, who retained the local firm of
John and George Unthank, Architects, to develop a series of
residential designs for their Eastridge subdivision in the mid-
1950s (see Figure 111).37'
In 1949 the NAHB and the AIA formed a joint commit-
tee to encourage collaboration between architects and build-
ers. It came to be referred to as the AIA Committee on the
Home -Building Industry. Their goal was to "promote utiliza-
tion of architectural services by merchant builders, and to
collaborate with associations in the home-building field. 11371
One of the first activities was a national design competition,
co-sponsored by the NAHB and Architectural Forum maga-
zine, with additional support from supply manufacturers.
The purpose of the competition was to "bring better design
to the small house, including better use of space and materi-
als." Entrants were to design a three-bedroom house no larger
than 1,000 ft' that met FHA and VA requirements and con-
formed to a 60 -by -100 -ft lot. Winning plans were published
in national builder magazines, including American Builder,
Practical Builder, and Builder. 171
Although the AIA Committee on the Home -Building
Industry worked to foster collaboration efforts, progress
nationwide was slow. In 1956 House & Home magazine
reported that there were less than 100 architectural firms
working directly with speculative builders. Those architects
that were working with builders tended to be modernists
who were relatively young when they began the collabora-
tive efforts. This disparity between younger modernists and
older established architects may have been related to finances,
as builders preferred to work with less experienced archi-
tects with lower fees than more experienced architects with
higher fees.374
369A number of subdivisions with Goodman homes have been listed in
or identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, including Hammond Wood, Rock Creek Woods, and Hollin
Hills.
3"Eichler, 86; Martin, 138; California Department of Transportation,
114-115.
311 Strauss Brothers, There's a New Trend in Lincoln, n.p.
372 Martin, 123-124.
313 Martin, 126.
374 Martin, 137-138.
Figure 109. Goodman -designed Contemporary
style house in the Rock Creek Woods Subdivision in
Montgomery County, Maryland, that was developed
between 1958 and 1961 (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 110. Eichler -built house in Orange County,
California, c. 1958 (photograph courtesy of Andrew
Hope, Caltrans).
THINGS OF
INTEREST
ABOUT
Figure 111. Details regarding project architects in
the c. 1954 Eastridge promotional booklet (Strauss
Brothers, There's a New Trend in Lincoln).
3. Popular Architectural Styles
and Forms of the Period
A variety of architectural forms and styles were utilized for
residential construction in the postwar era. In some cases the
house is defined by its form alone and in other cases it is bet-
ter described and classified by the style applied to the form. In
this report the term "form" refers to the overall house type as
defined by its massing, layout, and shape, while the term "style"
refers to the decorative details and materials that are applied to
exemplify a particular architectural style. Popular forms of the
postwar era include Minimal Traditional, Ranch, Split-level,
and others. These forms may or may not include the applica-
tion of stylistic details. Styles applied to various postwar houses
include Colonial Revival and Contemporary styles that were
applied to one or more of the defined postwar forms.
This section discusses the origin and character -defining
features of popular architectural forms followed by a discus-
sion of the origin of architectural styles and related features
as applied to houses during the period. In general, the dis-
cussion of forms and styles addresses postwar residences and
influences at the national level. Well-known regional varia-
tions are presented; however, many more local and regional
variations could be defined as preferences in forms, styles,
and building materials varied from one part of the country
to another. Prefabricated housing from the period is also pre-
sented with an overview of nationally known prefabricators
and the characteristics of their house forms.
a. Postwar Architectural Forms
Minimal Traditional Form. The Minimal Traditional
form was developed in the years of the Great Depression and
early 1940s as a low-cost alternative to the larger and deco-
rative house of the 1920s that often displayed influences of
the Period Revival style. In the 1940s the FHA developed a
standardized compact plan for a small, single-family house
that embodied the major elements of the Minimal Tradi-
tional form. As a result, it is sometimes referred to as an FHA
house. It is also referred to as the Postwar Minimal, Minimal
Modern, Cottage -Style, and "GI house," due to its popularity
in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Its affordability
made it the ideal form to meet the postwar housing demand;
it was a frequent choice of large tract developers and was con-
structed in large numbers throughout the country.
By eliminating ornamentation and historical reference, the
Minimal Traditional reduced the small house of the earlier
twentieth century to its most basic massing. The salient char-
acteristics of this house form are its small size, rarely exceeding
1,000 ft2, and lack of exterior ornamentation or stylistic treat-
ment. According to the FHA publication Principles of Planning
Small Houses, "simplicity of exterior design gives the small
99
Figure 112. Minimal Traditional house in Madison,
Wisconsin, constructed c. 1945, with wood siding,
compact one-story plan, minimal eave overhang,
inset entrance, attached one -car garage, and modest
Colonial Revival details, including gable end returns
and cornice boards (Mead & Hunt photograph).
house the appearance of maximum size."175 Minimal Tradi-
tional houses are generally one or one -and -one-half stories,
with a rectangular or L -shape plan, asymmetrical fenestra-
tion, and a small inset entrance. If present, the upper story was
often left unfinished for future expansion by the homeowner.
Windows are typically wood or steel frame, double -hung or
casement varieties, and front facades often feature a picture
window. Roofs are moderately pitched, generally gable or hip
in form, with shallow eaves that are tight to the gable walls.
Exterior cladding includes clapboard, board and batten, and
shingle siding, although steel siding is found on later examples
of the style. Brick was less common as it was a more expensive
building material, but may have been used on the facade or
as an accent. Garages are generally detached, although some
examples include a garage or carport at the side elevation.
Regional variations include the use of stucco cladding,
common in the Southwest and California, sometimes in con-
junction with wood or brick veneer. Structural concrete block
was also used in the western part of the country. Minimal
Traditional houses may also feature limited applied architec-
tural styling, such as Colonial Revival treatments. Figures 112
to 114 present examples of the Minimal Traditional form.
The character -defining features of the Minimal Traditional
form include:
Rectangular or L -shape plan;
Compact size;
One or one -and -one-half stories;
...United States Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Plan-
ning Small Houses (1936), 37.
100
Figure 113. Minimal Traditional house in
Gothenburg, Nebraska, constructed c. 1945, with a
compact one-story plan, asbestos shingle siding,
double -hung windows, and simple portico (Mead &
Hunt photograph).
• Low to moderate gable or hip roof with shallow eaves;
• Lack of exterior ornamentation;
• Picture, double -hung, and casement windows; and
• Small inset entrance or exterior stoop.
Cape Cod Form. The most common variation within
the Minimal Traditional form is the Cape Cod house, built by
the thousands by merchant builders, such as Levitt and Sons.
In the postwar period, the Cape Cod house was conceived as
a loose adaptation of the original Massachusetts vernacular
cottages of the eighteenth century and the historicist Period
Revival Cape Cod of the 1920s and 1930s. Stripped of detail,
the mass-produced, postwar Cape Cod relied on its massing
and organization, rather than decorative detail or craftsman-
ship, to convey its architectural form.
Figure 114. Minimal Traditional house in Lakewood,
California, constructed c. 1950, with side gable roof,
stucco and vertical wood siding, inset entrance,
minimal eave overhang, and attached one -car garage
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Rectangular in plan and boxy in appearance, the Cape
Cod house is generally a one -and -one -half -story building
with a steeply pitched side gable roof. Much like the Minimal
Traditional form, the second story was frequently left as an
unfinished space so that the house could be expanded later.
A centrally placed main entrance with a stoop is flanked by
symmetrically arranged windows on the front facade. Win-
dows are typically wood, six -over -six or eight -over -eight,
double -hung sash, although other configurations were also
used. The front slope of the gable roof is often punctuated
with symmetrically arranged dormers. Cladding is typically
wood shingle or clapboard, although brick versions were con-
structed. If present, garages are detached and often connected
to the house by a covered walkway rather than attached to the
house itself, or attached as a later addition.
The term Cape Cod is loosely applied to one -and -one-
half -story homes during the postwar period, regardless of
the architectural features .176 The form was very popular in
the Northeast, Midwest, and Tidewater regions, and appears
less frequently in the western U.S.377 Like the Minimal Tra-
ditional house form described above, Cape Cod houses may
also be found with limited applied architectural styling, such
as Colonial Revival treatments. Figures 115 to 118 present
Cape Cod examples.
Character -defining features of the form include:
• Rectangular plan and one -and -one -half -story massing;
• Symmetrical facade;
• Side gable roof with dormers; and
• Double -hung windows.
Two-story Massed Form. This architectural form fea-
tures a second story and a rectangular plan that is more than
one -room deep. Some postwar versions of this form exhibit
exaggerated horizontal massing with the rectangular house
form extended by the addition of an attached one-story sun -
room or garage on the side elevation. However, detached
garages are also common, especially with early examples of the
form. During the postwar period, this spatial organization was
most frequently seen in association with the Colonial Revival
architectural style (discussed in more detail herein). While the
postwar Colonial Revival style utilized the rectangular plan,
two-story massing, symmetrical fenestration, and side gable
orientation of its predecessors, the Two-story Massed form is a
more informal interpretation when compared to the Colonial
Revival style of the early twentieth century. Figures 119 and
120 present examples of the Two-story Massed form.
376 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,171.
37 California Department of Transportation, 68-70.
Figure 115. Cape Cod house in Arlington County,
Virginia, constructed c. 1950, with one -and -one -half -
story massing, side gable roof with twin dormers, stone
veneer, and sun porch (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 116. Cape Cod houses in Arlington County,
Virginia, constructed c. 1950, with one -and -one -half -
story massing, symmetrical facades, central entrances
with pedimented stoops, and steeply pitched side
gable roofs with dormers and double -hung windows
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 117. Cape Cod house in Fairfax County,
Virginia, with one -and -one -half -story massing, side
gable roof with twin dormers, and canted front
picture window (photograph courtesy of Anne
Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration).
101
Figure 118. Cape Cod house in Prince George's County,
Maryland, with one -and -one -half -story massing, side
gable roof, and double -hung windows. The house was
constructed by Levitt and Sons in the Belair Subdivision
in the early 1960s (photograph courtesy of Anne
Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration).
1 ■ Q—no FN I
141
Figure 119. Two-story Massed house in Arlington,
County, Virginia, featuring a rectangular plan, two-
story massing, and side gable roof (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Figure 120. Two-story Massed house in Madison,
Wisconsin, constructed in 1959, featuring a
rectangular plan, two-story massing, and side gable
roof (Mead & Hunt photograph).
102
Character -defining features of the Two-story Massed form
include:
• Rectangular plan and two-story massing and
• Side gable or hip roof.
Transitional Ranch Form. The Transitional Ranch, as
its name implies, is the intermediate house form between the
postwar Minimal Traditional house and the fully established
Ranch house of the mid-1950s. It was also referred to as the
Compact Ranch, Tract Ranch, and Linear Ranch house. Due
to its small size, it was inexpensive and built in large numbers
throughout the country.
The Transitional Ranch house generally shares the com-
pact floor plan and spatial organization of the Minimal Tra-
ditional house. However, in external appearance it displays
the one-story, horizontal massing of the Ranch form, with a
shallow roof pitch and overhanging eaves. Picture, double -
hung, and casement window openings are asymmetrically
arranged. Although corner windows are popular, they are not
universal. Main entrances are generally simple with a small
recessed porch or stoop. Attached garages and carports are
common, as are detached garages. Similar to other popular
forms of the period, clapboard, stone and brick veneer, and
stucco were popular cladding materials. Figures 121 to 123
present examples of the Transitional Ranch.
Character -defining features of this subtype include:
• One-story horizontal massing;
• Compact size;
• Asymmetrical fenestration;
• Low-pitched roof with wide eave overhang;
• Picture, double -hung, and casement windows;
• Combination of siding materials; and
• Attached carport or garage.
Ranch Form. The Ranch form represented anew concept
of simplicity for an unpretentious postwar American single
family, living a more casual and relaxed lifestyle. The under-
lying aesthetic fit with the "rise in informality" and "sense of
optimism" that were predominant attitudes in the 1950s.371
The Ranch form quickly replaced previous forms and styles,
and by 1950 it had become the most popular housing type
of the postwar era, accounting for nine out of 10 new homes
built .379 Although it was widely utilized across the country,
regional stylistic variations can be attributed to climate, avail-
able building materials, and local preference.
378 Rowe, 99.
379 Witold Rybczynski, "The Ranch House Anomaly" Slate Magazine
17 April 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2163970/ (accessed 18 March
2011).
Figure 121. Transitional Ranch in San Lorenzo,
California, with compact massing, integrated garage,
and recessed entrance. The house was constructed by
merchant builder Dave Bohannon c. 1950 (photograph
courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Figure 122. Transitional Ranch in St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, constructed c. 1950, with compact
massing, corner windows, low-pitched roof with a
wide eave overhang, and attached garage at the rear
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 123. Transitional Ranch homes in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, constructed c. 1950, exhibiting horizontal
massing, compact floor plans, and picture windows
and accent veneer on the facades (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Figure 124. Cliff May -designed house in La Mesa,
California, constructed in 1953 (photograph courtesy
of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Also referred to as a Rambler or California Ranch, the
Ranch form had its origins on the west coast in the 1930s
work of California architects. It was loosely based on the low,
rambling courtyards of Spanish Colonial Ranch houses found
in California and modified by influences borrowed from the
Craftsman and Prairie styles. California native Cliff May is
generally regarded as the founder of the Ranch form. Inspired
by the traditional U-shaped hacienda, May designed a one-
story Ranch house in 1931 that displayed Spanish Colonial
Revival architectural details and incorporated a garage into
the primary facade. Between 1931 and 1937, May constructed
more than 50 similar designs and went on to refine and
expand these models in the following decade. May's work,
along with other architects of the period, brought attention
to the Ranch form, and it quickly became popular across the
country. 180 Figure 124 shows a May -designed house.
The Ranch form segregates domestic functions into archi-
tecturally separate areas or "zones," with the private bed-
rooms and bathroom separated from the public living room
and kitchen. This zoned floor plan contributes to the exterior
appearance of the Ranch form as elongated and rambling. The
public zones of the house—the kitchen and living room—are
also integrated with the outdoors, generally through the use
of large windows and sliding glass doors, and the "intermedi-
ate" spaces of patios or courtyards. This outdoor emphasis is
further heightened by the incorporation of built-in planter
boxes on both front facades and rear elevations.
110 California Department of Transportation, 71-73; New South Associ-
ates, The Ranch House in Georgia, Guidelines for Evaluation (Prepared
for the Georgia Department of Transportation, 2010), 10-11. Like the
California Bungalow, which influenced its design and aesthetic, the
Ranch house is found in both custom-designed versions and the mass-
produced examples that predominate in urban areas and subdivisions.
The custom-designed examples are often distinguished by their larger
size and placement on large lots.
103
Ranch houses are one-story with a strong horizontal
emphasis and long eave wall elevation that is often oriented
to the street. Roofs are low-pitched gable or hip forms with
wide eave overhangs. Decorative cutouts may be included
in the eave overhang. The fenestration is asymmetrical and
a variety of window types are employed, including double -
hung, casement, awning, jalousie, and fixed, with wood, steel,
and aluminum frames and corner windows common. Picture
windows often dominate the facade and, in some cases, several
awning -style windows are grouped to form one large window
expanse. For increased privacy and easier furniture placement,
bedrooms often feature bands of rectangular ribbon awning -
style windows located on the upper part of the wall. Common
cladding materials include clapboard, board and batten, brick
and stone veneer, faux stone veneer, and aluminum and steel
siding. It is common for multiple siding materials to be used
on a single house, often with a veneer treatment used to accent
the facade. Front entrances are often recessed and enhanced
with built-in planter boxes and decorative wrought iron or
wood supports. Colonnaded porches that extend across the
facade are common and recall the "corredors" of nineteenth-
century Californian and Mexican Ranch house antecedents.
Concrete screens may be used to define areas of the property
or create privacy near the entrance or patio. Prominent brick
or stone slab -like chimneys are common. Garages or car-
ports are generally attached and a prominent part of the front
facade, sometimes projecting into the driveway. Figures 125 to
130 present examples of the Ranch form.
The character -defining features of the Ranch form include:
• One-story horizontal massing;
• Low-pitched roof with deep eave overhangs or a promi-
nent roofline with "prowed" eaves, roof cutouts, or exposed
beams;
• Asymmetrical fenestration and large expanses of windows,
picture windows, corner windows, bands of windows, or
clerestory windows;
• Combination of siding materials, including accent veneer;
• Wide or prominent chimneys;
• Planters and patios, often with sliding glass doors;
• Colonnaded porches along the facade;
• Wrought iron or wood accents;
• Integrated wingwalls; and
• Attached garages, carports, and breezeways.
The Ranch form evolved into several subtypes (discussed
herein) with regional stylistic variations, but all share the
fundamental characteristic features of low horizontal mass-
ing, asymmetrical arrangements of doors and windows, and
attached garages or carports. A variety of architectural styles
may be applied to the Ranch form, including Storybook,
Modern, Asiatic, Colonial Revival, and Spanish Colonial
104
Figure 125. Ranch house in Omaha, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1955, with horizontal massing, hip roof,
clapboard and stone veneer, picture and double -
hung windows, and attached breezeway and garage
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 126. Ranch house in Sparta, Wisconsin,
constructed c. 1960, with horizontal massing, hip
roof, stone veneer, casement windows, wrought iron
supports at the entrance, prominent chimney, and
attached garage. It is oriented diagonally on a large
urban lot (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 127. Ranch house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
constructed c. 1960, with horizontal massing, gable
roof, stone veneer, accent wood shingles, picture and
ribbon windows, prominent chimney, and wrought iron
supports at the entrance (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 128. Ranch house in El Paso, Texas,
constructed c. 1960, with horizontal massing, hip
roof, picture windows, glass block windows at the
entrance, minimal wrought iron details, and carport
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 129. Ranch house in Richmond Heights,
Missouri, with horizontal massing, hip roof,
integrated stone planters, prominent stone
chimney, and wrought iron supports at the entrance
(photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri
Department of Transportation).
Figure 130. Ranch house in De Kalb County, Georgia,
constructed c. 1955, with horizontal massing, hip
roof, accent stone veneer, breezeway, and concrete
screening at the carport (photograph courtesy of
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division).
Revival. The various evolutions and subtypes of the Ranch
form are discussed in the following sections.
Raised Ranch Form. The Raised Ranch is atypical Ranch
form with an elevated or partially elevated basement story.
The exposed portion of the basement could be on the front
or side, allowing for an integrated garage. In other cases the
rear elevation was exposed, allowing for a walk -out basement
patio or recreational area. The main floor may include a bal-
cony or deck. The form lent itself to areas with hilly topogra-
phy and is found more frequently in the Northeast, Midwest,
and Rocky Mountain states where basements are common.
The house type is less frequently found in California and the
Southwest, where slab foundations are more common.
The interior space of the Raised Ranch utilizes the same
interior zoning principles as other examples of the Ranch
form with the bedrooms and baths segregated from the pub-
lic spaces. However, the family living functions are typically
placed on one level. The character -defining features of the
Raised Ranch are similar to those of the Ranch house, with
the exception of the partially exposed basement and elevated
main entrance, typically accessed by stairs from the front
walk or driveway. Figures 131 to 133 show examples of the
Raised Ranch form.
Additional character -defining features of this subtype
include:
• Partially exposed basement level; and
• Integrated garage and/or patio at basement level.
Split-level and Split -foyer Form. Although the general
Split-level concept was introduced prior to World War II, the
architectural form did not gain popularity until the mid-
1950s. At that time, it became one of the most common
house forms nationwide. In a 1957 Washington Post article,
the Split-level was described as "typically American as base-
ball ... from its handsome exterior to its neat and smartly
designed interior [this] is the house that America wants—
plus built-in modish good looks and real comfort for living
in the American way."18'
Along with its close cousin the Split -foyer, the Split-level
was an extension and refinement of the Ranch house's pio-
neering segregation of public and private space into "zones"
or separate wings. Unlike the Raised Ranch, which includes
basement -level living space, the Split-level separates private
and public living spaces from each other with the family
room and garage located at the lowest level; kitchen, din-
ing, and living areas on the mid-level; and the more private
"'As quoted in Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evoly-
ing Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Con-
sumer World 1945-1970, 185-186.
105
Figure 131. Raised Ranch in Madison, Wisconsin,
constructed c. 1960, with a partially exposed
basement, integrated garage, picture window,
overhanging eaves, wide chimney, and accent brick
veneer (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 132. Raised Ranch in Omaha, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1955, with a partially exposed
basement, integrated garage, picture and double -
hung windows, overhanging eaves, and wrought iron
details at the entrance (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 133. Raised Ranch house in Richmond
Heights, Missouri, with the exposed basement at
the side elevation, accent stone veneer, and planters
(photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri
Department of Transportation).
106
BASEMENT
Figure 134. Typical Split-level floorplan, not to scale (Mead & Hunt).
bedrooms and baths on the upper level (see Figure 134). The
massing is often a two-story unit connected to a one-story
section at mid -height. As a result, the term Tri -level is also
used to describe the form.
The varying height of the Split-level architectural form
often resulted in separate roofs for each section of the house,
which ranged from one to two stories. Roofs are usually hip or
gable, or a combination of the two, with wide eave overhangs.
Windows are similar to those in Ranch houses, with double -
hung, casement, and picture windows commonly used. Clad-
ding materials, including clapboard, stone and brick veneer,
and steel and aluminum siding, are often combined to pro-
vide visual interest. Garages are commonly attached and
integrated into the lower level. As with the Ranch form, the
Split-level form often features applied architectural treat-
ments, including Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival,
and Contemporary stylistic features. Figures 136 to 138 pre-
sent examples of the Split-level form.
In the Split -foyer version, a central mid-level entry exhibits
a split stair, with one staircase going to an upper level and
one to a lower level, thus creating three separate levels on the
interior: the entry level and two levels with living space (see
Figure 135). Due to the less complex massing, the Split -foyer
version often has a single roofline. With the exception of the
roofline, the form is almost identical to the Split-level and
it displays similar windows, cladding materials, integrated
garages, and architectural treatments. The term Bi -level is
also used to describe the form. Figures 139 and 140 present
examples of the Split -foyer form.
The Split-level and Split -foyer forms produced a house
with more square footage, more bedrooms and bathrooms,
and a more spacious appearance due to its sloped ceilings.
Figure 135. Typical Split -foyer floorplan, not to scale (Mead & Hunt).
However, the multi -floor plan resulted in more compact
massing than the Ranch, and the forms were more economical
as land for development was increasing in cost."' Much like
the Raised Ranch form, they were ideally suited for uneven
and sloping building sites. Split-levels and Split -foyers gained
popularity in the Northeast and Midwest in the mid-1950s
"'Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970, 187, 192.
107
and were widely distributed. They were less accepted in the
Southwest and West. The architectural form began to fall out
of favor nationally as the two-story form returned to favor
for larger homes.
Character -defining features of the Split-level and Split -
foyer forms include the following:
• A combination of one- and two-story wings (Split-level only);
• Varied roof height, corresponding to differing interior levels
(Split-level only);
108
Figure 136. Split-level house in San Diego, California,
constructed c. 1968, with clearly zoned wings on
different levels opening off the centrally located
entry, casement windows, and an integrated garage
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Figure 137. Split-level house in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, constructed c. 1965, with an elevated
entry, integrated garage, slab chimney, and multi -
light picture window (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 138. Split-level house in Baltimore County,
Maryland, with an elevated entry, brick veneer,
and picture window (photograph courtesy of Anne
Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration).
Figure 139. Split -foyer house in Arlington County,
Virginia, constructed in 1964, with a central
exaggerated -height entrance and two levels of living
space (Mead & Hunt photograph).
• Integrated garage;
• Low-pitched roof with deep eave overhangs or a promi-
nent roofline with "prowed" eaves, roof cutouts, or exposed
beams;
• Large expanses of windows, corner windows, bands of
windows, or clerestory windows;
• Combination of siding materials, including accent veneer;
• Wide or prominent chimneys;
• Prominent front entrances that may include twin doors,
transoms, decorative lighting, or an exaggerated height;
• Planters; and
• Wrought iron or wood accents.
b. Postwar Architectural Styles
Colonial Revival Style. In the postwar period the Colo-
nial Revival style was one of the most widespread residential
Figure 140. Split -foyer house in Omaha, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1965, with a central exaggerated -
height entrance, two levels of living space, accent
brick veneer, and an integrated basement -level
garage (Mead & Hunt photograph).
styles found throughout the country, but especially on the
eastern seaboard, in the Midwest, and in the South. It was
most popular in the early postwar period, but continued to
be constructed nationally throughout the postwar period.
The postwar Colonial Revival residential style had its imme-
diate antecedents in the Colonial Revival style of the 1920s
and 1930s, and is sometimes referred to as Neo -Colonial to
distinguish it from its 1920s predecessor.
The postwar version of the style displays more restrained
details than its early twentieth century predecessor, including
freely interpreted entrances, door surrounds, sidelights, and
cornices, as well as modern design details such as wide over-
hanging eaves. Symmetrical arrangement of the front facade is
less closely observed in postwar examples, with main entrances
often located off -center and dominated by large picture win-
dows. The entrance doors generally have simple surroundings
and lack porches, although some examples feature a small por-
tico. The more traditional second story overhang, also referred
to as a garrison, is incorporated into some designs. Multi -light
double -hung and fixed windows are common.
Elements of the Colonial Revival style were often applied
to postwar architectural forms, including Minimal Tradi-
tional, Cape Cod, Two-story Massed, Ranch, Split-level, and
Split -foyer. Figures 141 to 144 show examples of the Colonial
Revival style.
The character -defining features of the style include:
• Multi -light windows and compass windows in the gable end;
• Decorative window surrounds and faux louvered shutters;
and
• Architectural details, including sidelights, fanlights, sim-
plified porticos with turned columns, pediments, frieze or
cornice boards, quoins, cupolas, and flat or jack arches.
Figure 141. Two-story Massed house in Worthington
Hills, Ohio, constructed c. 1966, exhibits Colonial
Revival style details, including symmetrical
fenestration, wide overhanging eaves, faux shutters,
compass windows, and simple porch across the
facade (Mead & Hunt photograph).
109
Figure 142. Ranch house in Arlington, Texas,
constructed in 1966, displays elements of the Colonial
Revival style, including symmetrical massing and
wide porch with turned columns (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Figure 143. Ranch house in Omaha, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1960, with Colonial Revival
architectural details, including multi -light windows
with faux shutters and pilasters (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Figure 144. Ranch house in Fort Valley, Georgia,
constructed c. 1960, with Colonial Revival
architectural details, including multi -light windows
with faux shutters and an entrance stoop with
decorative columns and dentils (photograph courtesy
of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division).
110
Figure 145. Georgian Revival house in Arlington
County, Virginia, with symmetrical front facade,
portico, and brick quoins (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Georgian Revival Style. The Georgian variation of the
postwar Colonial Revival style is based on the Georgian house
of the mid-to-late eighteenth century and its twentieth-
century revival in the 1910s -1930s. Although not as popular
as the Colonial Revival style, it was commonly constructed in
the East between the 1950s and 1980s.
The postwar Georgian Revival style house is distinguished
by a greater degree of formality and a more rigorous adher-
ence to symmetrical elevations. However, postwar Georgian
architectural elements are freely interpreted rather than his-
torically accurate. Main entrances often feature pilasters and
pediments, windows are ornamented with faux shutters, and
decorative quoins are employed at the corners. Paneled doors
with sidelights are a common feature and some examples have
central or full porches with colonnades. Side gable and hip
roofs are often more steeply pitched than the postwar Colo-
nial Revival style and frequently punctuated with dormers.
The Georgian Revival style was most frequently applied to
the postwar Two-story Massed architectural form. Figure 145
presents an example of the Georgian Revival style.
Character -defining features of the style include:
• Symmetrical front facade;
• Central entrance with sidelights;
• Colonnaded porch or portico;
• Decorative window surrounds and faux louvered shutters;
and
• Architectural details, such as pilasters, quoins, and pediments.
Storybook Style. The Storybook style, popular for a brief
period in the mid-to-late 1950s and most commonly applied to
the Ranch form, is also referred to as the "Cinderella Ranch" or
"Chalet;' and "Disneyland" in Southern California. Although it
retains the typical Ranch house form in its horizontal massing
and low profile, the most distinguishing feature is the deco-
rative detail. In addition to the character -defining features of
the Ranch form, it typically displays fanciful embellishments
loosely drawn from the earlier Period Revival styles of the 1920s
and 1930s, such as scalloped bargeboards, sweeping gables that
extend to the ground, diamond -pane windows, and decora-
tive leaded and stained glass windows. Exterior materials are
often textured, such as board and batten or shingle siding."'
Figures 146 to 148 show examples of the Storybook style.
Architectural details of the Storybook style include:
• Fanciful architectural details;
• Scalloped or shaped bargeboards;
• Sweeping gables;
• Diamond -pane and decorative leaded and stained glass
windows;
• Decorative window trim and shutters; and
• Planter boxes or shelves below the windows.
Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Although popular
prior to the postwar period, the Spanish Colonial Revival
style was often applied to postwar architectural forms. Also
referred to as Spanish Contemporary or Spanish Eclectic, it
was commonly used in Texas, the Southwest, and California,
but regional variations may be found throughout the coun-
try. Exterior wall materials include adobe, adobe -type brick,
or stucco, and decorative elements draw on the traditions of
Southwest frontier and Spanish Colonial architecture, includ-
ing tile roofs.314 In desert areas, the roofs may be character-
ized by a low, broadside gable sheathed in built-up roofing
intended to insulate and reflect the desert heat. 115 Although
attached carports are frequent in areas with mild climates,
attached garages are also common. Figures 149 and 150 pre-
sent examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
Architectural details of the Spanish Colonial Revival style
include the following:
• Adobe, abode -type brick, or stucco exterior;
• Red tile or built-up roofs;
• Arched entrances and windows; and
• Decorative wrought iron details.
Asiatic Style. The Asiatic style, sometimes referred to as
the Polynesian or Tiki Style, features Japanese, Chinese, or
Polynesian roof lines and decorative embellishments. It was
applied to popular forms of the postwar period, including the
"'California Department of Transportation, 86.
384 True adobe construction is rare, especially in the postwar period.
sssAkros, Inc., et al., Tucson Post World War II Residential Subdivision
Development, 1945-1973 (Prepared for the City of Tucson, Arizona,
2007),46-47.
111
Figure 149. Spanish Colonial Revival style applied to
Figure 146. This house in San Diego, California, the Ranch form in EI Paso, Texas. Constructed c 1950,
constructed c.1957, displays the Ranch form and this house features true adobe construction, red file
Storybook features, including scalloped barge roof, and decorative wrought iron details (Mead &
boards, diamond -pane windows, decorative Hunt photograph).
shutters and planter boxes, and a sweeping gable
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Figure 147. This house in Madison, Wisconsin,
constructed c. 1970, displays the Ranch form and
has Storybook features, including diamond -pane
windows and decorative shutters and window boxes
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 148. This house in Omaha, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1960, features the Ranch form and
sweeping gables. It is locally referred to as a Chalet
Ranch (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 150. Spanish Colonial Revival style applied
to the Split-level form in La Mesa, California,
constructed c. 1970, with stucco exterior and the roof
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
Ranch and Split-level form. The popularity of the style may
be due in part to House Beautiful magazine; their September
1960 issue had an article titled "How Americans are Using
Japanese Ideas," which included exterior details used by mer-
chant builders in residential subdivisions .3116
Although most popular in California and the Pacific North-
west, examples are found throughout the country. The most
prominent element of the style is the gable -on -hip roof with
projecting ridge beams,which exhibits shaped ends and upward -
pitched eaves that suggest the roof lines of Asiatic temples.
Red tile roof cladding was not unusual and red or persimmon
double entry doors are common. Windows maybe embellished
with decorative Shoji screen inserts .317 Asian -theme hardware
386 California Department of Transportation, 87-88.
3s'ICF Jones & Stokes, Cultural Resources of the Recent Past, City of
Pasadena, National Register Multiple Property Document, E-11.
112
I
Figure 151. Asiatic style applied to the Ranch
form in Whittier, California, constructed c. 1960,
with exaggerated eaves and a decorative screen
(photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
in the form of door handles, decorative medallions, and gates
were often employed. The overall Asian theme of the house may
be enhanced by Japanese -inspired landscaping. Figures 151 and
152 show examples of the Asiatic style.
Architectural details of the Asiatic style include the
following:
• Exaggerated eaves and upturned corner or gable end roofs,
often executed in red tile;
• Vertical wood latticework, or Shoji decorative screen work;
• Vertical wood to divide the facade into panels;
• Red or persimmon front entrances; and
• Asian -inspired exterior hardware.
Contemporary Style. The Contemporary style was dis-
tinctive in the postwar period and its characteristic architec-
tural features were applied to various postwar housing forms.
Terms such as Mid-century Modern, Modern, and Post and
Figure 152. Asiatic style applied to the Split-level
form in the Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta,
Georgia, with upturned eaves and an Asian -inspired
entrance (photograph courtesy of Sandy Lawrence,
Georgia Department of Transportation).
Beam are also used to describe houses of this period that break
from the past and reflect current design trends (and are some-
times used interchangeably with the term Contemporary).388
The various uses of different stylistic classifications may be
due to regional acceptance of one term over another or the
distinction of a subcategory within the larger context of Con-
temporary architecture. For example, Post and Beam style
refers to the post and beam construction method, which is a
departure from the typical method of load-bearing wall con-
struction, resulting in larger open spaces and more expansive
use of glass. Modern is also often described as a style distinct
from Contemporary. Residences in the "true" Modern style are
almost always architect designed and therefore not characteris-
tic of the ubiquitous postwar property types that are the focus
of this study. As a result, a distinct Modern style is not defined.
Contemporary style houses were often custom-built and
designed by architects. The features of the style have its ori-
gins in the residential work of Frank Lloyd Wright, particu-
larly his pioneering Usonian houses of the 1930s through
early 1950s, and were also influenced by Bauhaus architects
of the Modern movement. Although the Contemporary style
was applied to individual residences across the country, it
was successfully mass produced in some regional applica-
tions. Due to the scale of application of the Contemporary
style to postwar houses, its inclusion in this report is justified.
Two examples of large volume merchant builders of Contem-
porary style architecture are Joseph Eichler, who developed
such housing primarily in northern California, and Edward
Hawkins in his Arapahoe Acres development in Englewood,
Colorado. The Contemporary style was most popular in the
1950s; however, this style never achieved mainstream popu-
larity as it was seen as somewhat dated by the 1960s.319
The Contemporary style house is organized with an open
floor plan, achieved in some cases through the use of post
and beam construction. Roofs are characteristically flat or
gabled, and frequently clad with asbestos or composition
shingles, although some examples utilize built-up roofs. Both
roof types frequently exhibit wide overhanging boxed eaves
or a wide fascia at the gable end. The massing is geometric
and the front facade has minimal details, often presenting a
blank face to the street, similar to Wright's earlier Usonian
houses. Entries are de-emphasized and moved to one side of
the building or obscured behind a partial wall. Glass block is
employed in many examples to provide light while preserving
388A review of postwar residential surveys from across the country
show the use of various stylistic terms, including Contemporary, Mid-
century Modern, Modern, and Post -and -Beam to describe at times a
somewhat similar use of architectural design features. This may be the
result of regional variations and acceptance of certain terms to describe
postwar residences with similarity in architectural design features.
311 California Department of Transportation, 85.
privacy on the front facade. By contrast, large windows, glass
curtain walls, and sliding glass doors are widely employed on
the rear elevations, facing onto backyards or interior court-
yards. The style also emphasized the unity of indoor and out-
door space, even in climates with long winters. Carports and
garages are integrated into the house.
Contemporary houses often employed new building
materials, such as Formica, synthetic brick, and sheet panel
products, or utilized established materials in new ways, such as
glass block, Bakelite, plywood, and concrete block. The Con-
temporary house also frequently employed natural materials,
such as wood and stone, in order to integrate the residence
with the natural landscape. Figures 153 to 155 show examples
of Contemporary houses.
Character -defining features include the following:
• One or one -and -one-half story;
• Simple, geometric massing;
• Flat or low-pitched roof;
• Large expanses of glass, including curtain walls and sliding
glass doors;
• Integrated carport or garage;
• Unadorned wall surfaces and minimal decorative details;
• De-emphasized entries;
• Exposed post -and beam construction; and
• Modern and/or natural building materials.
Shed Style. The Shed house, also known as a"Sea Ranch"
in reference to its origins, represented a new direction in
domestic architecture starting in the 1960s. Some of the ear-
liest examples were located in the Sea Ranch community in
northern California. The condominiums were designed by
architects Charles Moore and John Turnbull and completed
in 1965. At about the same time, architect Charles Gwathmey
designed a Long Island, New York, beach house that was
similar to the Sea Ranch homes. Subsequent features in pro-
fessional journals as well as House Beautiful and House and
Garden magazine caused builders and developers to adopt
the style, which was environmentally integrated with natu-
ral and rural landscapes and particularly adapted to vacation
homes.390 Though it was used nationwide, the style predomi-
nated on the east and west coasts where it was first adopted.
The Shed house is composed of separate but conjoined
building volumes with sloping, single -pitch multi -directional
roofs with minimal eave overhang. The overall appearance is
one of colliding or assembled building blocks and multiple
massing, and one to one -and -one-half or two stories. Win-
dows are varied in size with minimal trim and often provide
scenic views, or clerestory day lighting at the upper walls.
"California Department of Transportation, 92-93.
113
Figure 153. Contemporary style Split-level house
in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed c. 1960, with
large expanses of glass, sloping roof line, and
de-emphasized entrance (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 154. Contemporary style Split-level house in
DeKalb County, Georgia, constructed c. 1956, with
a low-pitched roof, curtain wall at the entrance,
minimal decorative details, and an integrated carport
(photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division).
Figure 155. Contemporary style house in Palm
Springs, California, constructed c. 1954, with low-
pitched roof, glass curtain wall, de-emphasized
entrance, and attached carport (photograph courtesy
of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
114
- ko _
29
Figure 156. Shed house in Lexington, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1975, with geometric massing,
prominent shed roof lines, natural wood siding,
and minimal exterior decoration (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
The main entrances are commonly recessed and obscured.
While shed roofs are most common, compound shed and
gable roofs are also common. Cladding usually consists of
naturally finished vertical or angled boards, board and bat-
ten, shingles, and stone veneer. Large brick or stone chimneys
occur in many examples. Attached garages are common, but
detached versions are also found in the style. Figures 156 and
157 present examples of Shed houses.
The character -defining features include the following:
• Geometric, multiple massing;
• Asymmetrical fenestration, often including clerestory
windows;
• Prominent shed roofs with minimal eave overhang;
• Natural wood siding; and
• Absence of exterior decoration.
Figure 157. Shed house in Palo Alto, California,
constructed c. 1972, with intersecting shed roof lines,
wood siding, clerestory windows, and an integrated
garage (photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope,
Caltrans).
Figure 158. A -frame house in Overton, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1970, with overhanging eaves and a one-
story addition on the side (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Figure 159. Neo -Mansard style applied to the Ranch
form in Worthington Hills, Ohio, constructed c. 1970
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
Other Architectural Forms and Styles. Other forms and
styles that appeared with less frequency in the postwar period
include the A -Frame, Neo -Mansard, Geodesic Dome, and
Earthen House. The A -frame gained popularity in the 1950s
and 1960s as an iconic vacation home. The house forms an
A -shape, with the steeply pitched gable roof extending to the
ground. Other features include a rectangular plan, windows
in the gable end, overhanging eaves, and a deck or patio (see
Figure 158).391
Influenced by the Second Empire style of the 1860s -1880s,
the Neo -Mansard appeared in the late 1960s as a return to the
more traditional architectural forms of the postwar era. The
mansard roof form was an easy way to obtain dramatic effect,
while maintaining the overall Ranch and Split-level form and
massing. The faux mansard roof is often clad in wood shake
and it displays recessed windows (see Figure 159).391
i91 Chad Garrett Randl, "The Mania for A -Frames," Old -House Journal
(July -August 2004), 72-78.
392 Colorado Historical Society, Selected Post -World War II Residential
Architectural Styles and Building Types ( [Denver, Colo.]: Center for His-
toric Preservation Research, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preser-
vation, Colorado Historical Society, 2006), 13.
Figure 160. Earthen house in Broken Bow, Nebraska,
constructed c. 1975 into an embankment with only
one exposed elevation (Mead & Hunt photograph).
Earthen houses, popular during the 1970s, were designed
using natural terrain to form the walls of the house. The insu-
lating qualities of the earth led to adoption of this type of con-
struction during the energy crisis. Typically only one elevation
is exposed; as a result, it includes a large number of windows
(see Figure 160). Developed by Buckminster Fuller, the Geo-
desic Dome house is composed of a series of triangular ele-
ments. The houses were popular during the 1960s and 1970s
and are typically located in rural areas (see Figure 161).
c. Prefabricated Houses
Some of the popular architectural styles and forms of the
postwar period were mass produced by large-scale prefab-
ricated home companies that operated at the national level.
In addition, several regional firms also experienced success
in the prefabricated housing market. The most common
national -level companies are described herein, followed by
regional examples.
Lustron. Carl Strandlund established the Lustron Homes
Corporation in 1947 in Columbus, Ohio, with a set purpose to
produce an all -steel house. The prefabricated Lustron houses
were manufactured between 1948 and 1950 and sold through
Figure 161. Geodesic Dome house, constructed
c. 1970, with a one-story Ranch addition in Dane
County, Wisconsin (Mead & Hunt photograph).
115
Figure 162. Lustron house in Arlington County,
Virginia, erected in 1949, retains the porcelain enamel
dove gray siding, steel roof, inset entry and support
post, and steel windows (Mead & Hunt photograph).
local dealers. The houses represented a new and innovative
system of panelized prefabrication using steel framing and
porcelain enamel coated steel panels that came in a variety
of neutral and pastel colors, including surf blue, maize yel-
low, desert tan, and dove gray. The company characterized the
houses as a "conservative -modern Ranch style.' Their product
is in many ways similar to the Minimal Traditional house in
its compact massing and lack of exterior ornamentation.393
All of the models were rectangular in form with compact
floor plans and a side gable roof clad in steel. The houses
feature steel frame casement and aluminum frame picture
windows. Some models include a recessed entry with a steel
support post. The most important and distinguishing fea-
ture is the porcelain enamel panels that constitute both the
exterior cladding and interior walls. The Lustron Company
offered customers various options to customize their houses.
These included matching garages or carports, breezeways,
patios, and screen porches. Fewer than 2,600 Lustron houses
were constructed nationwide, with concentrations in New
York, Virginia, and the Midwest .194 Figures 162 to 164 show
examples of Lustron houses.
The character -defining features include the following:
• Porcelain enamel coated steel siding;
• Gable roof clad in steel;
• One-story rectangular massing;
• Large aluminum frame picture and steel casement win-
dows; and
• Recessed entrance with steel support (not on all models).
393 Lustron Corporation, The Lustron Home: A New Standard of Living
(1948 advertising brochure) http://strandlund.tripod.com/index-21.
html (accessed 22 January 2011).
394"The Lustron Home: A New Standard of Living," The Preservationist,
Vol. II, No. 2, Fall/Winter 2007,15.
116
Figure 163. Lustron house in Madison, Wisconsin,
erected c. 1950, retains the porcelain enamel maize
yellow siding, steel roof, and inset entry and support
post, the windows have been replaced (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Gunnison Homes/U.S. Steel. Gunnison Homes, based
in New Albany, Indiana, pioneered the production of panel-
ized stressed -skin plywood beginning in 1935. At the peak of
World War Il, the company produced 600 homes each month
for war housing projects. U.S. Steel purchased controlling
interest in the company in 1944 and bought out founder Fos-
ter Gunnison's interest in 1953. At that time, the company
became known as U.S. Steel Homes, Inc. The company ceased
production of houses in 1974. Gunnison Homes were widely
distributed across the country; by 1951 Foster Gunnison,
founder of the company, stated that Gunnison Homes had
been erected in 44 states. Gunnison Homes were popular due
to the moderate price and customizable options. They were
also constructed quickly; it has been stated that once the foun-
Figure 164. Rear elevation of a Lustron house in
Glenville, New York, erected in 1949, that retains
the porcelain enamel dove gray siding, steel roof,
support post, and steel windows (photograph
courtesy of Kimberly Konrad Alvarez, Landmark
Consulting LLC/NYS Lustron Project Coordinator).
dation was in place, you could start construction on a Tuesday
morning and eat dinner in the home on Friday evening. 115
Gunnison manufactured 4 -ft by 8 -ft wood frames and heat-
treated plywood panels with door and window openings pre-
installed at the factory. The panels could be assembled into a
number of different configurations, and could be expanded
in 4 -ft increments, allowing the homeowner to customize
the design. Other customizable options included fireplaces,
brick chimneys, porches, breezeways, and garages .196 They
were usually erected on a concrete slab on grade, but some
were built on full basements. A collection of Gunnison Homes
in Omaha, Nebraska, is situated on concrete basements with
integrated garages, resulting in a Raised Ranch appearance.
By 1950 Gunnison offered 14 basic models for assembly.
Most of the models can be described as one-story, gable roof
Ranch form houses, although Gunnison also offered more
traditional Cape Cod and Colonial Revival models. Windows
were steel casements, double -hung sash, or awning style,
and it was common for a picture window to be prominently
located on the facade. Marine -grade plywood was used on
the exterior, which could be covered with shingles, siding, or
other weatherboarding, or simply painted. Several Gunni-
son houses exhibit a distinctive sheet metal chimney, making
them easy to identify. For those with a detached garage, Gun-
nison Homes offered an arbor to connect the building to the
house. Metal registration plates with the company name and
serial number were installed in the utility room.397 Figure 165
presents an example of a Gunnison house.
Character -defining features include:
• Paneled frame construction;
• Gable roof;
• Steel casement windows, often with a nine -light picture
window on the facade;
• Wood exterior doors; and
• Sheet metal chimneys.
National Homes Corporation. Located in Lafayette,
Indiana, National Homes was established in 1940 by three for-
mer Gunnison Homes employees. It became one of the larg-
est prefabricated home producers in the country in the 1950s
and 1960s, selling 325,000 homes by 1968. The company con-
tinued in business until at least 1971. Authorized dealers in
Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin
were responsible for the distribution of the homes. 198
391 Patricia Lowry, "Prefab-ulous: Gunnison houses were sturdy, afford-
able and went up in a wink," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 10 March 2007.
396 Lowry.
397 Kentucky Heritage Council, House in a Box: Prefabricated Housing in
the Jackson Purchase Cultural Landscape Region, 1900 to 1960, June 2006,
Available athttp://heritage.kygov/NR/rdonlyres/69811BB7-B64C-43E7-
AC2B-C7A83390E09D/0/HouseinaBox.pdf, 56, 87.
'"Kentucky Heritage Council, 57.
Figure 165. Gunnison Bride's House model, erected in
Omaha, Nebraska, in 1955, with an integrated garage
(Mead & Hunt photograph).
National Homes manufactured prefabricated, panelized,
stressed -skin plywood homes. Panels were produced as full -
room sized units with doors and windows pre-installed. A
steel structural floor frame underpinned the primary struc-
ture. The company offered five basic floorplans with nine
different architectural forms or styles, including Ranch,
Split-level, Colonial Revival, and Contemporary. Windows
were commonly double -hung with a picture window on
the front facade, and exterior cladding was typically asbes-
tos shingle, cedar shake, Masonite, or masonry.399 One of
National's most distinctive houses was the modest "Thrift"
model, a small "starter" house with a rectangular plan and
side gable roof that resembled the Minimal Traditional form.
Similar to Gunnison Homes, metal registration plates with
the company logo and serial number were installed in the
utility room.4011
In 1953 the company retained noted Washington, D.C.,
area architect Charles Goodman to design a line of "Con-
temporary" models (see Figure 166). One of his first designs
was the one-story "Ranger" model, a Ranch form that was
customizable with options including a carport and fenced
"garden court.' Two National Homes subdivisions were estab-
lished in the Washington, D.C., area with Goodman -designed
homes 401 In addition to the D.C. area subdivision, neighbor-
hoods identified with National Homes include the Edgelea
Subdivision in Lafayette, Indiana; Cornell and Brookhaven in
Paducah, Kentucky; and the Brookdale and Snyder Subdivi-
sions in Mason, Michigan (see Figure 167).402
399 Crane, 5.
4" Kentucky Heritage Council, 57.
401 Crane, 5-6.
402 Kentucky Heritage Council, 93; "National Homes Arrive Early in
the Morning, are Assembled on Foundations Before Nightfall," Ingham
County News, 15 January 1956:2; "The First Lifetime Aluminum Home
Opens New Year's Day!" Ingham County News, 1 January 1996: B.
117
Figure 166. Charles Goodman -designed National
Homes Corporation c. 1953 prefabricated home in Bel
Air, Maryland (photograph courtesy of Anne Bruder,
Maryland State Highway Administration).
Character -defining features include the following:
• One story;
• Rectangular form;
• Double -hung and picture windows;
• Paneled plywood construction; and
• Asbestos shingle, cedar shake, Masonite, or masonry
cladding.
Regional prefabricated manufacturers. In addition,
smaller companies experienced regional success during the
postwar era. Homes constructed by such companies may be
encountered during survey and evaluation efforts. For example,
Wisconsin had several companies that produced prefabricated
homes at the regional level, including Harnischfeger Homes,
Inc., which shipped out of state, and U -Form -It houses pro-
duced and erected in the Madison area by Marshall Erdman.
Harnischfeger Homes, Inc., a division of the Milwaukee -
based Harnischfeger Corporation established in the 1930s,
Figure 167. National Homes prefabricated house in
the Snyder Subdivision in Mason, Michigan, erected
c. 1956, with replacement siding and windows (Mead
& Hunt photograph).
118
Figure 168. Harnischfeger prefabricated home in
Madison, Wisconsin, erected c. 1950 (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
Figure 169. Prefabricated U -Form -It House in Madison,
Wisconsin, erected in 1955 (Mead & Hunt photograph).
was located in Port Washington, Wisconsin, and sold pre-
fabricated homes between the mid -1930s and mid-1960s.
Harnischfeger subdivisions have been identified in Port
Washington and Madison, Wisconsin, and Mason, Michigan.
The Blackhawk Park Subdivision in Madison contains 136
single-family houses that were intended to serve as rental
units at the time of development in 1950. The prefabricated
homes feature rectangular massing and a side gable roof, in
some cases with a slight eave overhang. Picture windows and
a double -hung sash typically flank the entrance .401 Figure 168
shows an example of a Harnischfeger prefabricated home.
The U -Form -It prefabricated house (see Figure 169) was
developed by Marshall Erdman, a Madison -based merchant
builder who was concerned with advantages of residential pre-
fabrication such as cost savings and standardization of parts for
quick assembly and erection. In 1953 Erdman and a local lum-
ber supplier introduced two models of the U -Form -It house.
Built of pre-cut modular panels, these first models were one-
story, three-bedroom residences designed by the local archi-
tectural firm of Weiler & Strang. Theoretically, the U -Form -It
403 Miller, n.p.
residence could be assembled and arranged by the homeowner;
however, these residences were most frequently erected by
Erdman or other local contractors and builders. Each model
included two plan options and roof and garage variations. In
1953 and 1954, the kits were available only within a 75 -mile
radius of Madison 404 According to a Life Magazine article from
October 26,1953, Erdman's U -Form -It residences were "neither
the first nor cheapest ... but probably the best -designed. 1401
4. Garages and Carports
The garage became an integral part of the home during
the postwar period. In previous decades, the garage was typi-
cally a detached structure that was also functionally separated
from the home's living space. These freestanding structures
of prior decades often mimicked the appearance of the house
and were located at the rear of the lot. With the omission of
rear alleys from the majority of postwar residential develop-
ments, the detached garage shifted to the front of the prop-
erty and was often attached directly to the house or integrated
into an exposed basement level.
Attached and integrated garages were the preferred option
beginning in the late 1930s as garages located at the rear of
the lot were seen as detracting from available garden and
outdoor living space. After the war, this trend only increased.
In 1948 attached garages were promoted by the Community
Builders' Council. At this time the Council also promoted the
garage as additional storage space or overflow recreational
space and recommended adding 5 to 6 ft of additional space
in a single -car garage. Although attached garages may have
increased construction costs, the shorter driveways and inte-
gral construction resulted in savings .406
Nationally, 47 percent of new homes constructed in 1953
included a garage; however, they were significantly more pop-
ular in certain regions. In Los Angeles, the forefront of the
automobile culture, 88 percent of new homes had a garage,
and the two -car garage was already popular. Basement -level
garages were popular in areas where basements were a neces-
sity, including Pittsburgh. 407
404It is unknown if or when the kits began to be distributed beyond the
greater Madison area.
40' Doug Moe and Alice D'Alessio, Uncommon Sense: The Life of Mar-
shall Erdman (Black Earth, Wis.: Trails Custom Publishing, 2003),
75-77; Anna Andrzejewski "The Builder's Wright: Marshall Erdman,
Wrightification and Regional Modernism in Madison, Wisconsin,"
Paper presented at the 30t' Annual vernacular Architecture Forum,
Washington, D.C., 19-22 May 2010.
416 Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute, The
Community Builders Handbook (1948), 87.
407 Jacobs, "You Can't Dream Yourself a House": The Evolving Postwar
Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed Consumer World
1945-1970,161-162.
Figure 170. Postwar houses with carports in the
Eastridge subdivision of Lincoln, Nebraska, which
qualified for FHA financing when it was developed in
1953 (Mead &Hunt photograph).
Figure 171. Ranch house in Upper Arlington, Ohio,
constructed c. 1955, with a carport integrated into the
overall form (Mead & Hunt photograph).
For builders, the aspect of the width of the house to the
width of attached garage was important to create an appeal-
ing entrance or view from the street. The architecture of
the Colonial Revival, Ranch, Split-level, and Contemporary
home was well suited to attached garages. In addition, the
integrated basement -level garage worked well with variations
of the Ranch and Split-level forms.
Although carports were utilized by Prairie School archi-
tects in the 1910s and by Frank Lloyd Wright in his Usonian
designs of the 1930s, it was not until the postwar era that
they became commonplace. Their minimalist appearance
worked well with modern architectural styles and they were
generally less expensive than garages. As a result, carports
were common in subdivisions that received FHA financ-
ing, which had a maximum home cost (see Figures 170 and
171).408 Although carports were more practical in warmer cli-
mates, both attached and freestanding varieties were popular
nationwide. The majority of carports had similar features;
408 Jason Fox and R. Brooks Jeffery, Carport Integrity Policy, Arizona
State Historic Preservation Office (Unpublished, adopted October
2005), Available at the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, 2.
119
attached models were connected to one end of the house
and included within the roofline. They often incorporated
the same materials as the house and included a storage area.
Plan books from the 1950s and 1960s included carports that
could be incorporated into the overall house to increase liv-
ing space, allowing families to purchase a home at a lower cost
and have the flexibility to modify the carport as they needed
the space .409
By the 1970s the garage proved more popular than the car-
port. The openness of the carport was its downfall as multi -
car families in need of storage wanted enclosed spaces that
were not visible .410
5. Landscape and Site Features
Like postwar subdivisions and architecture, where the
same overall layouts, forms and styles were popular across
the country, landscape designs were similar nationwide. As
a result, most postwar subdivisions looked similar regard-
less of the region .41 Designs were promoted by the FHA,
ULI, NAHB, and popular magazines of the period, includ-
ing House Beautiful. Regional variation was generally limited
to planting selections and response to topography and lot
configuration.
a. Yards and Fences
In the 1936 publication Principles of Planning Small
Houses, the FHA stated "trees and shrubbery may be used to
enhance the architectural character, and are frequently more
effective than the decorative use of material in providing the
charm essential to a satisfactory home. Planting may further-
more add directly to the living quality of a property." Shade
trees were recommended to frame the house design as well
as provide respite from the afternoon sun. Trees could also
be used to subdue projecting garages and unify the compo-
sition of the property. Slow growing evergreen and decidu-
ous trees were recommended for planting near the house, as
they would not develop quickly and obscure the view of the
facade. Large trees were recommended for placement at the
corners along with lower shrubs. Hedges along lot lines were
viewed as a way to increase privacy and prevent footpaths
from being worn on the lawn .411
Although House Beautiful featured many architect -designed
homes with designed landscapes, during the postwar era
409 Fox and Jeffery, 2-3.
410 Fox and Jeffery, 3.
41 Marc Treib, ed., The Architecture of Landscape, 1940-1960 (Philadel-
phia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 160.
412 United States Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Plan-
ning Small Houses (1936), 34-35.
120
the magazine also provided guidance for accommodating
such designs to subdivisions, where lots typically averaged
60 by 120 ft. 411 The magazine also urged homeowners to add
their individuality to the suburban landscape by creating a
yard or garden that reflected their personality, while also con-
forming to the established neighborhood. Noted landscape
architects of the period also provided guidance to the home
owners, including Thomas Church and the Gardens Are for
People: How to Plan for Outdoor Living, Garrett Eckbo and the
Art of Home Landscaping, and Sunset Magazine's "Landscape
for Western Living:1414
Although developers were encouraged to incorporate
overall planting plans into their developments, individual
homeowners were also encouraged to develop individual
landscape plans that fit with the overall neighborhood char-
acter. The NAHB recommended that developers promote
individual landscape plans for purchase by home owners
at the time of the house purchase. Developed by landscape
architects, the plans were to be simple and included diagrams
for each area of the lot, along with a planting list. The NAHB
also encouraged developers to have a completed landscape
with the model home as an incentive for potential buyers .415
The lawn became an important symbol of the post-
war suburban neighborhood. Initially, grass was planted
by developers after construction because it was a fast and
inexpensive way to enhance the area and create a park -like
setting. The result was a subdivision that resembled those
of the previous decades, with the exception being the lack
of trees that had been cleared for building. The lush green
lawn quickly became an American ideal, promoted in print
and advertisements. Several new products were made avail-
able to create the uniform, park -like green space between the
street and the house. Beginning in the 1950s, hybrid grass
seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, power lawn
mowers, and automatic sprinkler systems were available to
the American public to further this ideal of the suburban
lawn. 416
During the postwar era, the backyard transformed from an
area used to complete outdoor housework, such as laundry, to
a recreational space that was an extension of the indoor living
space. Clotheslines were removed and backyard gardens, patios,
barbeques, and children's play areas became popular additions
413 Treib, 183.
414Ames and McClelland, 71. Thomas Church was a noted landscape
architect who worked with Eichler and other notable builders during
the period.
415 The National Association of Home Builders, Home Builders Manual
for Land Development, Second Revised Edition (Washington, D.C.: The
National Association of Home Builders, February 1958), 201-202.
4"Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: A History of American Obsession
(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), 102.
Figure 172. Patio located at rear elevation of c. 1956
Ranch house in Lincoln, Nebraska (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
to the landscape. Outdoor paving materials and planters were
seen as a low -maintenance way to enhance the area.
With the increased outdoor living space and the number of
expansive windows in postwar homes, privacy became a key
aspect of design. Walls, fences, concrete screens, and hedges
were integrated into the landscape as visual barriers. The ULI
saw these as integral into the site and lot development and
urged builders to consider their inclusion during the initial
planning phase. House Beautiful promoted fences and hedges,
especially those that provided privacy but did not offend the
neighbor .417
b. Patios
Although not all climates were ideal for year-round out-
door living, almost all Ranch homes and other popular forms
and styles included patio or outdoor living space (see Fig-
ure 172). A 1947 House Beautiful article asserted "The ranch
house indoor -outdoor way of living needn't be limited to the
West ... it can fit cold climates, too 11411
The patio was a way to integrate the interior and exterior
living space, and large expanses of windows and sliding glass
patio doors often provided access to the outdoor space. The
patio typically included a paved area suitable for outdoor
living and dining, bordered by raised planters or decorative
screening, such as vegetation or concrete walls. The size of the
patio varied from a small paved pad with limited space for
barbequing and dining to large elaborate areas with outdoor
living furniture and defined recreational areas.
In warmer climates patios often took the form of court-
yards, surrounded by the house on two or more sides, which
offered additional shade. In some areas, including Georgia,
417Treib, 193; Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Insti-
tute, The Community Builders Handbook (1954), 102.
4"As quoted in Richfield, 40.
Figure 173. Ranch house near Decatur, Georgia,
constructed in 1949, with screen porch on the
side elevation (photograph courtesy of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division).
the patio took the form of a screen porch, allowing for protec-
tion from mosquitos and other pests (see Figure 173).
c. Driveways and Sidewalks
The earliest driveways were strips of pavement or worn
earth that led from the street to the detached garage, typi-
cally located near the rear of the lot. However, in the post-
war era, as the garage became integrated into the house, the
driveway shifted to the front of the yard and became a focal
feature. The resulting driveway was wider and often served
as the primary entrance to the home, in some cases replacing
the front walk. The driveway also became more permanent as
the standard materials evolved from compacted dirt or gravel
to concrete and asphalt. In many postwar neighborhoods,
driveways evolved to serve several other functions, including
play areas, ball courts, and front yard patios for socializing. In
many cases they became the primary parking area as garages
were used predominantly for storage .419
d. Family Shelters
In addition to the patio and outdoor living space, "fam-
ily shelters" were a postwar innovation that influenced the
residential yard. As the Cold War persisted throughout the
postwar period and the public's fear of nuclear weapons
grew following the Cuban Missile Crisis, family shelters, also
known as fallout shelters and bomb shelters, were marketed
to families as sanctuary in the event of a nuclear war. At the
419Girhng and Helphand, 31-32.
420 California Department of Transportation, 37-40; Jill M. (Ebers)
Dolberg, Dr. Burdette and Myrna Gainsforth House National Register
Nomination, 8-3.
121
Figure 174. The Gainsforth House in Ogallala,
Nebraska, a modest Ranch house constructed in 1949
with an underground bunker (photograph courtesy
of the Nebraska State Historical Society).
height of their popularity, between 1949 and 1962, approxi-
mately 200,000 shelters were constructed in the United
States .410
The Department of Defense published handbooks for the
construction of fallout shelters. These designs were intended
to be erected in backyards and basements, for use by families
without access to community shelters. The 1962 edition of
the Department of Defense's "Family Shelter Designs" edition
included instructions for a variety of shelters, from basement
to mounded designs. The December 1961 edition of Popular
Mechanics included plans for a model that could be constructed
quickly under the backyard patio, based on previously unpub-
lished plans from the Office of Civil Defense. These shelters
were designed to protect families from the effects of radioactive
fallout and could be easily constructed with available materials,
provided one followed the included construction sequence. A
complete shelter typically included a toilet, a battery-operated
lighting system, fresh air intake and exhaust system, cots, and a
supply of food and water .411
The Gainsforth House in Ogallala, Nebraska, includes an
early example of a family shelter that was constructed in 1949,
at the same time as the family's Ranch house (see Figure 174).
Dr. Gainsforth designed the shelter himself, which was acces-
sible only from a tunnel between the house and the garage
(see Figure 175). The shelter included indoor plumbing, with
water coming from a nearby well. The family stocked the
shelter with enough canned food to last one week and enough
water to last two weeks 422
421 Department of Defense — Office of Civil Defense, "Family Shelter
Designs," Handbook (Washington, D.C.: n.p.,1962); "You Can Build a
Low -Cost Shelter Quickly" Popular Mechanics December, 1961, 85-86.
122 Dolberg, 8-4.
122
^'7
Figure 175. Concrete tunnel between the
Gainsforth House and garage in Ogallala,
Nebraska, that also led to the family bunker
(photograph courtesy of the Nebraska State
Historical Society).
Because fallout shelters and bunkers were intended to
house only the immediate family or a small group of people,
their locations were not made obvious. Oftentimes only a
few elements, such as hatches or air intakes, are visible on the
landscape, making them difficult to identify (see Figure 176).
Figure 176. Bomb shelter in Sonora, California,
constructed c. 1960, from left to right are the exhaust
air vent, hatch, and fresh air intake (photograph
courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans).
H. Conclusion
This national historic context discusses the national trends
that influenced suburbanization and residential development
during the postwar period, as well as the architectural styles
and forms that were prevalent during this era. It provides the
framework for understanding the social, economic, govern-
mental, and political influences on the development of post-
war single-family residences nationally. Along with the model
context outline, which will assist with the development of tar-
geted local and regional contexts, this national context can
guide development of an appropriate local or regional con-
text which can, in turn, be used to inform field survey and
documentation efforts and evaluate the National Register
eligibility of postwar residential resources.
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
A. Expected Benefits
The production of housing increased significantly follow-
ing World War II, with over 39.5 million new housing starts
from 1950 to 1975 alone to address the shortage .421 As these
vast numbers of postwar residences meet the National Register
50 -year guideline, state DOTs, SHPOs, and cultural resource
professionals struggle with how to efficiently and consistently
evaluate the significance and integrity of these resources. Most
states are currently using traditional survey methods and
existing National Register guidance to identify and evaluate
this specific and ubiquitous resource type, and they are
increasingly challenged by the vast number of similar
resources that are being surveyed and evaluated. Traditional
methods are also leading to inconsistent eligibility recommen-
dations. The evaluation of individual postwar resources and
neighborhoods along transportation project corridors without
benefit of resource -specific guidance or contextual information
has also led to increased project costs and delays. A few DOTs
and SHPOs have begun to address these concerns through the
development of statewide historic contexts and development
of National Register eligibility requirements; these documents
provide a good first step in addressing this issue.424 The NCHRP
identified the need for consistent national guidance focusing on
this specific and ubiquitous resource type. The current study
was directed toward fulfilling this need.
Due to the sheervolume of postwar single-family residences,
it is not typically practical or prudent to apply traditional sur-
vey methodologies to these resources. Traditional approaches
followed by many state DOTs and their consultants require
the field survey documentation of numerous similar, and in
423U.S. Census data available at http://www.census.gov/const/startsan.
pdf (accessed 29 March 2011) and U.S. Census data from 1966 in
Checkoway, 23.
424 See bibliography in Appendix A for list of identified state postwar
residential studies that have been completed to date.
123
many cases nearly identical, houses. For example, in some
states compliance survey procedures require any property that
is over 40 years old and in the APE be included in the survey
documentation. In the case of a project that may affect a large
postwar subdivision, this approach may result in a significant
expenditure of time, resources, and budget to document hun-
dreds or thousands of like resources. One of the goals of this
project was to find ways to streamline the typical survey and
evaluation approaches by focusing on the properties that have
the most potential to meet National Register Criteria.
Through the completion of this project, it was determined
that a resource -specific selective survey approach comple-
mented by the development of a local historic context pro-
vides the necessary information to identify potential historic
resources and apply the National Register Criteria. Since most
postwar residences are more likely to be eligible as a compo-
nent of a historic district, the selective survey methodology
advocates for the field review of a collection of resources first
as a potential historic district without recordation of each
building individually within the potential historic district.
The greatest efficiencies can be achieved through documen-
tation of a collection of resources during field survey efforts
instead of individual properties. To address properties that
may have the potential to be individually eligible, the selective
survey approach limits documentation efforts to examples of
postwar styles and forms that meet the survey criteria out-
lined in this report and stand out amongst similar properties.
Use of the recommended survey methodology is expected to
result in a streamlined and consistent process for dealing with
large numbers of postwar residential properties.
The national historic context prepared for this study also
provides some key benefits to cultural resource professionals.
First, the national historic context offers a succinct back-
ground and history of the overall trends and influences on
postwar housing. As a result, this general background and his-
tory does not need to be developed when preparing a historic
context for a specific transportation project that may affect
124
postwar residences. Instead, time and focus can be spent on
developing the local context and its relationship to the national
trends. The national historic context and the model context
outline also simplify the preparation of a local context by serv-
ing as a guide for research efforts and areas of context devel-
opment. The national context also provides cultural resource
professionals with a clear and wide-ranging definition of the
residential housing forms and architectural styles utilized dur-
ing the postwar period. This includes a discussion of character -
defining features for the styles and forms and architectural
details that are frequently applied to the housing forms. Few
architectural style guides cover the postwar period in detail.
This document pulls together the work that has been done
by individual states and various professionals to provide a
comprehensive, national perspective.
The historic context outline and the survey and evalua-
tion methodology developed for this project provides spe-
cific guidance that is tailored to postwar residential housing
to be applied by cultural resource professionals. Applica-
tion of these tools is expected to streamline the Section 106
review process for these ubiquitous resources. The practi-
cal approach developed by this research should help ensure
that the model context and survey methodology are useful
to state DOTs, SHPOs, cultural resource professionals, and
the FHWA. Application of the recommended methodology
by cultural resource professionals will lead to more effective
and efficient practices in addressing postwar housing dur-
ing transportation project development. Ultimately, the use
of the national context and streamlined survey methodology
can potentially lower project costs and expedite project sched-
ules. This benefit will primarily be realized during the project
development phase of a project.
A consistent, credible approach to surveying, evaluating, and
assessing the integrity of postwar properties can help change
a perception among both practitioners and the general pub-
lic that postwar resources are unimportant. While few postwar
resources will be individually eligible for the National Register, a
significant residential building boom reflects important trends
in community planning and development, architecture, and
social history. Postwar residences tell a unique story of the his-
tory of our nation's housing both in the distinctive architectural
styles and forms that developed following the technologies and
societal preferences after World War II and in the development
of large residential subdivisions in response to the postwar
housing demand.
B. Dissemination of Results and
Areas for Additional Research
The widespread distribution of the model context and the
survey and evaluation methodology is necessary to inform
the historic preservation community of these research results.
Dissemination of the results of this research can be accom-
plished through webinars, conferences, professional meet-
ings, and newsletters. Using social media, notices regarding
its completion and availability can be sent to appropriate
user groups, list serves, and communicated in newsletters to
organizations such as the National Conference of State His-
toric Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) and the American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Standing Committee on Environment. Wide-
spread use by state DOTs and SHPOs will result in a nation-
ally consistent, streamlined approach to address the survey
and evaluation of postwar residential resources.
Development of local postwar historic contexts focusing
on residential development will increase the value of these
research results. Local historic contexts would greatly assist
efforts to evaluate postwar resources on the local level. The
challenge faced by compliance projects is that they are project
specific and therefore it is often difficult to justify the develop-
ment of city-wide, county- and/or state-wide historic contexts
for a single transportation project. However, as identified
through this project, the application of the evaluation cri-
teria is most effective when both the national and the local
historic context are developed. The evaluation of resources in
one neighborhood is not as effective as the ability to evaluate
those resources within the broader context of a community
whether it be for the city or county.
While the lack of available local historic contexts makes
it challenging to evaluate postwar resources, this limitation
does not generally restrict survey efforts. As noted above, tre-
mendous efficiencies can be realized through documentation
of a collection of postwar residential resources during field
survey efforts instead of individual properties. For individual
properties, the selective survey approach allows documenta-
tion efforts to focus on examples of postwar styles and forms
that meet the survey criteria outlined in this report and stand
out amongst similar properties.
The results of this project could be the topic of a National
Register Bulletin (Bulletin) and/or National Register MPD
for postwar residential properties that furthers the work
of the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin and MPD. The
context in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin covers
the period through 1960. The results of this research add to
the historic context for residential development by includ-
ing additional properties that are now 50 years old and were
built through 1975. In addition, the streamlined survey and
evaluation methodology provide practical tools that enhance
the guidelines for evaluation and documentation provided
in the Bulletin.
The preparation of an illustrated guide to postwar residen-
tial architectural styles and form would also be helpful since
most architectural style guides do not cover the postwar period
in much detail. The guide could expand on the information
presented in this research project and serve as a tool for educat-
ing cultural resource professionals and promoting consistency
in the description and discussion of these styles and forms.
The results of this research could also support a nationwide
programmatic agreement between the FHWA, NCSHPO and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that would be
similar to the nationwide programmatic agreement adopted
for cell towers that outlines documentation and evaluation
procedures for that particular undertaking. The program-
matic agreement could expand upon these research results to
address typical project activities and the application of the
125
criteria of effect for transportation projects impacting post-
war residential properties. If a nationwide programmatic
agreement is pursued, the development of a standard survey
form and/or database to collect field survey data and generate
survey records could be a useful tool. The form and data col-
lection fields could be tailored to this postwar resource type
to assist the surveyor in data collection and evaluation. The
lack, however, of national standards for surveys and for data-
base systems of surveyed properties could make the adoption
of a national standardized survey form and data collection
procedures for these resources challenging.
126
APPENDIX A
Bibliography
Bibliography
Items with an asterisk (*) were used for the national context.
Items with a plus sign (+) were used for the evaluation methodology.
Articles
*"8 Pickets Are Jailed at Belair." The Washington Post, Times Herald.
15 September 1963.
Allen, Barbara L. "The Ranch -Style House in America: A Cultural and
Environmental Discourse.' Journal of Architectural Education 49,
no. 3 (February 1996),156-165.
Ames, David L. "Interpreting Post -World War II Suburban Landscapes
as Historic Resources.'In Preserving the RecentPast, 77, ed. Deborah
Slaton and Rebecca A. Shiffer. Washington, D.C.: Historic Preserva-
tion Education Foundation, 1995.
*"Andersen Corporation." Funding Universe. http://www.fundinguni
verse.com/company-histories/Andersen-Corporation-Company-
History.html (accessed 10 March 2011).
*Andersen Windows and Doors. "Product Features and History," http://
www.andersenwindows.com/homeowner/pdfs/History.pdf-
(accessed 10 March 2011).
"Big Dave Bohannon: Operative Builder by the California Method.'
Fortune, April 1946, 144-147.
Bricker, David. "Interpreting Post -World War II Suburban Landscapes
as Historic Resources.' In Preserving the RecentPast, 77, ed. Deborah
Slaton and Rebecca A. Shiffer. Washington, D.C.: Historic Preserva-
tion Education Foundation, 1995.
* . "Ranch Houses Are Not All the Same.' Preserving the Recent Past
2,2-115-2-123.
*"The Bride's House of 1955." Ladies Home Journal, 1955.
*"Brief History of Aluminum and Vinyl Siding.' House Home Repair.
http://www.houschomerepair.com (accessed 1 April 2011).
*Carpenter, Allan. "How to Plan, Build and Pay for Your Own Home; A
Primer for Home Builders.' Popular Mechanics, 1950: 171.
"The Case Study House Program Announcement.' Arts &Architecture.
http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/case. houses/pdf01/csh_
announcement.pdf (accessed 12 April 2011).
*Checkoway, Barry. "Large Builders, Federal Housing Programmes,
and Postwar Suburbanization.' International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 4 (March 1980), 21-45.
*Cohen, Lizabeth. "Citizens and Consumers in the Century of Mass
Consumption.' In Harvard Sitkoff, ed., Perspectives on Modern
America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Easterling, Keller and Richard Prelinger. "Call it Home: The House that
Private Enterprise Built." The Voyager Company, 1992. Available
at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/projs/call-it-home/html/.
(accessed 10 March 2011).
Emrich, Ron. "Wynnewood: A Tonic to the Shelter -Hungry Nation."'
Legacies: A History Journal for Dallas and North Central Texas XIV,
no. II, 39-51.
*Federal HighwayAdministration. "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways." Federal Highway
Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder
(accessed 15 December 2009).
*"The First Lifetime Aluminum Home Opens New Year's Day!" Ingham
County News. 1 January 1996.
Fishman, Robert. "Urbanity and Suburbanity: Rethinking the `Burbs. '
American Quarterly 46, no.l (March 1994): 35-39.
.
The Postwar American Suburb: A New Form, A New City." In
Two Centuries of American Planning, ed. Daniel Schaffer. Balti-
more, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Friedman, Avi. "The Evolution of Design Characteristics During the
Post -Second World War Housing Boom: The U.S. Experience.'
Journal of Design History 8, issue 2,131-147.
+Grier, Eunice and George Grier. Privately Developed Inter -Racial Hous-
ing. • An Analysis of Experience (Report to the Commission on Race
and Housing), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1960.
*Hanchett, Thomas W. "Federal Incentives and the Growth of Local
Planning, 1941-1948.' APA Journal (Spring 1994): 197-208.
. "Financing Suburbia: Prudential Insurance and the Post -World
War II Transformation of the American City." Journal of Urban His-
tory 26 (March 2000), 312-328.
*Hayden, Dolores. "Revisiting the Sitcom Suburbs," Land Lines 13,
no.2 (March2001) http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/253_Revisiting-
the-Sitcom-Suburbs (accessed 13 December 2010).
*"History Timeline." NAHB The Voice of the Housing Industry http://
www.nahb.org/NAHB_History/historytimeline.html (accessed
11 March 2011).
*Hope, Andrew. "Evaluating the Significance of San Lorenzo Village, A
Mid -20th Century Suburban Community." CRMJournal of Heritage
Stewardship 2:2 (Summer 2005), 50-61.
*"Housing in D.C. Area Picketed." The Sun. 19 August 1963.
*"Housing: More for Less.' Time Magazine. 27 October 1958.
*"Housing Project Bed -In Is Staged.' The Sun. 11 August 1963.
"Housing Takes to Detroit Ways.' Business Week. 30 April 1955, 62-72.
Hubka, Thomas. "Houses without Names: Architectural Nomenclature
and the Classification of America's Common Houses." CRMJour-
nal of Heritage Stewardship 8:1-2 (Winter -Summer 2011), 23-30.
*IBM - A Vibrant Force in Rochester." RochesterMN.com, http://www.
rochestermn.com/ibma/vibrant/force/in/Rochester/story-2l.html
(accessed 30 March 2011).
*Jackson, Kenneth T. "Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: The
First Quarter -Century of Government Intervention in the Housing
Market" in Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Vol. 50 (1980).
*Jacobs, James Andrew. "Social and Spatial Changes in the Postwar
Family Room." Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13 (2006):
70-85.
Jensen, Cory. "Post -War Typology and Stylistic Designations for Resi-
dential Architecture.' The Alliance Review. January/February 2004.
Kelly, Barbara M. "The Houses of Levittown in the Context of Postwar
American Culture." In Preserving the Recent Past, 77, ed. Deborah
Slaton and Rebecca A. Shiffer. Washington, D.C.: Historic Preserva-
tion Education Foundation, 1995.
Lambin, Jean, et al. National Trust for Historic Preservation: Lustron
On -Line. 2007.
*Lauber, John. `And it Never Needs Painting: The Development of Resi-
dential Aluminum Siding." APT Bulletin XXXI, no. 2-3 (2000):17-24.
*Levitt & Sons, Incorporated. "Belair at Bowie Maryland." [Bowie,
Md.]: Levitt & Sons, 1961.
Longstreth, Richard. "The Extraordinary Post -War Suburb" Forum
Journal, 15 (Fall 2000), 16-25.
.
The Significance of the Recent Past."CRMJournal 16, no. 6 (1993), 6.
*Lowry, Patricia. "Prefab-ulous: Gunnison Houses Were Sturdy, Afford-
able and Went Up in a Wink." Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 10 March 2007.
*Lustron Corporation. The Lustron Home: A New Standard of Living.
[Columbus, Ohio]: Lustron Corporation, 1948. http://strandlund.
tripod.com/index-21.html (accessed 22 January 2011).
*"Lustron History." Lustron Preservation. http://www.lustronpreservation.
org/meet-the-lustrons/lustron-history (accessed 10 March 2011).
*"The Lustron Home: A New Standard of Living." The Preservationist 2,
no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2007).
Malin, Nadav and Alex Wilson, Tyvek, "History of Vinyl Siding." Available
at http://www.vinyl-siding-info.com/vinyl_siding_historyhtm].
*Maxwell, Shirley and James C. Massey. "From Dark Times to Dream
Houses. Old -House Journal (September -October 1999): 58-63.
*. "Postwar Houses and the Cape Cods and Split Levels of the
1940s." Old -House Journal. July -August 1992: 55-59.
McAlester, Virginia. `American Single Family Houses from 1935-1960.'
In Preserving the Recent Past, 77, ed. Deborah Slaton and Rebecca
A. Shiffer. Washington, D.C.: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation, 1995.
Mennel, Timothy. "`Miracle House Hoop-Ld: Corporate Rhetoric and the
Construction of the Postwar American House." Journal of the Society
of Architectural Historians 64, no. 3 (September 2005), 340-361.
*Milkovich McKee, Ann. "Stonewalling America, Simulated Stone
Products. CRMJournal, 8 (1995). 30-33.
*"National Homes Arrive Early in the Morning, are Assembled on Foun-
dations Before Nightfall." Ingham County News, 15 January 1956: 2.
*Normile, John and Jim Riggs. "The Home For All America." Better
Homes & Gardens. September 1954, 57-73.
*"Owens-Corning Corporation: Company History." Funding Universe.
http://www.fundinguniverse. com/company-histories/Owens-
Corning-Corporation-Company-Historyhtml (accessed 10 March
2011).
*Patterson, Elizabeth A. and Neal A. Vogel. "The Architecture of Glass
Block" Old -House Journal (January -February 2001): 221-226.
127
*Randl, Chad Garrett. "The Mania for A -Frames." Old -House Journal
(July -August 2004): 72-79.
*Rubano, Anthony. "The Grille is Gone: The Rise and Fall of Screen
Block.' Preserving the Recent Past 2, 3-89 - 3-99.
*Rybczynski, Witold. "The Ranch House Anomaly." Slate Magazine.
17 April 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2163970/(accessed 18
March 2011).
*Schrag, Zachary. "Urban Mass Transit in the United States.' EconomicHis-
tory Encyclopedia, ed. Robert Whaples. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/
article/schrag.mass.transit.us (accessed 7 April 2011).
Shiffer, Rebecca A. "The Recent Past.' CRM 18, no. 8 (1995), 3-4.
*Siskind, David. "Housing Starts: Background and Derivation of
Estimates, 1945-82." Construction Review (May/June 1982).
*"Snyder Subdivision.' Ingham County News. 19 January 1956.
*Stone, Michael E. "Housing and the Dynamics of U.S. Capitalism.' Criti-
cal Perspectives on Housing. Rachel G. Bratt, Chester Hartman and
Ann Meyerson, eds. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1986.
*Strauss Brothers. Eastridge, A Great Place to Live. [Lincoln, Neb.]:
Strauss Brothers, [1957].
*. There's a New Trend in Lincoln. [Lincoln, Neb.]: Strauss Brothers,
[1954].
"The Housing Act of 1954: A 40 -Year Retrospective.' Planning History
Present 8, no. 1 (1994), 1-6.
Tucker, Lisa Marie. "The Small House Problem in the United States,
1918-1945: The American Institute of Architects and the Architects'
Small House Service Bureau.' Journal of Design History (July 2009).
*Utah Home Builders Association. `America's Most Beautiful Parade of
Homes, Souvenir Booklet:' [Salt Lake City, Utah] : Utah Home Builders
Association, 1954. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rightintwomcm/
4018279708/in/set-72157622476127301/ (accessed 25 March 2011).
*Vinyl Siding Institute. "History."American Vinyl Sidinglnstitute. http://
www.vinylsiding.org/aboutsiding/history/index.asp (accessed
10 March 2011).
Walston, Mark. "The Commercial Rise and Fall of Sliver Spring: A Study
of the 20th Century Development of the Suburban Shopping Center
in Montgomery County." Maryland Historical Magazine 81, no. 4
(1986), 330-339.
*Weingroff.RichardE"The Greatest Decade 1956-1966: PartII-The Battle
for Its Life" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50interstate2.
cfm (accessed 9 April 2011).
*. "The Genie in the Bottle: The Interstate System and Urban Prob-
lems, 1939-1957." Federal Highways Administration. http://www.
fha.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw00c.cfm (accessed 7 March 2011).
Woods, Amy Lamb. "Keeping a Lid on It: Asbestos -Cement Building
Materials.' Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Historic Pres-
ervation Education Foundation, 2000. Available at http://showcase.
netins.net/web/aei/asb.htm.
Books and Published Sources
Adamson, Paul and Marty Arbunich Eichler. Modernism Rebuilds the
American Dream. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2002.
Aladdin Company. Aladdin Readi-Cut Homes (not prefabricated): Sold
by the Golden Rule/Aladdin Company. Bay City, Mich.: Aladdin
Company, 1954.
Albrecht, Donald, ed. World War 77 and the American Dream: How War-
time Building Changed aNation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
*American Society of Planning Officials. "Check Lists for Planning Oper-
ations." Information Report No. 107. Chicago: American Society of
Planning Officials, February 1958.
128
* . "Public Open Space in Subdivisions.' Information Report No. 46.
Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, January 1953.
* . "Sidewalks in the Suburbs. Information Report No. 95. Chicago:
American Society of Planning Officials, February 1957.
Architects' Small House Service Bureau of Minnesota. How to Plan,
Finance, and Build Your Home. [Minneapolis, Minn.:] Architects'
Small House Service Bureau of Minnesota, 1921.
Architects' Small House Service Bureau of the United States. Jones,
Robert, ed. Small Homes ofArchitectural Distinction: ABook of Sug-
gested Plans Designed by the Architects' Small House Service Bureau,
Inc. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1929.
Authentic Publications, Inc. A New Book of Ranch Homes, Bungalows
and Solar (Sun Ray) Houses. New York: Authentic Publications,
Inc., 1949.
Bauman, John E, Robert Biles, and Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. From Tene-
ments to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in
Twentieth-CenturyAmerica. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2000.
Baxandall, Rosalyn and Elizabeth Ewen. Picture Windows: How the
Suburbs Happened. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Beauregard, Robert A. When America Became Suburban. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.
*Bennett, Michael J. When Dreams Came True. The GI Bill and the Making
of Modern America. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's, Inc., 1996.
*Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Highways ofMin nesotafrom July 1,
1956 to June 30, 1958. St. Paul, Minn.: State of Minnesota, 1958.
*Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Highways of Minnesota from July
1, 1958 to June 30, 1960. St. Paul, Minn.: State of Minnesota, 1960.
Bruce, Alfred and Harold Sandbank. A History of Prefabrication.
Raritan, N.J.: John B. Pierce Foundation, Housing Research Division,
September 1945.
*Burnahm, Kelly. Design and the Production of Houses. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, 1959.
*California Department of Transportation. Tract Housing in California,
1945-1973:A Context for National Register Evaluation. Sacramento,
Calif: California Department of Transportation, 2011.
Cathedral Domes. Geodesic Building Concept. Santa Cruz, Calif.:
Cathedral Domes, n.d.
Cherner, Norman. Fabricating Houses From Component Parts. New
York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1957.
*Clark, Clifford. American Family Home, 1800-1960. Chapel Hill, N.C.:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1986.
*Community Builders' Council of the Urban Land Institute. The Com-
munity Builders Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute,
1948 (revised).
*. The Community Builders Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 1954 (the Member's Edition).
*. The Community Builders Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Land Institute, 1960.
Contosta, David R. Suburb in the City: Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia,
1850-1990. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1992.
Cromley, Elizabeth C., and Carter L. Hudgins, eds. Gender, Class, and
Shelter. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1995.
Decker, Julie, and Chris Chiei, eds. Quonset Hut: Metal Living for a
Modern Age. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.
Ditto, Jerry. Eichler Homes: A Design for Living. San Francisco, Calif.:
Chronicle Books, 1995.
Doan, Mason C. American Housing Production, 1880-2000. Lanham,
N.J.: University Press of America, 1996.
Dobriner, William M. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice -Hall, Inc., 1963.
*Dolan, Michael. The American Porch, an Informal History of an Infor-
mal Place. Guilford, Conn.: The Lyons Press, 2002.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. Suburban
Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.
New York: North Point Press, 2000.
*Eichler, Ned. The MerchantBuilders. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982.
*Erlichman, Howard J. Camino del Norte: How a Series of Watering
Holes, Fords, and Dirt Trails Evolved into Interstate 35 in Texas.
College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.
Fetters, Thomas T. The Lustron Home: The History of a Postwar Prefabri-
cated Housing Experiment. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company,
2002.
Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New
York: Basic Books, 1989.
*Flink, James J. The Automobile Age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988.
. The Car Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1975.
Ford, Larry R. Cities and Buildings: Skyscrapers, Skid Rows, and Suburbs.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Fox, Kenneth. Metropolitan America: Urban Life and Urban Policy in the
United States, 1940-1980. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1985.
Garn, Andrew. Exit to Tomorrow. History of the Future, World's' Fair
Architecture, Fashion, Design, 1933-2005. NewYork: Universe, 2007.
Gilbert, Amy and David Whitaker, eds. Beyond the City: The Develop-
ment of Roland Park, Baltimore, Maryland, and Cleveland Park,
Washington, D.C. College Park, Md.: University of Maryland,
1989.
*Gilbert, James. Another Chance: Postwar America, 1945-1968. New
York: Knopf, 1981.
*Girling, Cynthia and Kenneth Helpand. Yard, Street, Park: The Design
of Suburban Open Space. New York: John Wiley, 1994.
*Glasteel, Inc. A Guide forBuilding with Glasteel Fiberglass Panels. South
El Monte, Calif: Glasteel, Inc., n.d.
Gottfried, Herbert. American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors,
1870-1960. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2009.
Gregory, Daniel Platt. Cliff May and the Modern Ranch. New York:
Rizzoli, 2008.
Harris, David R. All Suburbs Are Not Created Equal: A New Look at
Racial Differences in Suburban Location (Report No. 99-440). Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan, 1999.
Harris, Richard and Peter J. Larkham, eds. Changing Suburbs: Founda-
tion, Form and Function. London: E&F Spon, 1999.
Hart, John Fraser, Michael J. Rhodes, and John T. Morgan. The Unknown
World of the Mobile Home. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, 2002.
*Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth,
1820-2000. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003.
*. Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family
Life, 2nd edition. New York- W. W. Norton, 2002.
*Hess, Alan. Forgotten Modern: California Houses, 1940-1970. Layton,
Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2007.
. Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture. San Francisco,
Calif: Chronicle Books, 2004.
. The Ranch House. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2004.
Hitchcock, Henry -Russell and Arther Drexler, eds. Built in the USA:
Post-war Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1952.
*Hobbs, Frank and Nicole Stoops. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
Special Reports, Series CENSR-4, Demographic Trends in the
Twentieth Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2002.
Home Building Plan Service. New Trends in Home Plans: More Than
100 Designs, Many Never Before Published in Book Form. Portland:
Home Building Plan Service, 1954.
*Housing and Home Finance Agency. The Urban Renewal Program
Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: Housing and Home Finance Agency
Urban Renewal Administration, 1964.
Hunter, Christine. Ranches, Rowhouses, and Railroad Flats - American
Homes: How they Shape our Landscape and Neighborhoods. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Hurley, Andrew. Diners, Bowling Alleys, and Trailer Parks: Chasing the
American Dream in Postwar Consumer Culture. New York: Basic
Books, 2002.
Ierley, Merritt. The Comforts of Home: TheAmerican House and the Evo-
lution of Modern Convenience. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999.
Inman-Poulsen Lumber Co. National Economy Homes Engineered for
Substantial Savings. [Chicago]: National Plan Service USA, 1949.
Isenstadt, Sandy. The Modern American House: Spaciousness and
Middle -Class Identity. Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
*Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the
United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Jackson, Lesley. Contemporary: Architecture and Interiors of the 1950s.
London: Phaidon, 1998.
*Jenkins, Virginia Scott. The Lawn: A History of American Obsession.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994.
*Jester, Thomas C., ed. Twentieth -Century Building Materials: History
and Conservation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
*Johnson, A. E. ed. Published on the Occasion of the Golden Anniversary
of the American Association of State Highway Officials: A Story of
the Beginning, Purposes, Growth, Activities and Achievements of
AASHO. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of State
Highway Officials, 1965.
Johnson, Paul C. Western Ranch Houses by Cliff May. Santa Monica,
Calif.: Hennessey & Ingalls, 1997.
Kaledin, Eugenia. Daily Life in the United States, 1940-1959. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Kelly, Barbara M. Expanding the Dream: Building and Rebuilding
Levittown. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993.
. ed. Suburbia Re-examined. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.
Kirk, Paul H. and Eugene D. Sternberg. Medical and Dental Doctors'
Offices. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, n.d.
Knerr, Douglas. Suburban Steel: The Magnificent Failure of the Lustron
Corporation, 1945-1951. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University
Press, 2004.
Land, Robert E. and Jennifer Lefurgy. Boomburbs: The Rise of America's
Accidental Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2007.
Lewis, Robert D. Manufacturing Suburbs: Building Work and Home on the
Metropolitan Fringe. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 2004.
*Lewis, Tom. Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highways, Trans-
forming American Life. New York: Viking Press, 1997.
Maisel, Sherman. Housebuilding in Transition: Based on Studies in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California
Press, 1953.
Martinson, Tom. American Dreamscape: The Pursuit of Happiness in
Postwar Suburbia. New York: Carroll & Graff Publishers, 2000.
*Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U.S.: 1930-1980. Houston,
Tex.: Gulf Publishing Co., 1982.
McCoy, Esther. Case Study Houses, 1945-1962. Los Angeles, Calif.:
Hennessey & Ingalls, 1977.
. Modern California Houses; Case Study Houses. New York: Rein-
hold Publishing Corp., 1962.
129
McCoy, Esther and Barbara Goldstein. Guide to U.S. Architecture,
1940-1980. Santa Monica, Calif.: Arts + Architecture Press, 1982.
*Milgram, Grace. The City Expands; A Study of the Conversion of Land
from Rural to Urban Land Use; Philadelphia, 1945-62. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1967.
Miller, Zane L. Suburb, Neighborhood and Community in Park Forest,
Ohio, 1935-1976. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press,
1981.
Mitchell, J. Paul, ed. Federal Housing Policy & Programs: Past and Pres-
ent. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers
University, 1985.
*Moe, Doug and Alice D'Alessio. Uncommon Sense. The Life of Marshall
Erdman. Black Earth, Wis.: Trails Custom Publishing, 2003.
Moore, C. Eugene. Inspiring lnteriors from Armstrong 1950s. Atglen, Pa.:
Schiffer Publishing, 1998.
. Interior Solutions from Armstrong, the 1960s. Atglen, Pa.: Schiffer
Publishing, 1999.
*Murphy, Kathryn. New Housing and its Materials: 1940-1956. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, 1958.
Myers, Mary. Andrea Cochran: Landscapes. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press, 2009.
*The National Association of Home Builders. Home Builders Manual
for Land Development, rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: The National
Association of Home Builders, January 1953.
*. Home BuildersManual forLand Development, 2nded. Washington,
D.C.: The National Association of Home Builders, February 1958.
*National Housing Agency. The Facts About Homes for Veterans. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Housing Agency, 1945.
*. HousingNeed5, A Preliminary Estimate (National HousingBulletin
1). Washington, D.C.: National Housing Agency, November 1944.
+P & H Homes. Plans for Better Living... P&HHomes. Post Washing-
ton, Wis.: Harnischfeger, 1955.
Phillips, Cabell B.H. The 1940s: Decade of Triumph and Trouble. New
York: Macmillan, 1975.
*Pietila, Antero. Not in My Neighborhood. How Bigotry Shaped a Great
American City. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2010.
Pittsburgh Glass Products Catalogue. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Pittsburgh Glass
Company, September -October 1955.
Quinn, Bradley. Mid -Century Modern, Interiors, Furniture, Design
Details. London: Conran Publishers, 2006.
Randall, Gregory C. America's Original GI Town: Park Forest, Illinois.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
Rand], Chad Garrett. A frame. New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
2004.
*Rogers, Kate Ellen. The Modern House, U.S.A. Its Design and Decora-
tion. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962.
*Rowe, Peter G. Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1991.
Roy, Susan. Bomboozled! How the U.S. Government Misled Itself and
Its People Into Believing They Could Survive a Nuclear Attack. New
York: Pointed Leaf Press, 2011.
Samuel, Lawrence R. The End of the Innocence. the 1964-1965 New York
World's Fair. Syracuse, N.Y.: University Press, 2007.
*Schnore, Leo E, Carolyn D. Andre, and Harry Sharp. "Black Suburban-
ization, 1930-1970," in The Changing Face of the Suburbs, ed. Barry
Schwartz. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
*Seely, Bruce E. Building the American Highway System: Engineers as
Policy Makers. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1987.
Serraino, Pierluigi. NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modern-
ism. San Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books, 2006.
130
Shanken, Andrew M. 194X: Architecture, Planning, and Consumer Cul-
ture on the American Home Front. Minneapolis, Minn.: University
of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Sherwood, Ruth F. Homes: Today and Tomorrow. Peoria, Ill.: C.A.
Bennet Co., 1972.
Sitkoff, Harvard, ed. Perspectives on Modern America. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben -Joseph. Streets and the Shaping of
Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Spigel, Lynn. Welcome to the Dreamhouse: Popular Media and Postwar
Suburbs. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2001.
Spooner, Robert L. Practical Homes. Sydney, London: Angus and
Robertson, 1947.
Stilgoe, John R. Borderland. Origins of the American Suburb, 1820-1939.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988.
Street -Porter, Tim. L.A. Modern. New York: Rizzoli, 2008.
Swift, Earl. The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries,
and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways. New
York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.
*Treib, Marc, ed. The Architecture of Landscape, 1940-1960. Philadel-
phia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
. Hawaiian Modern: The Architecture of Vladimir Ossipoff. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
*United States Department of Labor. New Housing and Its Materials,
1940-56. Bulletin No. 1231. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1958.
United States Federal Housing Administration. The ABC's of FHA.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960.
. Administrative Rules and Regulations Under Section 603 of the
National Housing Act, as Amended May 22, 1946. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946.
. Administrative Rules and Regulations Under Section 603 of the
National Housing Act, as Amended May 26, 1942. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942.
*. Administrative Rules and Regulations Under Section 611 of the
National Housing Act: A New Section Added by Public Law 901,
80th Congress, Approved August 10, 1948, as amended April 20, 1950,
Public Law 475, 81st Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1950.
-Administrative Rules and Regulations Under Section 903 of Title IX
of the National Housing Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1951.
. Circular No. 5 Subdivision Standards. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Housing Administration, September 1939.
. FHA Financing for Home Purchases and Home Improvements: A
Guide to Financing Costs and Home Buying Ability. Washington,
D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1962.
. FHA Financing for Home Purchases and Home Improvements:
Revised November 1962. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing
Administration, 1962.
. FHA Financing for Home Purchases and Home Improvements:
Revised November 1964. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Admin-
istration, 1964.
. FHA Financing for Home Purchases and Home Improvements:
Revised April 1965. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Adminis-
tration, 1965.
*. FHA Financing for Home Purchases and Home Improvements:
Revised November 1965. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing
Administration, 1965.
_.FHA FinancingforHomePurchases and Homelmprovements: Revised
May 1966. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1966.
*. FHA Home Owner's Guide. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing
Administration, 1962.
. FHA Regulations: General Introduction. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1961.
*. The FHA Story in Summary: 1934-1959. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1959.
. New FHA Terms, Rates for Home Improvement Loans: Remodel,
Repair, Repay, Up to 5 Years to Pay, Budget Terms. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956.
. Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses. Technical Bulletin 5.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1936.
*. Planning Profitable Neighborhoods. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Housing Administration, 1938.
*. Principles of Planning Small Houses. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Housing Administration, 1936.
*. Sixth Annual Report of the Federal Housing Administration.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940.
*. Subdivision Standards for the Insurance of Mortgages on Proper-
ties Located in Undeveloped Subdivisions. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Housing Administration, 1935 (revised 1939).
*. Successful Subdivisions: Principles of Planning for Economy and
Protection Against Neighborhood Blight. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Housing Administration, 1940.
. This is the FHA: Insurance Programs for Home Financing, Prop-
erty Improvement, Rental Housing, Urban Renewal and Coopera-
tive Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1956-1960.
United States Federal Public Housing Authority. Current Work of the
Federal Public HousingAuthority. Washington, D.C.: Federal Hous-
ing Administration, 1947.
. Minimum Physical Standards and Criteria for the Planning and
Design of FPHA-aided Urban Low-rentHo using. Washington, D.C.:
Federal Housing Administration, 1945.
. Prefabrication in the Government's War Housing Program. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1942.
. Reference and Source Material on 1, Housing and Housing Needs,
2, Economic and Social Costs of Good and Bad Housing, 3, Who Pays
for Public Housing. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Adminis-
tration, 1947.
. Surplus Housing for Veterans. Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing
Administration, 1946.
United States Housing Authority. Public Housing for the Planners and
Builders of American Communities. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Works Agency, U.S. Housing Authority, 1939-42.
. Steps in the Development of a Low -Rent Housing Project Subsequent
to the Execution of the Contracts forLoan and Annual Contributions.
Bulletin on Policy and Procedure No. 15. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Works Agency, United States Housing Authority, 1940.
. Urban Housing: The Story of the P.W.A. Housing Division,
1933-1936. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1936.
United States, Office of Civil Defense. Family Shelter Designs. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense, 1962.
*United States Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 1448, Review
of Federal Housing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1956.
*Urban Land Institute. The Homes Association Handbook, Technical
Bulletin 50. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1966.
Vancouver City Planning Commission. Vancouver's Plan far the Utiliza-
tion of War Housing Projects Located at Vancouver, Wash. Vancou-
ver, Wash.: Vancouver Housing Authority, March 1945.
Wachs, Martin and Margaret Crawford. The Car and the City. The Auto-
mobile, the Built Environment and Daily Urban Life. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
Walker, Peter and Melanie Simo. Invisible Gardens: The Search for
Modernism and the American Landscape. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1994.
Wallis, Allan D. Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Webb, Michael. Modernism Reborn: Mid -Century American Houses.
New York: Universe, 2001.
Weingarten, David. Ranch Houses: Living the California Dream. New
York: Rizzoli, 2009.
*Weiss, Marc A. The Rise of the Community Builders: The American Real
Estate Industry and Urban Land Use Planning. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1987.
West Coast Woods. Wood Siding Assures Homes of Beauty. n.p.: West
Coast Woods, n.d.
Weyerhaeuser Company. Gracious Outdoor Living. Vacation Homes by
Weyerhaeuser. Tacoma, Wash.: Weyerhaeuser Company, n.d.
Whyte, William H., Jr. Cluster Development. New York: American Con-
servation Association, 1964.
*Wiese, Andrew. Places of Their Own: African American Suburbaniza-
tion in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2004.
*Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in
America. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.
Wright, Mary. Mary and Russel Wright's Guide to Easier Living. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1951.
Unpublished Sources
*Akros, Inc., Wilson Preservation, Coffman Studios, LLC., HDR. Tuc-
son Post World War 77 Residential Subdivision Development, 1945-
1973. Prepared for the City of Tucson, Ariz., 2007.
*Andrzejewski, Anna. "The Builder's Wright: Marshall Erdman,
Wrightification and Regional Modernism in Madison, Wisconsin,"
Paper presented at the 30th Annual Vernacular Architecture
Forum, Washington, D.C., 19-22 May 2010.
Burns, Leigh, Staci Catron-Sullivan, Jennifer Holcombe, Arnie Spinks,
Scott Thompson, Amy Waite, Matt Watts -Edwards, and Diana
Welling. Atlanta Housing 1944 to 1965. Case Studies in HistoricPres-
ervation. [Atlanta: Ga.]: Georgia State University, 2001.
City of Olympia. Twentieth Century Olympia: A Context Statement on
Local History and Modern Architecture. 1945-1975. Olympia, Wash:
n.p., April 2008.
City of San Diego. San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement.
San Diego: Calif.: n.p., 2007.
Civic Association of Hollin Hills. Hollin Hills: Community of Vision: A
Semicentennial History, 1949-1999. Alexandria, Va.: Civic Associa-
tion of Hollin Hills, 2000.
Colorado Historical Society. Selected Post -World War II Residential
Architectural Styles and Building Types. [Denver, Colo.]: Center for
Historic Preservation Research, Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, 2006.
*Crane, Jennifer Sale. "Postwar Prefabricated Homes in the Washing-
ton, D.C. Suburbs.' Unpublished paper presented at the Vernacular
Architecture Forum conference, May 2010.
Dennis, Michelle L. Post -World WarllArchitecture in South Dakota. 2007.
*Fox, Jason and R. Brooks Jeffery. Carport Integrity Policy. [Phoenix,
Ariz.] : Arizona State Historic Preservation Office. Adapted October
2005.
131
Galvin Preservation Associates. City of Riverside Camp Anza/Arlanza;
2006-07 Certified Local Government Grant Historical Resources
Inventory and Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Riverside
[California] Planning Division, September 2007.
George, Mary Roselle. Developer Influence in the Suburbanization of
Washington, D.C.: Francis Newlands and Chevy Chase. Master's
Thesis, University of Maryland, 1989.
*Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage. Cultural Resources of
the Recent Past Historic Context Report. City of Pasadena. [Pasadena,
Calif.]: n.p., October 2007.
*Hope, Holly. The Thrill of a New Home Without the Cost; the Evolu-
tion of Residential Siding Materials in Arkansas. Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program, n.d.
*Jacobs, James Andrew. "You Can't Dream Yourself a House". The Evolv-
ing Postwar Dwelling and Its Preeminent Position within a Renewed
Consumer World 1945-1970. PhD Dissertation, Columbian College
of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, 2005.
Kelley, Carolyn. The Spatial Evolution of a Commercial Street in the Post -
World War 77 Suburbs: Rockville Pike, Maryland, 1959-1990. Mas-
ter's Thesis, University of Maryland, 1994.
*Kentucky Heritage Council. House in a Box: Prefabricated Housing in
the Jackson Purchase Cultural Landscape Region, 1900 to 1960. June
2006.
*Komatsu Architecture, HHM, Inc., Susan Kline, Brenda McClur-
kin. Final Arlington Historic Resources Survey Update. Prepared
for the City of Arlington, Tex., City Community Services Office.
September 2007.
+Litvak, Dianna. Post World War 77 Residential DevelopmentAbutting
the US36 Highway Corridor. (Colorado Department of Trans-
portation, March 2009).
. US Highway 36 Environmental Impact Statement: Results of His-
toric Architectural Survey. (Colorado Department of Transporta-
tion, September 2009).
Louisiana Architecture: 1945-1965; Modernism Triumphant -Commercial
and Institutional Buildings. http://www.crt.state.1a.us/hp/national
register/historic_contexts.aspx (accessed 1 June 2010).
Louisiana Architecture. 1945-1965; Post -War Subdivisions and the Ranch
House. http://www.crt.state.1a.us/hp/nationalregister/historic_
contexts.aspx. (accessed 1 June 2010).
Louisiana Architecture: 1945-1965; The Contemporary House. http://
www.crt.state.1a.us/hp/nationalregister/historic-contexts.aspx.
(accessed 1 June 2010).
The Lustron Home: A New Standard for Living. 1948. http://strandlund.
tripod.com/index-21.htm1. (accessed 7 January 2011).
Martin, Christopher T., Tract -House Modern: A Study of Housing Design
and Consumption in the Washington Suburbs, 1946-1960, PhD Disser-
tation, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington
University, 2000
Maryland State Highway Administration. Suburbanization Historic
Context and Survey Methodology. 2000.
+Mead & Hunt, Inc. Historic Resources Survey, City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin
(Prepared for the City of Oshkosh, Wis., 2006).
+Mead & Hunt, Inc. Survey Findings Report Eastridge Neighborhood,
Lincoln, Nebraska (Prepared for the City of Lincoln, Neb., 2006).
*+Miller, Beth. Blackhawk Park Historic District Determination of Eligi-
bility. Unpublished document prepared for Wisconsin Department
of Transportation, 2010. Available at the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation Environmental Services Section.
*New South Associates. The Ranch House in Georgia: Guidelines for
Evaluation. Prepared for Georgia Transmission Corporation, 2010.
PAST Consultants, LLC. San Jose Modernism Historic Context State-
ment. Prepared for the City of San Jose, Calif., June 2009.
132
Planning Resource Associates, Inc. Mid-century Modernism Historic
Context. Fresno, Calif., 2008.
Post World War II Residential Architectural Survey. 1946-1975. Prepared
for the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, 2009.
Post -World War II Residential Architecture in Maine: A Guide for Sur-
veyors. 2009.
Richardson, David John. Ranches to Ranch Houses: Suburbanization in
Metropolitan Denver. Master's Thesis. University of Colorado at
Denver, 2004.
*Richfield, Clare J. The Suburban Ranch House in Post -World War 77
America: A Site of Contrast in an Era of Unease, Uncertainty, and
Instability. Master's Thesis, Barnard College, Department of His-
tory. Spring 2007.
Ryden Architects, Inc. Roosevelt Addition Historic District. Historic Pres-
ervation Guidelines. Prepared for the City of Tempe, Ariz., 2009.
Thomas, Adam and Timothy Smith. Suburban Development. Greeley's
Arlington Neighborhood Survey Report. Westminster, Colo.: SWCA
Environmental Consultants, 2004.
Tomasso, Diane Wray. Arapahoe Acres: An Architectural History, 1949-
1957. Englewood, Colo.: Waycroft Press, 1997.
. Arapaho Hills Reconnaissance Survey. Littleton, Colo.: Office of
Community Development, 2009.
—Historic Context of Littleton, Colorado: 1949-1967. 2008.
Tucker, Lisa Marie. Architects and the Design of Ordinary Single -Family
Houses in the United States: TheAmerican Institute ofArchitects and
the Architects' Small House Service Bureau. PhD Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Missouri, Columbia, 2008.
*Wilson, Elizabeth, M.E.E. PostwarHousingand a Geographic Information
Study of Scottsdale Subdivisions. [Scottsdale, Ariz.] August 2002.
Wright, Sally and David Pinyerd. Eugene Modernism Context, 1935-1965.
[Eugene, Ore.], June 2003.
Wyatt, Sherry Joines and Sarah Woodard for David E. Gall. Post -World
War II Survey. Charlotte, North Carolina. n.d.
Select National Register Nominations,
Multiple Property Documents, and National
Park Service Publications
*+Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. Historic Residential Sub-
urbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National
Register of Historic Places. National Register Bulletin. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior, National Register, 2002.
Annapolis Park Historic District National Register Nomination, West-
land, Michigan.
Armour Boulevard Post -World War II Apartment Buildings Historic
District National Register Nomination, Kansas City, Missouri.
+Axline, Jon. Harold and Marion Ruth Residence National Register
Nomination, Billings, Montana.
Bluestone, Daniel. Raymond M. Hilliard Center Historic District
National Register Nomination, Chicago, Illinois.
+Cloues, Richard. Collier Heights Historic District National Register
Nomination, Atlanta, Georgia.
+Cloues, Richard and Robert Ciuecevich. Fairway Oaks -Greenview His-
toric District National Register Nomination, Savannah, Georgia.
+Cloues, Richard and Leslie N. Sharp. Joseph and Mary Jane League
House National Register Nomination, Macon, Georgia.
*Dolberg (Ebers), Jill M. Dr. Burdette and Myrna Gainsforth House
National Register Nomination, Ogallala, Nebraska.
+EHT Traceries, Inc. Claremont Historic District National Register
Nomination, Arlington County, Virginia.
+EHT Traceries, Inc. Virginia Heights Historic District National Regis-
ter Nomination, Arlington County, Virginia.
*Englert, Robert T. Alcoa Care -free Home National Register Nomina-
tion, Rochester, New York.
+Flint McClelland, Linda, David L. Ames, and Sarah Dillard Pope. His-
toric Residential Suburbs in the United States 1830-1960. National
Register Multiple Property Document. Washington, D.C.: National
Register of Historic Places: National Park Service, December
2004.
Fuller, Charles and Art Friedman. Greenbelt Knoll Historic District
National Register Nomination, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Greenway Parks Historic District National Register Nomination, Dallas,
Texas.
Hammond Wood Historic District National Register Nomination, Silver
Spring, Maryland.
Holmes Run Acres National Register Nomination, Falls Church, Virginia.
Hopkins, John Linn. Historic Residential Resources of Memphis, Shelby
County, Tennessee, National Register Multiple Property Document.
Kammer, David Ph.D. Twentieth Century Suburban Growth of Albuquer-
que, New Mexico, National Register Multiple Property Document.
+Keenoy, Ruth and Joellen Gamp McDonald. Clayton Park Addition
Historic District [Preferred Name — Bennett Avenue Historic Dis-
trict] National Register Nomination.
Garner, Kurt West. William & Helen Koerting, House National Register
Nomination, Elkhart, Indiana.
*Lamprecht, Barbara and Daniel Paul. Cultural Resources of the Recent
Past — City of Pasadena, California, Multiple Property Document.
. Poppy Peak Historic District National Register Nomination,
Pasadena, California.
+McEneny, Daniel. The Bishop Family Lustron House National Register
Nomination.
Myers, Molly. Post -World War II Development in Ottumwa, Iowa:
1944-1959. National Register Multiple Property Document.
+National Park Service. Defining Boundaries for Historic Districts. National
Register Bulletin.
+. Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominations Properties that Have
Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. National Register
Bulletin.
+. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Register Bulletin.
+. How to Complete the National Register Registration Multiple
Property Documentation Form. National Register Bulletin.
+. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.
National Register Bulletin.
+. How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Landscapes. National
Register Bulletin.
. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Nation-
al Park Service, Technical Preservation Services.
Nelson, Lee A. Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character. Identifying
the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their
Character. National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services.
+Naumann, Molly Myers. North Fellows Historic District National
Register Nomination, Ottumwa, Iowa.
Norman Heights Historic District National Register Nomination,
Mishawaka, Indiana.
North Encanto Historic District National Register Nomination, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Old West Austin Historic District National Register Nomination,
Austin, Texas.
Pacesetter Gardens Historic District National Register Nomination,
Riverdale, Illinois.
Paul, Daniel D. and Alan Hess. Pegfair Estates Historic District National
Register Nomination, Pasadena, California.
Ranch Acres Historic District National Register Nomination, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. Guidelines for Evaluating and
Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the
Past Fifty Years. National Register Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Interior, National Register, Revised 1998.
Simmons, Thomas A. and R. Laurie Simmons. Historic Residential
Subdivisions of Metropolitan Denver, 1940-1965, National Reg-
ister Multiple Property Document.
Subdivisions and Architecture Planned and Designed by Charles M.
Goodman Associates in Montgomery County, Maryland, National
Register Multiple Property Document.
Tauxemont Historic District National Register Nomination, Fairfax
County, Virginia.
Third Addition to Jackson Terrace Historic District National Register
Nomination, Memphis, Tennessee.
Tierra Amarilla AFS P-8 Historic District National Register Nomination,
Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.
Warner, John. Indian Village Historic District National Register
Nomination, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Wheaton, Rodd L. Don E. Olsson, House and Garage National Register
Nomination, Ronan, Montana.
133
White City Historic District National Register Nomination, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Winterhaven Historic District National Register Nomination, Tucson,
Arizona.
*+Tomasso, Diane Wray. Arapahoe Acres Historic District National
Register Nomination, Englewood, Colorado.
Ziegler, Connie. Thornhurst Addition Historic District National Register
Nomination, Carmel, Indiana.
Historic Magazines
American Builder
American Home
Better Homes and Gardens
Good Housekeeping
House Beautiful
House Beautiful Building Guides
House and Garden
House and Home
Ladies' Home Journal
Popular Mechanics
Sunset Magazine
Time Magazine
134
APPENDIX B
Model Context Outline
Model Context Outline
This model context outline, which follows the organiza-
tion of the national context, is provided to serve as the basis
for the development of a project -specific historic context. It is
understood that not all themes included in the outline will be
relevant to a specific location. Therefore, the context should
be limited to only those areas that are appropriate.
A. History of Suburbanization, 1946-1975
1. Overview of early suburbs (railroad, street car, and
early automobile)
2. Postwar and early freeway suburbs
3. Housing need and demand
B. Transportation Trends
1. Automobile age
2. Interstate Highway Program
C. Government Programs and Policies (including financing)
1. Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
2. Veteran's Administration (VA) housing programs
3. Urban renewal
D. Social, Economic, and Cultural Trends
1. Economic conditions
2. Demographic trends
a. Segregation
b. Civil Rights Movement and racial desegregation
c. Family size and age (baby boom)
E. Planning and Development
1. Development patterns
a. Infill development
b. Ordinances, codes, and covenants
2. Subdivisions
a. Developers
b. Builders
c. Real Estate Companies
d. National Association of Home Builders
3. Advertising
4. Design and Layout Features
5. Utilities and Infrastructure
E Materials and Construction
1. Advances in materials
2. Mass production, standardization, innovation
G. Architecture, Site, and Landscape
1. Residential design characteristics, including plan/
layout, size, materials, and style
2. Use of plan services and architects
3. Popular architectural forms and styles of period
a. Postwar architectural forms
i. Minimal Traditional
ii. Cape Cod
iii. Two -Story Massed
iv. Transitional Ranch
v. Ranch Form
vi. Raised Ranch
vii. Split-level/Split-foyer
b. Postwar architectural styles
i. Colonial Revival
ii. Georgian Revival
iii. Storybook
iv. Spanish Colonial Revival
v. Asiatic
vi. Contemporary
vii. Shed
viii. Other architectural forms and styles
c. Prefabricated houses
i. Lustron
ii. Gunnison/U.S. Steel
iii. National Homes Corporation
iv. Regional prefabricated manufacturers
4. Garages and carports
5. Landscape and site features
a. Yards and fences
b. Patios
c. Driveways and sidewalks
d. Family shelters
135
APPENDIX C
Glossary of Terms and List of Abbreviations
Glossary of terms used in the report Abbreviated terms in the report
Character -defining features Prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities,
AASHTO
American Association of State and
or characteristics of an architectural style or form that contribute sig-
Highway Transportation Officials
nificantly to its physical character. Generally, the character -defining
AIA
American Institute of Architects
features represent the physical manifestation of the significant ele-
ments of the property. Features may include materials, engineering
ALCOA
Aluminum Company of America
design, and structural and decorative details.
APE
Area of Potential Effects
Contributing Resource—Refers to buildings, structures, objects, or sites
ASPO
American Society of Planning Officials
within a historic district that were built within the period of signifi-
cance and possess historic integrity.
CMU
Concrete Masonry Unit
Determination of Eligibility—See intensive -level survey.
DOT
Department of Transportation
Documentation—Refers to the process of compiling the results of the
Fannie Mae
Federal National Mortgage Association
identification and evaluation processes and may include a historic
context, survey results, and eligibility evaluations.
FHA
Federal Housing Administration
Elevation—Refers to the sides and rear of a building.
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Facade—Refers to the front of a building.
FRP
Fiber reinforced plastic
Form—Refers to the overall massing, layout, and shape of a building.
Field Survey Documentation—The process of collecting information
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
and photographs for a property as part of the field survey.
GM
General Motors
Identification Refers to the process of conducting field survey, includ-
GNP
Gross National Product
ing surveying properties in the field and analyzing the survey data.
Intensive -level survey—Builds upon the efforts of the reconnaissance-
IBM
International Business Machines
level survey and includes historic research. Additional descriptive
MPD
Multiple Property Document
information may also be prepared. This level of survey and evalua-
NAHB
National Association of Home Builders
tion often leads to a National Register eligibility recommendation,
also referred to as a determination of eligibility.
NAREB
National Association of Real Estate Boards
National Register Evaluation—Refers to the process of applying the
NCSHPO
National Conference of State Historic
National Register Criteria to a property to assess eligibility.
Preservation Officers
Noncontributing Resource—Refers to buildings, structures, objects, or
sites within a historic district that have been substantially altered or
NHA
National Housing Agency
were constructed after the period of significance.
NPS
National Park Service
Phase I survey—See reconnaissance -level survey.
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
Phase II survey—See intensive -level survey.
Project sponsor Considered the lead agency responsible for fulfilling the
RFC
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
obligation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
(contained in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800).
SMSA
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Reconnaissance -level survey—Documentation of resources with photo-
graphs, brief descriptions, mapping, and limited historic research.
TRB
Transportation Research Board
Style—Refers to the decorative details and materials that are applied to
ULI
Urban Land Institute
exemplify a particular architectural style.
USGS
United States Geological Survey
Subdivision—Planned residential developments and also the process of
dividing a parcel of land into smaller units that serve as buildable lots.
VA
Veteran's Administration
Survey—See reconnaissance -level survey and intensive -level survey.
VAF
Vernacular Architecture Forum
136
APPENDIX D
Arlington County, Virginia,
Model Historic Context
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Between 1946 and 1975, Arlington County, Virginia, expe-
rienced significant development as a result of increased hous-
ing demand by government workers who desired to live in
the suburbs around Washington, D.C., rather than in the city.
Although other localities in the Washington metropolitan area
experienced increased growth during the postwar period, cer-
tain factors produced a more dramatic increase in Arlington,
such as its proximity to the city, the presence of federal insti-
tutions in the county, and the historical booms in popula-
tion during and following early twentieth-century wartimes.I
Arlington's historical foresight in planning, transportation
and other infrastructure also added to its advantages.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
Arlington was a rural landscape. During the first decades of
the twentieth century, electric streetcars, increased rail routes,
and additional roadways opened the county to development
for residents seeking homes near the federal capital. By the
' For the purposes of this study, the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area
includes the District of Columbia and the counties of Arlington and
Fairfax, Virginia; the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church, Vir-
ginia; and the counties of Montgomery and Prince George's, Maryland.
137
1930s the county was firmly established as a commuter sub-
urb, and wartime and postwar development focused on hous-
ing the many new government workers who moved there. At
the end of World War Il, Arlington retained some areas of
farmland; however, the influx of government workers and
the demands for housing and public services resulted in the
county shedding its rural character and transforming itself
into an urbanized area.
The following historic context traces this development and
provides a broad background against which the area's post-
war homes, subdivisions, and neighborhoods may be evalu-
ated. Previous cultural resources and historical studies have
focused on Arlington County and its resources have been
extensively surveyed and researched. Not all regional or local
historic contexts will include the breadth of information that
Arlington County has, but this historic context stands as an
example of what types of topics can be explored.
138
CHAPTER 2
History of Suburban ization, 1946-1975
A. Brief Introduction to Arlington
County History and Twentieth -
Century Suburbanization
1. Introduction
Arlington County lies in the northeastern tip of Virginia
separated from Washington, D.C., by the Potomac River,
which flows along the north and east sides of the county (see
Figure 1). The 26 -square -mile county is bordered on the
northwest by the City of Falls Church, on the west by Fair-
fax County, and on the southeast by the City of Alexandria.
Arlington's distinctive squared boundaries date back to 1791
when the area was part of the 10 -square -mile parcel given by
the Commonwealth for the creation of the District of Colum-
bia (D.C.) and the new federal capital. In 1846 the Virginia
portion of the district was ceded back to the state and was
known as Alexandria County. The county separated from the
City of Alexandria in 1870 and adopted the name of Arling-
ton in 1920. Because of its proximity to the nation's capital,
Figure 1. This map shows the location of Arlington
County in the Commonwealth of Virginia and a
detailed view of the present-day boundaries of the
county (Arlington County GIS).
Arlington's population, residential, and commercial develop-
ment, as well as its transportation patterns, have been signifi-
cantly tied to the growth of the federal government.
During the eighteenth century, the majority of present-day
Arlington County was granted in large tracts to wealthy land-
owners. As a rural county, settlement was sparse and usually
consisted of large farms that were connected by a few road-
ways to the port towns of Georgetown and Alexandria. Many
of Arlington's twentieth-century thoroughfares developed
from these eighteenth -century transportation routes, includ-
ing Leesburg Turnpike (State Route 7), Glebe Road (State
Route 120), Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29), Wilson Boulevard,
and the Jefferson Davis Highway (U.S. Route 1).2
2. Early Settlement Patterns
During the nineteenth century, Arlington (then Alexandria
County) remained a sparsely settled, rural area with the major-
ity of its population concentrated in the town of Alexandria.
After the Civil War, the area of Arlington contained two dis-
tinctive developments at its northeastern edge, both of which
were occupied by the federal government. The 1,100 -acre
Arlington Estate, located along the banks of the Potomac
and owned by the Custis family, was seized during the Civil
War by the federal government and developed into Arlington
National Cemetery. The U.S. Army's Fort Myer, adjacent to
the cemetery on the west, also was established during the Civil
War. These occupations mark the beginning of the federal
presence in Arlington, which was to have a profound effect on
the developmental patterns of the county.
2 Dorothy Ellis Lee, A History of Arlington County, Virginia (Richmond,
Va.: The Dietz Press, Inc., 1946), 20; Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation, "List of Highways in Virginia, 2003;' http://www.virginiadot.org/
info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf (accessed 6 February 2011);
C.B. Rose, Jr., Arlington County, Virginia: A History (Arlington, Va:
Arlington Historical Society, Inc., 1976), 45-46.
At the end of the nineteenth century, the county remained
largely rural with small settlements located along and at the
intersection of transportation routes. A few single-family,
residential neighborhoods were platted and developed dur-
ing this period and by 1900 included portions of Addison
Heights, Ballston, Bon Air, Butler -Holmes, Cherrydale,
Clarendon, Corbett (Barcroft), Fort Myer Heights, Fostoria,
Glencarlyn, Hall's Hill (High View Park), Johnston's Hill,
Nauck (Green Valley), Lyon Village, Queen City, Virginia
Highlands, and Rosslyn.3 Developers boasted of Arlington's
bucolic setting, numerous amenities, and its quick and easy
access to the city via public transportation. It was during this
period that present-day Arlington began to change from a
rural landscape into a commuter suburb to the federal city.
3. Population Growth in the Early
Twentieth Century
Rapid population growth in the county during the first two
decades of the twentieth century fueled the housing market.
Numerous local developers bought up farms that were sub-
divided into housing parcels. At the end of the nineteenth
century, the population in the county more than doubled,
and with the United States' involvement in World War I and
the increased availability of federal jobs, the suburban areas
around Washington were booming. Between 1900 and 1910,
plats for 70 neighborhood communities were recorded in the
Alexandria County deed books 4
The 1930s population growth in the county was fueled
by the federal government's New Deal programs and avail-
able employment opportunities associated with the various
new federal agencies. Many new residents chose to reside in
Arlington given its proximity to downtown Washington, D.C.
Over 40 percent of the county's residents at the time worked
for a federal, state, or local government agency. The popula-
tion surge and the resultant housing shortage in Arlington
encouraged the last of the county's farmers to sell off their
agricultural property for residential development. In the
area of East Falls Church, for example, part of the 1,000 -acre
Crossman family dairy farm was subdivided at this time for
new houses.
4. Federally Funded Housing Projects
During World War II
As a means to ease the housing shortage, Arlington County
supported multi -family residential development as a signifi-
3Rose, 138-139, 140, 242-244; Sherman W. Pratt, Arlington County,
Virginia: A Modern History (Arlington, Va.: Sherman Pratt [1997]),422.
4Rose, 157.
139
cant portion of its housing stock. Known as garden apart-
ments, these developments were an early application of
Garden City planning concepts aimed at providing housing
for working, middle-class residents. The complexes were
enhanced by a park -like setting and included planned shop-
ping districts. Colonial Village was the first large-scale, rental
housing development to be insured by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA), which was established in 1934 under
the National Housing Act (NHA). The Buckingham Apart-
ment Complex was another early and highly successful devel-
opment that was begun in 1937 with subsequent phases built
through 1953. These early apartment complexes were devel-
oped in the northeast part of the county, close to D.C. and
public transportation routes. Although these developments
were financed by the FHA through insured mortgages, the
FHA generally preferred to invest in single-family develop-
ments during the war years. Garden apartments continued
to be a significant portion of the county's housing stock after
the war .5
Through a variety of programs, the federal government
endeavored to provide affordable housing in areas through-
out the country that experienced an influx of wartime work-
ers. Two such wartime developments in Arlington—the
Paul Dunbar Homes (1942) and the George Washington
Carver development (1944)—were designed specifically for
African-American residents and included apartments and
semi-detached homes. Although the Carver homes were
demolished after the war, the Dunbar Homes, located in the
Nauck area, served as postwar housing for returning African-
American veterans .6
Defense Homes Corporation (DHC) developments were
another significant federally backed housing effort under-
taken during wartime in Arlington. Between 1942 and
1944, the DHC built a garden apartment complex in Fair-
lington that provided housing for workers at the nearby
Navy Annex and Pentagon offices. DHC also sponsored the
construction of houses in the Columbia Forest neighbor-
hood, which were rented to young military officers and
ranking officials with families. These developments were
retained as part of Arlington's postwar housing stock. In
'Paradigm Development Company, Buckingham Historic District
National Register of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-0025);
Kenneth T. Jackson, "Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: The
First Quarter -Century of Government Intervention in the Housing
Market," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 50 (1980): 428;
Nancy Scannell, "Developments Provide Crucial Arlington Housing,"
Washington Post, 30 July 1972.
6`Arlington Board to Get Report on Housing Plan," Washington Post,
20 February 1944; "Dunbar Homes Sold to Tenants at Half of Cost,"
Washington Post, 11 December 1948. Federally backed housing for
white residents was also built but was demolished after the war.
140
1947 the Fairlington apartments were sold to private own-
ers but remained rental units for 30 more years; the Colum-
bia Forest homes were sold to the public with a preference
given to veterans.'
B. Arlington Plans for Postwar
Development
1. Housing Shortage Continues
in Postwar Period
Following the end of World War II, the population boom
experienced in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area
during the war did not abate. In fact, with a large num-
ber of returning veterans, the onset of the Cold War in the
early 1950s, and the new practice of locating governmen-
tal agencies and office buildings in the suburbs, there was
a renewed demand for housing in the area. The population
in the metropolitan Washington area tripled between 1945
and 1960, ranking it among the fastest growing areas in the
country.
2. Postwar Establishment of
a Planning Commission
In 1930 Arlington County had adopted a zoning ordinance
"to encourage orderly development and prevent conflicting
uses on the land within the county."' This plan formed the
basis of postwar planning in the county, and in 1951 the coun-
ty's Planning Commission produced its Six Year Improve-
ment Plan, Arlington Looks Ahead. This report proposed a
program that set priorities for expansion and improvements
to public facilities and services and made a survey of land
use for future commercial development. This was followed in
1957 by a Planning Division report on land use in the county,
which stated that single-family homes occupied 78 percent
of the county's land area but produced less revenue than they
required in services. In contrast, commercial development,
which was at a virtual standstill in the 1950s in the county,
occupied only 4 percent of the land, contributed 18 percent
7Fairlington Historical Designation Committee, Fairlington Historic
District National Register of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-
5772); EHT Traceries, Columbia Forest Historic District National Reg-
ister of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9416). Both copies on
file in Archives, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
'Arlington County, Virginia, Department of Community Planning,
Housing, and Development, "Planning History and the Development
of the General Land Use Plan," http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/
CPHD/planning/docs/CPHDPIanningDocsGLUP_HISTORY.aspx
(accessed 9 March 2011).
of revenue, and required only 7 percent of expenditures on
services.' Attention turned to ways in which the county could
increase its commercial development without jeopardizing
its neighborhoods.
The 1960 General Land Use Plan established areas of resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses in the
county. The report aimed at a low-density residential com-
munity with commercial and industrial uses as needed. The
plan also outlined requirements for additional water, sewer,
and other public works for future growth.10 Local sentiment
also led to the policy that commercial development would
be located along certain corridors and that the character of
Arlington's established residential neighborhoods should be
retained.
The 1970s were a time when the growth that had been
widely welcomed in previous decades was viewed as some-
thing that required additional controls. At close to 200,000
residents in 1972, Arlington had "just about run out of grow-
ing room.' In 1962, in an effort to provide more room for
development, the County Board approved zoning changes
that allowed high-rise residential and office development.
Many county residents, who had been used to the pre- and
postwar low-rise character of the county's buildings, were
alarmed. High-rise buildings began to replace older houses,
shops, and garden apartments and resulted in additional
traffic on the streets and placed adjacent properties at risk
of redevelopment.) l In response, Arlington sought to control
development through limiting the size and extent of sewer
lines and encouraged "appropriate" development through the
land use plan and zoning ordinances.
3. The Federal Presence in Arlington
During World War II, numerous military and other gov-
ernmental agencies were located in Arlington. The federal
facilities at the Pentagon (opened in 1942), the Navy Annex
(along Columbia Pike), Arlington Hall, and Henderson Hall
held offices that were vital to the wartime effort, but after
the war these units remained active. The significant federal
developments at the Aeronautical Authority, the Quarter-
master Depot, the Alexandria Torpedo Plant, and Fort
Belvoir also were located in or near Arlington. By 1955 the
9Rose, 226; Pratt, 428.
"Pratt, 429-430.
"Jay Mathews, "Growth Still Main Issue in Arlington Board Race,"
Washington Post, 21 October 1972; Pratt, 432. Pratt notes that by the
mid-1990s "almost every available tract of land designated for high rise
building construction has been so used.'
federal government employed half of the area's population
and occupied 17 percent of its land.12
The construction of the Pentagon during the war had a
lasting effect on Arlington with regard to housing, as well as
transportation. Established adjacent to Arlington National
Cemetery, the Pentagon was the largest office building in the
world when it was constructed and housed 37,000 employees.
The development of the 583 -acre site, including 67 acres of
parking lots and a massive road system, displaced many of
Arlington's African-American residents in the Jackson City,
12Christopher T. Martin, Tract -House Modern: A Study of Hous-
ing Design and Consumption in the Washington Suburbs, 1946-1960
(PhD Dissertation, George Washington University, 2000), 60; C.K.
McClatchy, Arlington Confident of Future Progress," Washington Post,
24 April 1955.
141
Queen City, and East Arlington neighborhoods. Arlington
County Manager Frank C. Hanrahan stated that the county
would have to increase its request for federal aid by "several
millions," to fund increases in sewer, water, school facilities,
and roads to serve the influx of defense workers. Hanrahan
also stated that "all these Federal improvements present an
unprecedented challenge in American municipal life, and it
is fortunate that Arlington County has proper planning and
zoning laws, as well as a modern police and fire system to
meet the new developments."'
11 Arlington's Need for U.S. Aid Increased," Washington Post, 26 July 1941.
142
CHAPTER 3
Transportation Trends
A. Increase in Transportation
Corridors and Modes
During the postwar period, government agencies located
in the county continued to increase, adding to the demands
on Arlington's infrastructure and resources as more vehicular
commuters passed through the county daily. Officials began
to look for ways to alleviate the congestion through the con-
struction of new roads, the widening of existing roads, and
the construction of a public transit system.
As discussed above, Arlington's initial residential and
commercial development was located at major transporta-
tion intersections. At the beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury, the electric streetcar systems played a significant role
in the pattern of development by influencing the location of
neighborhoods at or near stops along the streetcar. Devel-
opment in the 1930s also followed this pattern by locating
along major roadways. Prewar arterial roads in the county
included Lee Highway and Wilson Boulevard; the Arlington
Memorial Bridge opened in 1932, providing an additional
connection to Washington. Roadways that were established
in the late 1930s include Lee Boulevard (renamed Arling-
ton Boulevard, U.S. Route 50), Old Dominion Drive (estab-
lished along the route of the Washington and Old Dominion
Railroad), and the initial section of the George Washington
Memorial Parkway (between Key Bridge and Memorial
Bridge).14
The wartime construction of the Pentagon brought trans-
portation issues to the forefront for Arlington planners. Pre-
war arterial roads operated at capacity every day. The prospect
of so many additional commuters in the Memorial Bridge
area also quickened the pace of construction of a new four-
14Doretha Andrews, `Arlington Is Modern `Cinderella;" Washington
Post, 27 May 1945.
lane highway—the Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway. The
Shirley Highway was one of the country's first limited -access
highways and extended from the Virginia end of the 14th Street
Bridge (near the Pentagon) to the Prince William County
community of Woodbridge. The initial section of the road,
constructed in 1942, extended from the 14th Street Bridge
to Arlington Ridge Road (now Eisenhower Drive within the
Arlington National Cemetery) and connected to the George
Washington Memorial Highway. An intersection at Bound-
ary Channel Drive funneled cars off the highway and into the
newly constructed Pentagon complex. During the 1960s and
1970s, the road was reconstructed and became part of the
interstate highway system as I-395.15 Although many Arling-
ton residents were dismayed that the roadway bisected existing
neighborhoods, it provided a rapid connection between the
southern portion of the county and downtown Washington.
The increased transportation routes in the postwar period
allowed development to move farther out in the county.
Other factors in this shift included the scarcity of available
land closer to downtown and the increase in automobile
ownership. As the automobile gained in popularity, the elec-
tric streetcar system was abandoned; some of the former rail
routes were reused for roadways. 16 As residents moved fur-
ther away from downtown, there was significant travel from
adjacent counties through Arlington, and into Washington;
in 1955, 225,000 cars crossed through Arlington to and from
Washington, D.C., every day. Arlington, the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and the federal government undertook construc-
tion of several new roads in the postwar period in an effort to
relieve congestion on the existing roads and to offer different
routes for the many commuters.
15Donald Smith, "Shirley Highway: A Chronicle of Nightmare Non -
planning, Washington Post, 26 September 1971.
16 Rose, 140.
B. Interstate 66
The planning of Interstate 66 (I-66) through Arlington
extended over many decades as residents and highway agen-
cies wrangled over the placement and appropriateness of the
highway. Extending almost 10 miles through the northwestern
part of the county, the road would run west from Washington,
D.C., through Arlington County, the City of Falls Church, and
into Fairfax County and eventually connect with the planned
north -south Interstate 81 in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley.
The route of the new highway, which generally followed the
abandoned route of the Washington and Old Dominion Rail-
road, had been proposed prior to World War II, and right-
of-way acquisition had begun in the late 1940s. However,
when public hearings were held in the late 1950s, hundreds
of residents attended to oppose the construction of the road-
way." Much of the opposition was focused on the way the
road would impact existing neighborhoods and the environ-
mental impacts. Stiff opposition, design complications, legal
obstacles (including right-of-way acquisition), and tangles
in financing delayed construction of the road. The proposed
Congressional financing was connected to the plan for the
rapid rail transit system in the region (the Metro). Seg-
ments of I-66 through western Fairfax were completed to the
Beltway in 1970; the routes inside the Beltway and through
Arlington County were not opened until 1982.
C. The Metro Rail
Through Congressional committee manipulations, the
funding for Metro became linked to funding for I-66.18
Locked in a bitter political impasse, officials who had
"Bart Barnes, "Major Battle Shaped Up over Building of I-66," Wash-
ington Post, 7 March 1971; Leland White, "Dividing Highway: Citizen
Activism and Interstate 66 in Arlington, Virginia," Washington History
13, No. l (Spring/Summer, 2001): 53-57. Such citizen opposition existed
in both Arlington and Fairfax Counties.
"See further discussion in Zachary M. Schrag, The Great Society Sub-
way. A History of the Washington Metro (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2006), 124-125ff.
143
opposed the I-66 route through Arlington relented in the
early 1960s and agreed to the plan in order to release funds
for the construction of the Metro line. Traffic planning policy
also was altered in the county at that time. As traffic prob-
lems increased, Arlington County officials came to the con-
clusion that increased road building could not, and never
would, handle traffic problems. Instead, in the 1960s it was
decided that after the construction of I-66 and Shirley High-
way (I-395), the widening of Arlington Boulevard, and the
completion of several new arterial roads, the county would
discontinue highway construction. Instead of trying to "keep
up" with the traffic, the policy in the 1960s was to "let the ago-
nies of commuters grow" so that "eventually, it is hoped, the
pressure will encourage—and, if necessary, force—construc-
tion of rail rapid transit lines, now planned to terminate on
the Virginia shore, out into the sub- and exurbs whence most
119
of the commuters come.'
Arlington planning officials viewed the Metro route
as a tool of transformation and the Metro corridor as an
economic engine that would transform the transit stops
into destinations for retail, office, and mixed residential
uses. Shrewd placement and a sufficient number of Metro
stops would direct foot traffic to the new developments.
Officials were convinced that for the line to serve the den-
sity it was intended for, many stops located close together
were necessary.20 Many attribute the routing of the Metro
as the groundwork for "modern Arlington.' Although dis-
cussions about a transit rail line had begun prior to 1960,
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was
not created until 1967 and rail service did not commence
until 1976.
19 Leslie Cheek and Hank Burchard, `Arlington Torn by Choice of Being
City or Suburb," Washington Post, 26 June 1966.
20 Schrag,221.
144
CHAPTER 4
Government Programs and Policies
Federal government programs continued to promote new
construction in Arlington County after World War II and
greatly shaped the types of houses built, the design of the
subdivisions, and how builders and owners financed mort-
gages for the new homes. After the lifting of wartime building
restrictions, construction in Arlington County continued in
earnest, with a focus on housing returning veterans.
High land and construction costs, however, greatly
impaired Washington, D.C.-area builders from being able to
take advantage of FHA -insured loans. The Title II Section
203 amendment in 1948 had a $6,000 mortgage insurance
ceiling, making it difficult for Washington -area builders to
take advantage of the program. Many local builders com-
plained that federal housing legislation did not allow build-
ers in high-cost areas the same benefits as those in low-cost
areas. 21 High costs and poor financing caused many builders
in the Washington metropolitan area to postpone projects
until conditions improved .22 In 1949, the Washington Post
reported:
Actual construction of the home itself, with attractive features
designed to make a home buyer's mouth water, is child's play
compared to arranging financing, getting FHA to insure the
mortgage, completing streets, curbs, gutters, sewers — and finally,
making a fair profit .23
The builders particularly complained about FHA's insur-
ance policies. Arthur Pomponio, an Arlington -based devel-
oper and realtor, told the Washington Post that local builders
wanted to construct low-cost housing but lot costs were pro -
21 Martin, 66.
22"High Costs, Financing Forcing Many Builders to Postpone Projects,"
Washington Post, 19 December 1948.
23 "Builders Charge High Lot Development Costs Peril Low Cost
Homes," Washington Post, 13 March 1949.
hibitive in populated areas, causing builders to go "way out"
for cheap land .24
Although the 1934 National Housing Act stated that FHA
would insure an 80 percent loan based on the appraised value
of the house, the mortgage could not exceed $16,000 for a
one -family house. Thus, the possibility of a FHA -insured
load became more and more difficult in Arlington County
as land became scarce and buyers expected larger houses and
more amenities .25 Consequently, many houses built in new
subdivisions in Arlington County during the late 1940s and
early 1950s were not able to take advantage of FHA financing.
FHA financing became more available in 1954 with changes
to the Housing Act. The maximum mortgage amount that
the FHA would insure increased to $20,000. In addition, the
1954 Housing Act added Section 222 for servicemen, which
provided 30 -year loans up to $17,100 and 95 percent of the
appraised value of the house .16 This increase in the mort-
gage ceiling boosted construction in Arlington County and
around the metropolitan region. Directly illustrating the
policy change, Madison Manor in Arlington County offered
a three-bedroom brick rambler, or Ranch house, for $20,900
in 1957 at a cost of exactly $17,100 for servicemen.27
Since the approval of subdivision design by the FHA enabled
developers to get private financing, the FHA greatly influ-
enced both the appearance of new subdivisions and housing
in Arlington. FHA standards for subdivision and house design
became a qualifying measure for lending institutions even if
24`Builders Charge High Lot Development Costs Peril Low Cost
Homes:'
25Federal Housing Administration, The FHA Story in Summary: 1934-
1959 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959),5.
26 United States Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 1448, Review
of Federal Housing Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1956), 109, 114.
27"Offutt's Addition to Madison Manor," Washington Post, 9 Febru-
ary 1959.
the project was not FHA -insured. Thus, the influence of the
FHA's publications that illustrated specific street layouts,
housing plans, and their preference for traditional styles and
forms, such as the Colonial Revival, can been seen through-
out Arlington County in subdivisions built before and after
World War II.
The FHA's Land Planning Division strove for new residen-
tial neighborhoods across the country to abandon rectilinear
street plans for curvilinear developments. FHA -influenced
plans also promoted the use of cul-de-sacs, courts, and minor
streets interlinked by larger connector streets." The use of
curvilinear streets in particular can be seen throughout the
28 EHT Traceries, Westover Historic District National Register of His-
toric Places Nomination (VDHR #000-0032), 140; Arlington County
Preservation Program, Arlington Forest National Register Nomination
(VDHR#000-7808), 172.
145
neighborhoods in Arlington County that were developed just
before and after the war. The shift toward curvilinear streets
and cul-de-sacs is apparent when viewing a map of the county
in its entirety and is particularly evident in the northwestern
and northeastern sections of Arlington County.
Many of Arlington's developers followed the FHA's Prin-
ciples of Planning Small Houses technical bulletins prior to
and after World War II. In particular, the 1946 revised bul-
letin illustrated mostly traditional Cape Cod and two-story
Colonial houses, with some variation, such as a Cape Cod
with a projecting front gable. These house types are visible
throughout Arlington County's postwar neighborhoods.19
29 Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Planning Small Houses,
Technical Bulletin No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: National Housing Agency,
Federal Housing Administration, 1946).
146
CHAPTER 5
Social and Economic Trends
At the end of World War II, Arlington's social and economic
profile had not changed significantly, though its population
had increased dramatically. Its social makeup remained the
same, an almost exclusively white community of middle and
upper -middle class white-collar workers and their families.
African-Americans, only five percent of the population,
were relegated to a few segregated neighborhoods in the
county. Population growth in the county began to decline
as undeveloped land became scarce and county planning
limited growth, ultimately resulting in a negative popula-
tion growth during the early 1970s. Still one of the wealthiest
areas in the state and the nation, Arlington had transitioned
from suburban to urban, with high-density development and
small households predominating.
A. Economic Conditions
By 1940 the government was the mainstay of Arling-
ton County's economy, providing work for over half of all
employed Arlingtonians.30 The federal government, and to a
lesser extent the Commonwealth of Virginia and Arlington
County, provided the take-home pay that supported retail
and service trades and allowed workers to purchase the new
homes being constructed throughout the county.31
As the primary employer in the region, the federal govern-
ment also contributed to a median income that was among
the highest in the nation. The remainder of the work force
was employed in service industries and wholesale and retail
trade.32 Thus, the housing market had a high percentage of
white-collar, lower -middle and middle-class workers that
30 Rose, 200.
31 Rose, 200.
32 Connie Feeley, Arlington No Longer a War Baby," Washington Post,
22 April 1956.
contributed to Washington's ranking as first nationally in
"buying power.""
A 1967 report by the Bureau of Population and Economic
Research of the University of Virginia found that personal
incomes in northern Virginia were 65 percent above the
national average, making it the wealthiest part of the state.
In 1965 the national average per capita income was $2,746,
the state's average was $2,413, and northern Virginia's was
$3,944; Washington's average income was $3,708. Arlington
was the richest county in Virginia with a per capita income
of $4,499 (Falls Church in Fairfax County was second with
a per capita income of $4,349).34 The increase in per capita
income in Arlington was due to Arlington's population shift
to smaller households of well-educated working profession-
als. By 1974 half of the population over 25 years or older had
completed at least one year of college and a third of the same
age group had completed four or more years. 15
The secure economic status of many of Arlington's middle-
class residents did not, in general, apply to Arlington's African-
American families, whose median incomes were roughly half
that of Arlington families as a whole. As in many American
communities during the 1960s, Arlington County's African-
Americans were predominantly given the lowest paying jobs. In
the county government, nine of the 13 divisions had no black
employees; only nine of 253 professional employees in the divi-
sions were black. In contrast, nearly all of the low-wage "non-
professional" posts in the Sanitation, Highway, Sewer, and Public
Buildings divisions were filled by African-Americans in 1966 36
33 Martin, 75.
34Gail Bensinger, "Northern Va. Income Held at 165% of Nation's,"
Washington Post, 27 August 1967.
31 The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, "Washington
Area's `Real Central City' Now Includes Arlington and Alexandria, Key
Indicators Show," Press Release, 16 January 1974 (Arlington County
Public Library Population Vertical File), 2.
36"Job Reports on Negroes Weighed," Washington Post, 20 March 1966.
B. Demographic Trends
Arlington County's population grew steadily during the
early twentieth century and in the years leading up to World
War II. In 1940 the county's population totaled 57,040. The
influx of workers that moved to the Washington area resulted
in estimates that Arlington's population would double in the
next four years, to approximately 120,000. A special census
gave Arlington's official population in 1948 as 123,832.37
Between the 1948 and 1950 censuses, Arlington's popula-
tion increased by another 11,617, giving it a total population
of 135,449. Similarly, the entire Washington metropolitan
area experienced an explosion in population as a direct
result of the expanding federal government, which employed
57 percent of the area's workforce during the 1950s. As area
residents moved from their city and inner suburban rental
apartments to the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, residential
construction increased. Between 1940 and 1950, the popula-
tion of the District of Columbia grew only 21 percent while
the Virginia suburbs grew 130 percent and the Maryland sub-
urbs grew 107 percent. Arlington County grew by 138 per-
cent between 1940 and 1950, second only to Fairfax County
at 141 percent .18 What had been a predominantly African-
American county during the nineteenth century had become
almost exclusively white in the mid -twentieth century, with
only 8.8 percent of the population African-American in 1940
and 4.9 percent by the 1950 census.39
Arlington's population growth between 1930 and 1950 was
about 6,000 per year, but slowed to 4,000 people per year from
1955 to 1966. As population growth slowed to a manageable
rate, county planners began to consider the desired residen-
tial character of Arlington. In 1955 Arlington's housing stock
was composed of 47 percent single-family homes, 9 percent
two-family dwellings, and 44 percent apartment units. Plan-
ner Frank L. Dieter stated, "Arlington's residential character
is a problem. It is a question of what density is desired. There
are relatively few high-density areas here, and it appears to
be the wish of the people to keep the high-density areas to a
minimum .1141
By 1960 Arlington County was almost entirely developed.
Thus, while Fairfax County, located west of Arlington, grew
153 percent and Montgomery County grew by 107 percent
during the 1950s, Arlington County only grew by 28 percent.
It is important to note, however, that compared to Mont-
gomery (Maryland), Fairfax (Virginia), and Prince Georges
37 Rose, 197; `Arlington's Population Now 123,832," Washington Post,
10 April 1948.
38 Arlington's Population Now 123,832."
39U.S. Census Bureau,17th Census of the United States (1950) (Washing-
ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953).
-McClatchy.
147
(Maryland, east of Washington) Counties, which are roughly
equal in size at 400 square miles, Arlington County encom-
passes only 25.5 square miles.
A number of factors compounded over the years to make
the Washington metropolitan area planners, including those
in Arlington, rethink their growth policies. Population growth
in Arlington County never again increased on the scale of the
war and early postwar years, but residents began to fear that
Arlington would become over -developed .41 In an attempt
to prevent over -development, Arlington enacted measures
to slow its growth during the 1960s. Much of the remaining
vacant land in the county was reserved for parks and other
public purposes. The County increasingly implemented plans
to control growth, including putting limitations on utilities
expansion. It fought to control growth in the 1970s by delet-
ing some proposed sewer mains and limiting the size of other
pipes so that they could serve a population of no more than
250,000, not the original 350,000 called for by 200041
Arlington's suburban -to -urban evolution began during
the 1960s. As Arlington focused on managing growth in pre-
viously developed areas of the county, mainly through the
construction of high-density housing units, its demographic
profile began to change. The county, along with Alexandria
and Washington, were the only three jurisdictions in the
metropolitan area to have a net out -migration during this
period, when more people moved out of the county than
moved into it. Families moved from Arlington to suburban
areas where more, larger housing units were available. Dur-
ing the 1960s outmigration was balanced by total births in
the county, but as more families left the county in the 1970s,
the total population of Arlington County decreased. As fami-
lies left, they were replaced by singles and childless couples,
with a 52 percent increase in residents in their twenties and
a 42 percent increase in residents 55 years old and older .41
Arlington's residential land use and development trends mir-
rored those of Washington more than outlying suburbs, with
high renter occupancy and increased numbers of smaller
housing units, ideal for the singles and childless couples that
were moving into the area. In both Arlington and Alexandria,
"close -in land is being converted from primarily residential
to office/industrial uses. More and more of the land which
remains in residential use is occupied at high density levels,
and renter -occupied units predominate .1144 New high-rise
office, commercial, and residential development in Crystal
41 Kenneth Bredemeier, "Suburbs Struggle to Preserve Quality of Life in
the 70s," Washington Post, 19 January 1972.
42 Bredemeier.
43 The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, 8-14; Ron Shaffer,
Arlington Profile Projects Continued Population Loss," Washington
Post, 14 November 1974.
44The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, 2.
148
City and Rosslyn since the mid-1960s has converted those
areas to "mini-down-towns."45
1. Segregation Within Neighborhoods
and Subdivisions
As Arlington transitioned into an urban environment,
one major difference between it and Washington was the
county's racial profile. Washington's population was 71 per-
cent African-American in 1970, compared to six percent in
Arlington. The vast majority of Arlington's neighborhoods
were exclusively white, because of either restrictive covenants
or unwillingness to sell to African-Americans. These prac-
tices effectively halted any growth that might have taken place
and, as a result, African-American residents in Arlington were
forced to live in the few segregated communities available
to them: Arlington View, Nauck, Butler -Holmes, and High
View Park (Hall's Hill). Other areas previously occupied by
African-Americans were casualties of development, such as
South Washington along U.S. Route 1 or Queen City and East
Arlington located on the present-day site of the Pentagon .46
Displaced residents and organizations moved to the remain-
ing African-American enclaves where land was available to
blacks for development, creating areas of higher popula-
tion density than other single-family residential areas in the
county.
In addition to population density, living conditions for
African-Americans were dramatically different from the
rest of the county. A 1966 report by Arlington's anti -poverty
Community Action Committee stated, "In Arlington, as
in the whole Metropolitan community, families with low
incomes simply do not have access to decent housing. In
Arlington, as in all of the suburbs, Negro families of what-
ever income find it almost impossible to find housing out-
side of a few scattered ghettos ."47 The report also stated that
22.2 percent of African-Americans occupied dwellings that
were substandard, compared to 4.4 percent countywide. The
county voted down the creation of a public housing author-
ity in 1958, which rendered it ineligible for participation in
the rent supplement and low -rent housing programs under
the Federal Housing Act of 1965 that might have alleviated
housing problems .41
During the 1950s and 1960s, the average income and
education level of African-Americans in the communities
45 The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, 4.
46"Some Black History in Arlington County: A Preliminary Investiga-
tion," The Arlington Historical Magazine 5, No. 4 (October 1973),11-14.
47 Leslie Cheek, "Fair Housing Ordinance Is Proposed for Arlington,"
Washington Post, 23 March 1966.
41 Cheek.
Figure 2. This house at 5100 22nd Street North is one
of the first large houses constructed in High View
Park, built in 1965 (Louis Berger photograph).
of High View Park and Arlington View increased. As more
affluent African-Americans moved into the area, vacant lots
were bought, and new homes were valued up to as much as
$50,000 in High View Park. Lots with older homes in poor
condition were remodeled or torn down to make way for
new houses .49 In 1964 more than half of the Arlington View's
housing units were either remodeled or newly built within
the past 12 years .511
The dearth of choices for African-Americans, even those
who could afford to live elsewhere, resulted in a larger spec-
trum of housing in all of the neighborhoods. Newspaper
articles on Arlington View and High View Park reported that
houses ranged in value from $50,000 to "practically worth-
less .1
orth-less. 151 The wider range of income levels contributed to the
variety of housing types and materials (see Figure 2). The vari-
ety of construction included owner -built, small-scale develop-
ment of a few (usually no more than two or three) houses,
and architect -designed houses. Houses were typically single-
family, though duplex housing was occasionally constructed.
The range of builders and span of decades over which these
areas were developed resulted in no single, cohesive style or
type of housing. Forms and styles of these houses included
minimal -traditional, Cape Cod, Ranch, Split-level, Split -
foyer, and Colonial Revival. Basic forms were occasionally
turned on end, gable end to the road frontage, to accommo-
date a narrow lot or as a way to vary these forms.
49 John M. Langston Citizens Association, High View Park Neighbor-
hood Plan (Arlington County, Va.: Arlington County Office of Plan-
ning, 1965), 11.
so Lee Lescaze, "Saving Aging Neighborhoods Goal of Arlington County
Plan," Washington Post, 1 September 1964.
51 Pepper Leeper, Arlington View War on Blight is a `We' Effort," Wash-
ington Post, 27 February 1969; Hank Burchard, "Hall's Hill: Blacks
Hold the High Ground," Washington Post, 27 February 1969.
CHAPTER 6
Planning and Development
A. Development Patterns
Immediately following World War 11, housing construc-
tion began slowly because of shortages in building materials,
but within a couple of years new developments were under-
way. Even before the war ended, the Washington Post reported
that "plans already in blueprint stage will give the county mil-
lions more in residential and business improvement."" Some
of Arlington's early twentieth-century neighborhoods grew
significantly during the immediate postwar years; however,
in the 1950s, as more neighborhoods became "built out" and
available land became scarce, residential development moved
further out (6 to 10 miles) from the downtown D.C. core.53
Prior to World War Il, the majority of neighborhoods in
Arlington County were developed by subdividers, who pur-
chased the land, made improvements (e.g., roads) and sub-
divided the lots, and sold the lots to individuals who engaged
an architect or builder to construct a house. Just prior to the
war and in the decades after, development primarily occurred
through merchant builders, who purchased available land,
improved and subdivided the land, and built the houses on
the lots. This type of development was a result of the demand
for housing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the
availability of FHA -backed loans for merchant builders, and
a shift in construction methods .54
The demand for housing in the 1950s for Arlington's
155,000 residents drew numerous builders to the area, but
as Christopher Martin points out in Tract -House Modern: A
"Andrews, `Arlington Is Modern `Cinderella;" Washington Post, 27
May 1945.
53 Martin, 76.
54David Ames and Linda McClelland, Historic Residential Suburbs:
Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002),
26-27; EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia (Washington, D.C.: 2008), 11, 63.
149
Study of Housing Design and Consumption in the Washing-
ton Suburbs: 1946-1960, due to high land and construction
costs "the Washington home building market was exclusively
a local enterprise ."55 Large-scale merchant builders similar
to Levitt and Sons were priced out of the market, and most
residential development was undertaken by small to medium
local companies, although a few larger firms participated in
the boom. Unlike other areas of the country affected by the
governmental/military/industrial presence where develop-
ers erected thousands of similar, low-cost houses, the metro-
politan Washington real estate market catered to white-collar,
middle-class residents with higher than average incomes who
expected, most often, a brick Colonial Revival -style dwelling.56
The need for housing was so great that some postwar develop-
ments did not include commercial areas in their plans .17
Most local builders were classified by industry standards
as small (1 to 24 houses a year) or medium (25 to 99 houses
a year). Medium and large (more than 100 houses per year)
builders produced the majority of the area's housing. Large-
scale builders also typically worked on more than one project
at a time. For example, one large-scale builder in the area,
"Martin, 60.
16Martin, 60; McClatchy. McClatchy's article states that many of the
federal workers received "salaries in the upper -middle bracket:' See also
Conrad E "Arlington rlington Continues Hectic Building Pace," Wash-
ington Post, 11 April 1948. This article provides statistics on the major-
ity of period construction as single-family, brick, two-story dwellings
with "practically no new homes in the county for sale under $10,000.'
The article also discusses the postwar increase of garden apartments in
the county.
"EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register of His-
toric Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9700). The original plans for the
Claremont neighborhood, built between 1946 and 1954, did not include
shopping centers or schools, which had typically appeared in Arlington
developments prior to the war. This neighborhood was planned by local
developer Gerald A. Freed and the Claremont Development Corpora-
tion with architects Allan F. Kamstra and Albert D. Lueders.
150
M.T. Broyhill and Sons, worked on five separate area subdivi-
sions in 1955 with plans for over 1,400 houses. Among such
a large group of competitors, builders thus sought to distin-
guish themselves and their product by varying house forms,
exterior appearance, interior features, as well as through
advertising mechanisms .51 In many instances, these builders
sought land adjacent to established neighborhoods and often
erected houses that were similar to the existing dwellings;
some erected dwellings that reflected modern architectural
trends and modern materials.
Not all developers nationwide subdivided and developed
land and built large numbers of houses in one area. This
was particularly the case in Arlington County, where large
expanses of land were no longer common. In some instances,
subdividers continued to improve the land and sell individual
lots to private owners. More common was available land that
had been subdivided during late 1930s or early 1940s where
development had been halted with the onset of World War II.
Thus, after the war, builders purchased small or large quanti-
ties of the subdivided parcels or often re -subdivided the land,
within existing neighborhoods. While some medium and
large-scale builders purchased land in existing neighborhoods,
it was more commonly developed by small-scale builders,
who constructed houses in small clusters. Infill development
on undeveloped platted lots within existing neighborhoods
also was common during this time. Garden apartments also
were constructed to keep pace with the county's high housing
demand.
1. Merchant Builders and
Planned Subdivisions
Prior to and after World War II, Arlington County's tremen-
dous growth attracted several medium- to large-scale builders
to establish subdivisions of similar, almost identical single-
family dwellings where larger tracts were available. These mer-
chant builders and speculative housing are synonymous with
the development of Arlington County. The number of mer-
chant builders, from small- to large-scale, in Arlington County
was so large during the postwar decades that it is difficult to
name them all.
M.T. Broyhill and Sons was one of the most prolific mer-
chant builders in Arlington County and is recognized for
building more than 8,000 brick homes in Northern Virginia
between 1946 and 1955.59 Marvin T. Broyhill (1918-1969),
along with his brothers, learned the building and construc-
tion trades from his father, who was involved in a small-scale
lumber and building business. Broyhill moved his family to
"Martin, 61, 67-68.
"Martin, 79.
Arlington County in 1937 and subsequently founded the
M.T. Broyhill and Sons Corporation that combined develop-
ment, construction, insurance, and realty. M.T. Broyhill and
Sons served as the construction company, M.T. Broyhill and
Sons Partnership held rental properties, and Broyhill Insur-
ance offered insurance for the houses.60 In Arlington County,
Broyhill's postwar developments included Waverly Hills,
Country Club Manors, Country Club View, and Broyhill
Forest.61 One of Broyhill's first developments in Arlington
County after World War II was Broyhill's Addition to Arling-
ton Forest in 1948. There Broyhill subdivided the land and
made necessary improvements, as well as built approximately
60 Colonial Revival -style houses.
Luria Brothers was also a medium- to -large-scale merchant
builder who constructed several subdivisions in Arlington
County. Luria Brothers consisted of a partnership between
two brothers, Gerald and Eli Luria. The brothers started their
business in 1945 to capitalize on the tremendous building
needs after the war. Eli recalled, "There were a number of
developers starting up right after the war and of course the
demand was very, very strong. So sales were active and most
anything would sell:162 Luria Brothers' first development
was located in Waverly Village in Arlington County. Started
in 1946, the project consisted of 33 brick houses with two
basic forms: a two-story Colonial and a one-story Ranch, also
known as a rambler. The houses sold for $12,000 to $13,000,
a mid -priced house for the area. Between 1947 and 1948, the
brothers developed 64 lots in Berkshire, located in the north-
ern section of Arlington County. In Berkshire, the Lurias
mostly built two-story Colonials for the price of $16,750.
In 1949, when sales were almost complete in Berkshire, the
company purchased 32 lots in northern Arlington County for
their Garden City project. Here, the brothers built a one-story
rambler that featured a low-pitched roof and large picture
windows, deviating from the more traditional houses they
had built in the past. Riding on the success of Garden City,
Luria Brothers continued to build one-story rambler types in
Arlington County in the subdivisions of Jonstown, Marshall
Park, Sycamore Grove, and Sleepy Hollow Knoll.63 Luria Broth-
ers went on to develop the modern subdivision of Holmes Run
Acres in nearby Falls Church, Virginia, in 1951.
Mace Properties is an example of a large-scale merchant
builder in Arlington County and is credited with building
60 Eugene Scheel, "With `the Park,' County's Growth Battles were Just
Beginning," A History of Loudoun County, Virginia (2002), http://
www.loudounhistory.org/history/sterling-park-beginnngs-1961.htm
(accessed 4 March 2010).
61 "Country Club View," Washington Post, 10 September 1950.
62 Martin, 143.
61 Martin, 144-146.
over 4,000 single-family houses in Arlington County as well
as several shopping centers and apartment buildings. Estab-
lished by Merwin A. "John" Mace (1900-1969), a real estate
broker, developer, and builder, Mace Properties is known for
its high construction standards and low construction costs.
The success of Mace Properties was largely based on its abil-
ity to capitalize on FHA financing. By the 1950s Mace oper-
ated several divisions, including Pollard Gardens, Westover
Inc., Mace Management, and Arlington Homes Corporation.
Mace Properties developed several subdivisions in Arlington
County prior to World War II and also built and developed
Dominion Hills in Arlington after World War II. Dominion
Hills had been initially platted in 1942 by a subdivider; how-
ever, development was halted by the war. After the war, Mace
purchased the subdivision of Dominion Hills in 1945 and
purchased and platted the adjacent Section Two of Dominion
Hills in 1946. By the end of 1948, both sections of Dominion
Hills consisted of 361 houses built by Mace .64
While the majority of Arlington's merchant builders, includ-
ing Broyhill, Luria Brothers, and Mace, almost exclusively
built subdivisions for white middle-class and white upper -
middle -class families, Syphax Construction built for African-
American families. Syphax Construction, owned by William
and Margarite Syphax, was the largest African -American -
owned construction company in Arlington County and was
the first African-American construction company of any size
in Northern Virginia. William Syphax was a native of Arling-
ton County and realized the need for a construction company
that would build houses for middle-income African-Americans
after World War IL " [D] espite a postwar influx of black govern-
ment workers who needed decent homes and had the salaries to
pay for them, no builders in Northern Virginia were willing or
able to construct houses for black buyers in any number. And
as Washington's suburbs began their outward spread — with
developments of moderately priced houses that were sold
almost exclusively to whites — Syphax quickly tired of `white
men legislating my equality- 11165 The business began by build-
ing houses for the Syphaxes' friends. They designed a brick
rambler and worked with subcontractors to create copies in
Arlington's African-American neighborhoods (see Figure 3).
Syphax Construction was able to arrange construction loans
and permanent financing because of the prominence of the
Syphax name in the area, when lack of financing limited
other African-American builders who constructed only a
64EHT Traceries, Dominion Hills Historic District Preliminary Infor-
mation (VDHR #000-4212). On file in Archives, Virginia Department
of Historic Resources, Richmond.
65 Claudia Levy, "The Syphaxes of Arlington: One House Led to
Another," Washington Post, 22 June 1974.
151
Figure 3. This house at 2720 1st Street South, built
in 1956, is one of the brick Ranch houses built by
Syphax Construction for African -American residents
in Arlington (Louis Berger photograph).
few houses each year. During the 1950s Syphax Construc-
tion built approximately 100 houses that were priced from
$14,000 to over $16,000.66 Syphax Construction grew by the
early 1970s into W.T. Syphax Enterprises, which included
construction, real estate, and property management.
2. Infill Development Within Existing
Subdivisions and Isolated Postwar Houses
While medium and large-scale merchant builders who
platted the land and built the houses in a subdivision were
common in Arlington County, a large amount of the develop-
ment occurred in existing neighborhoods, often by numerous
small- to medium -scale builders. The immense need for hous-
ing and the scarcity and high cost of land in Arlington County
after World War II caused builders to purchase any available
lots in the county's established neighborhoods for new hous-
ing. Thus, merchant builders would "create small enclaves
that have been engulfed by larger communities" and thus lose
the distinctive association with a builder .67 The result is often
clusters of postwar houses or a single postwar house located
amongst distinctively prewar houses. Often, land that had been
subdivided prior to World War II was later re -subdivided by
merchant builders to offer additional lots and to conform to
the new subdivision design practices in the mid -twentieth cen-
tury, such as curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs.
One example of this phenomenon in Arlington took place
in Glencarlyn. Originally platted in 1887 as Carlyn Springs,
66 Levy
67EHT Traceries, Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia (Washington, D.C.: 2009), 63.
152
Glencarlyn is Arlington County's oldest planned residential
suburb. Initial construction in Glencarlyn was slow; however,
several high -style single-family dwellings were built on the
large lots at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies. Development in Glencarlyn remained sparse until after
World War II, with its largest amount of construction occur-
ring between 1947 and 1958 when developers built over 180
single-family dwellings. Four development companies were
the primary builders during this 12 -year period: Hamilton
Homes, Glen Realty Company Inc., M. Pomponio and Sons,
and Colonial Construction Company. These builders erected
modest houses often of the same design and materials, typical
of postwar construction. Between 1959 and 1979, approxi-
mately 60 new houses were built in Glencarlyn. The modest
two-story Colonial Revival -style dwellings, Ranch houses, and
Split -foyers contrast greatly with the large Queen Anne -style
houses from Glencarlyn's initial development.68 Glencarlyn
displays a large range of single-family house types, from the
late nineteenth century to the third quarter of the twentieth
century; this type of development was not uncommon in
Arlington County within its established neighborhoods.
The common development pattern of small-scale postwar
construction can be seen in what is currently known as the
neighborhood of Leeway Overlee. The current neighborhood
is composed of several different subdivisions, many of which
were platted before the war and re -subdivided during the
postwar boom. The 1925 subdivision of Tuckahoe Village,
for example, attracted merchant builders after World War II
because it had inexpensive, unimproved lots. The merchant
builders left their mark with no less than 15 re -subdivisions
that effectively altered nearly all of the original lots in Tucka-
hoe Village. "The largest parcels were divided into uniformed
lots, corner parcels were reworked to take maximum advan-
tage of their location, and lot lines once set at an angle were
redrawn perpendicular to the street, a grid pattern promoted
by the Federal Housing Administration .1169 Builders con-
structed new single-family dwellings in groups of no more
than three on the newly divided lots and quickly provided
much-needed housing. Builders included W.E. Morgan, Fire
Safe Homes, W.H. Bacon Jr., and Pomponio and Sons, Inc.
(later Pomponio Realty). 70
Additional examples of similar infill development are
located in the neighborhood of Arlington Heights, where
developers purchased vacant parcels and re -subdivided the
land, often into smaller lots than had been initially platted.
68 EHT Traceries, Glencarlyn Historic District National Register of His-
toric Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9704), 51, 61-62.
69 EHT Traceries, Leeway Overlee Preliminary Information Form
(VDHR #000-4209). On file in Archives, Virginia Department of His-
toric Resources, Richmond.
70 EHT Traceries, Leeway Overlee Preliminary Information Form.
Figure 4. This detail map of the Arlington Heights
neighborhood illustrates the difference in pre- and post-
war development patterns. The sections platted before
World War 11 use a linear street alignment and hold
larger lots; the postwar development utilized curvilinear
streets and smaller lot sizes (Louis Berger map).
Arlington Heights' postwar development occurred in Caron's
Addition (1948), Bernstein and Reinsch's Addition (1950),
and Cook's Addition (1950). An additional re -subdivision
occurred in 1963 after the demolition of an existing house.
The more recent subdivisions in Arlington Heights can easily
be differentiated on a map by the curvilinear street patterns
and cul-de-sacs that are lacking in the initial development.
Also notable in the southern section of Arlington Heights
(Bernstein and Reinsch's addition) is the size of the lots,
which are substantially smaller than those platted earlier.
Here, Bernstein and Reinsch built 41 Colonial Revival -style
brick houses between 1950 and 1951 (see Figure 4).71
Although subdividers were mostly active prior to World
War Il, some subdividers were active in Arlington County after
the war. In many instances, the land had been subdivided in
"EHT Traceries, Arlington Heights Historic District National Register
of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-3383), 8,187-188.
the late 1930s and early 1940s, but development did not come
to fruition because of World War II. Thus, the subdividers
continued to sell individual lots or groups of lots to small-
scale and, in some cases, large-scale builders. One example
of an area primarily developed by a subdivider who in turn
sold lots individually or in groups to larger -scale build-
ers is Bellevue Forest. Charles and John Grunwell began
to subdivide their family's property in 1938 with John, an
architect and surveyor, playing a large role in its layout and
design. Over the next 20 years, the Grunwells subdivided
18 sections of Bellevue Forest with 5,000 lots. Unlike compa-
nies such as Broyhill and Mace, the Grunwells did not build
the houses in Bellevue Forest but sold the lots off to individu-
als or to developers. In 1954 the majority of the lots devel-
oped in Bellevue Forest were by single owners or small-scale
builders. Thus, the houses in Bellevue Forest for the most part
vary in design. Development in Bellevue Forest shifted in the
1950s when May Properties constructed nearly 150 houses
between 1954 and 1958, all similar in design .71
The tremendous need for housing prompted the desire for
any available land in Arlington County. Thus, single houses
were also built on vacant lots in existing neighborhoods,
and in some instances large lots with existing houses were
subdivided to provide room for additional dwellings. One
example is located in Virginia Heights. All of the lots in Vir-
ginia Heights had been built upon by 1953 except one at 5236
12th Street South. In 1962 a Split -foyer house was built on the
property and is visibly distinct from its neighboring small,
one-story, L-shaped ramblers (see Figure 5).73
Arlington's African-American neighborhoods also experi-
enced a great deal of infill development during the postwar
era. Though they are some of the oldest residential areas in the
county, dating to the post -Civil War era, the county's African-
American population was small through the early and mid -
twentieth century. By the early postwar era, numerous empty
lots were available for purchase or further subdivision. Thus,
in African-American neighborhoods, such as Nauck, postwar
houses commonly stand between late nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century houses (see Figure 6).
3. Ordinances, Codes, Covenants,
and Deed Restrictions
Covenants stipulated in subdivision deeds were a tool
that ensured the homogeneity of Arlington County's neigh-
borhoods. Many of the covenants restricted development
72 Bellevue Forest Civic Association, `Bellevue Forest: Its History," http://
www.bellevueforest.org/BFHistory.htm (accessed 11 March 2011).
73 EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register of
Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9701), 15.
153
Figure 5. This house at 5236 12th Street South in
Virginia Heights, built in 1963, is an example of a
1960s -era Split -foyer house that was built in
a neighborhood of 1950s Ranches (Louis Berger
photograph).
and were related to lot size, building types, fences, and sec-
ondary resources. Others were more racially or ethnically
based and only allowed owners and occupants who were
white and non-Jewish. Covenants had a large impact on the
design and development of Arlington's postwar housing.
Many of the covenants were put in place during the 1930s
and the early 1940s when the subdivisions were first platted,
thus forcing those subsequently purchasing any lot or group
of lots to adhere to the existing covenants. One example is
Bellevue Forest, which was first platted in 1938 with Section 1.
The owners, Charles and John Grunwell, established a total
of 21 covenants stipulated for Section 1 of Bellevue Forest.
The subdivision covenants excluded farm animals, businesses
and manufacturing establishments, entertainment facilities,
schools, dance halls, and lot -line fences, among other items.
To keep the streetscape harmonious, one covenant stated, "No
structure shall be built upon or moved onto any lot unless it
shall conform to and be in harmony with existing structures
in the immediate locality."74 Restrictions were also placed
on the construction or alteration of any structure and often
required plans to be approved by the subdivision owners .71
Typical of the time, the covenants in Bellevue Forest
restricted the sale of lots or houses to people of certain races.
One Bellevue Forest covenant specifically stated that lots could
not be "used, occupied by, sold, demised, transferred, conveyed
unto, or in trust for, leased, rented, or given, to negros [sic],
or any person or persons of Negro blood or extraction, or to
any person of the semetic [sic] race, blood, or origin, which
74 Bellevue Forest Civic Association.
71 Bellevue Forest Civic Association.
154
Figure 6. This 1965 Map of Arlington View illustrates the infill construction that
occurred in the postwar period, • shaded lots are new single- and two-family homes
and shaded lots with an "R" designation are remodeled homes (Arlington County).
racial description shall be deemed to include Armenians, Jews,
Hebrews, Persians and Syrians." 76 In all, the Grunwells plat-
ted 18 sections of Bellevue Forest over the course of 20 years.
The majority of the development occurred after World War II.
Although the covenants continued after the war, the Grunwells
amended the race requirements for the postwar sections to
allow for `Armenians, Jews, Persians and Syrians,' but still
excluded African-Americans. 77
76 Bellevue Forest Civic Association.
77 Bellevue Forest Civic Association.
In 1947 M. T. Broyhill and Sons established Country Club
View, Inc. for the purposes of subdividing and developing a
subdivision adjacent to Washington Golf and Country Club
in Arlington County. The deeds listed two important cove-
nants. The property in Country Club View could not be "sold
to, leased to, devised to, used or occupied by any person or
persons not of the Gentile Caucasian Race.' 71 In addition, the
parcels could not be divided or subdivided into smaller lots,
78Arlington County Land Records, Deed Book 800, 252, 1947.
only one house could be built on a subdivided lot, and no
house or residence could be constructed on any lot at a cost
of less than $25,000. All plans had to be approved by Country
Club View, Incorporated. Thus, Broyhill limited not only the
race of people who could buy houses in Country Club View
but also their class, since $25,000 was $10,000 more than
many of the houses offered in Arlington County at that time.
Broyhill subtly advertised the covenants in place at Country
Club View in a full-page ad in the Washington Post in 1950 by
calling the subdivision "exclusive and restricted ... The result
is a distinguished suburb peopled with carefully screened
families ... the sort of neighbors you want to live among, and
whose children are the sort you want your children to grow
up with (see Figure 7)."79
In 1949 the FHA announced that as of February 15, 1950,
it would no longer insure mortgages on real estate that was
subject to racial covenants, forcing Arlington County's devel-
opers to leave out any covenants based on race or ethnicity
in their subdivision deeds if they wanted to take advantage
of FHA -insured mortgages.80 Although racially based cov-
enants may not have been allowed in subdivisions after
1949, developers could still easily restrict certain residents by
choosing to whom they would sell the houses or by enforcing
existing racial covenants in areas subdivided prior to 1950.
Arlington builder Sol Adelman, founder of Old Dominion
Development Corp. (Virginia Heights), and his family faced
existing covenants restricting Jews when attempting to build
a house in the Shirley Woods subdivision in northern Arling-
ton County in 1950. Although the designs for the Adelman
house were initially approved by the developer, the Adelmans
were told that they could not build their house because of the
exclusion of "any person of the Semitic race, blood or origin"
from building in the subdivision. S1 The owners of the sub-
division, Mr. and Mrs. Fred G. Belm of Arlington County,
stated that the Adelmans purchased the property in Shirley
Woods in 1944, "subject to their abiding by the covenant
restrictions.' 82 Consequently, the Adelmans filed suit against
the subdivision owners. The Arlington County Circuit Court
filed in favor of the Adelmans in November 1950 since their
house plans conformed to the standards of the development,
and the developers were forced to permit the Adelmans to
build on their lot.83
Covenants also promoted stylistic homogeneity in Arling-
ton County, particularly in subdivisions that were developed
""M.T. Broyhill and Sons," Washington Post, 10 September 1950.
80Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the
United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 208.
""Suit Attacks Race Covenant," Washington Post, 17 October 1950.
12 "Suit Attacks Race Covenant.'
83"Couple Beats Covenant," Washington Post, 22 November 1950.
155
by subdividers. In many instances, covenants required that
building plans had to be approved by the subdivision owner,
and some specifically required that all houses built in the
neighborhood must be "harmonious.' One extreme example
landed an Arlington architect in court in 1969. Brockhurst C.
Eustice built a contemporary house in the northern Arling-
ton subdivision of Rivercrest. Eustice thought his "starkly
modern new home [was] beautiful," but his neighbors, who
lived in more "traditional structures," did not agree and took
him to court. 14 An Arlington County judge sided with the
neighbors and ruled that Eustice violated a Rivercrest cov-
enant "calling for harmony."85 The house was razed in 1972.86
4. Real Estate Companies and Builders
In Arlington County, merchant builders often served as
both builder and realtor and marketed and sold the houses
in their newly developed subdivision. Many of the larger
merchant builders in Arlington County had several divi-
sions within the company that handled the different aspects
of the development business. This often included real estate
brokerage. Mace Properties, for example, served as its own
realtor and was described in its ads as `Builders, Develop-
ers, Realtors.' Broyhill also had its own realty business that
sold the houses in the neighborhoods it developed, allow-
ing for complete control over the construction and sale of
their properties .17 Initially, Luria Brothers also operated Luria
Reality Co. to sell the houses in its subdivisions. In 1960 the
company announced that it would no longer be involved in
the sale of the houses that it built. The company appointed
KayRo Realty as exclusive sales agents for its developments.
The transferring of marketing and selling responsibility to
KayRo allowed Luria Brothers to concentrate on larger -scale
subdivisions .81 Pomponio Reality Inc. and George H. Ruckers
Co. both served as realty companies and developers. Pom-
ponio Realty, formerly Pomponio and Sons, for example,
developed Williamsburg Village in northern Arlington in
1951, and George H. Ruckers Co. built houses in Country
Club Hills in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
5. Advertising Trends
Local builders in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area "sought individuality through various methods of
84 Architect's `Dream House' Ordered Torn Down," Washington Post,
17 September 1969.
"Architect's `Dream House' Ordered Torn Down.'
86"House Being Razed as`Inharmonious; ' Washington Post, 3 June 1972.
17 "Here is the Latest Mace Project," Washington Post, 12 April 1953.
88"Luria Firm to Quit Sale of Houses," Washington Post, 10 Septem-
ber 1960: B4.
156
IN. T. DIROVIIIII, & SONS
proudly p"-%,nnt thiv d6 ingniAaed Rouse in ExvinAwe
Peel �a r •
}.:rr roI r,.r retr, wr2-c A 4M W9 P. u_n Tt,!wnaFa ..r rnrrlel.Q:sc.sl.ycw-
w1,..rlri.9,_6 r- 'r •••+`r ..,r •':t. 'Sl. ?iib' it4e f.' z,.e.tr Wt
Ef+rkuew nrel, w rLrrLM .#+. uz. �r,r, faY.I rA y.k ik►n1J.11vKet . D
rr...,r rorE.cst Y�rvE.+fr�et�,.ni..sty.wrsa+.#uiTcpixWaer,rAaJrrrwsYAr
cl e+a,lr-n�+c..a3l�s► �1.�r w.><qF +4�ssa.r�nm et Nry �,fs. T1.r.e-
�rNK..
ek..eE I {'.qh. ,e. ales �vrtl..riT 'nrtf• �4aert ue u. fell l.atne
Y.r h. at {r .rtlarew a«. e.m . c«� .,i ]r. nra+ kcl. rat, . mldn.n of er.irLn
IW tllrp Alllnr G. k IIWIIA iM
nnfalAs. twa ..f. .t ..kr!iid r,.q,kt+r■ irr Al1*0 Eau
A■llrr+sikd r,n�a.4m frn ...+ L.c V uM•
89"WePlug Abeam CONNOg 0" f III*w
r +5.,.,•,..., nrrp nr ren
n
a Fti.+ier (fr...
. Rrr. f 1"U C ife.»r
. e. .'.i � lb..m rille
-,--137,950
.-
,e.....
!
9r.
..
- - ...�u �ti. u�.o ..,yam (..,
wra ui
;A�-. n.:I r..
;n.wi. i+w.i .. e».
cRrnirr7. r rgu:ma
R7® 9 azifc r TtIrr
}a1W S.rL Y [ f_M ► 1.. . k
"' .� .
r.e,lee"6 row, i eN 11.0 /Wti P.,
•..yL lPrl4e+a..1•'- _. 1... L.. HN 1,
ais..r [a.La• G4O ra' t k
�. t..... c.-.. c..rr�a,
--- a11Y3. ►. s.r.r rr.►
sc.r.i ^ _ _ a»..r. arw...►+
.��ww...��.
eelRi€wiUny mp.
rl.lfg !'arn 'ill tlnl'ril
-.-n GW r. C ---r Chi
Y.°..y n�'i��� ••�ps•a=-�
�5p����r�.aw• T9 i�5 Jl:M"71������ ��i� ���'
41341 Rrr II tiA5.4 Y.,.
JL►
Figure 7. 1950 Advertisement for Broyhill's "exclusive and restricted" Country
Club View Development, which was governed by covenants that restricted
sales to certain races and people of certain economic status (Washington Post).
advertising and publicity, often resulting in innovative and
novel marketing ideas that clearly separated some of them
from their competitors."' Local builders used various tac-
tics to draw potential buyers to subdivisions. Most builders
and developers advertised in the Washington Post and the
Washington Star newspapers, and many ran repeat ads to
ensure visibility. The complexity of the ads varied, although
many included drawings or photographs of a typical house
89 Martin, 61.
available in the neighborhood. Many builders and develop-
ers erected a model house to attract potential buyers. Open
houses were then advertised in the local newspapers or in
other media outlets, such as radio and television; a 1952
newspaper advertisement for a house in Stratford Hills
states, "See This Home on Television. Tune in `New Homes
Preview' WMAL-TV Channel 7, Sunday 11:30 am until
12 noon ;'90
9"'Stratford Hills," Washington Post, 17 August 1952.
One way that local builders advertised was at the annual
"home show," which was sponsored by the Home Builders
Association of Metropolitan Washington. The first Washing-
ton area home show was held in October 1947 at the D.C.
Armory and quickly became the premier marketing mecha-
nism for local builders. The 1947 home show attracted over
70,000 visitors. By 1950 the show had been moved to spring
and brought 70,000 to 100,000 attendees over its two-week
operation. The event allowed locals to view the newest con-
struction features and materials throughout dozens of trade -
related booths and exhibits. One of the most popular was
the "gallery of homes," which featured the latest subdivisions
by member builders.91 The 1949 home show, for example,
featured several builders who worked in Arlington County,
including M. T. Broyhill and Sons, Mace Properties, and L. E.
Breuninger and Son Inc.91
Another popular advertising venue was through the Wash-
ington Post -sponsored "Homes of the Year" exhibit. Begin-
ning in 1948, this exhibit featured new houses in subdivisions
around the Washington metropolitan area as a way to allow
the public to see the latest housing trends first hand. Co-
sponsors of the event were local developers and furniture
companies. The "Homes of '48 for Better Living" exhibit
consisted of 10 new houses that were fully decorated and
furnished and ranged in price from $15,000 to $45,000. The
vice president of the National Association of Home Builders
told the Washington Post before the exhibit opened that he
hoped "when the public inspects these homes that they will
observe the careful planning, good layout and excellent qual-
ity of workmanship. They will see what a fine job of build-
ing is being done by today's builders.' 93 One of the houses
featured in the 1948 exhibit was a two-story Colonial built by
Luria Brothers in the Williamsburg area in western Arlington
County. 94 The number of participants in the exhibit grew
tremendously over the years, and by 1956 the exhibit offered
70 houses .15
Participants in the exhibit included many of Arlington
County's most successful developers: Courembia Construc-
tion Co. (1949), M. T. Broyhill and Sons (1949, 1950, 1952,
1954), Pomponio Realty (1951), and Mace Properties (1954).
The list of developers and the location of the houses illustrate
active builders during that time, the type of houses they were
building, and the location of new subdivisions in Arling-
91 Martin, 95.
92"District Home Show Opens With 200 Different Booths, Washington
Post, 9 October 1949.
93`Big Four -Week Home Exhibition Endorsed by Housing Leaders,"
Washington Post, 27 June 1948.
94"Big Four -Week Home Exhibition Endorsed by Housing Leaders."
95`Big Homes of '57 Exhibit To Be Held in September," Washington
Post, 1 June 1957.
157
ton County. Houses in Arlington County were featured in
the yearly "Homes of the Year" exhibit after 1948, but were
notably absent between 1956 and 1958. The exhibit featured
Arlington County houses in 1959 around the Arlington Golf
and Country Club in northern Arlington County, but none
were featured in 1960 or 1961. By the late 1950s and early
1960s, the majority of houses featured in the exhibit were
located in Montgomery, Prince George's, and Fairfax coun-
ties, illustrating the decline in residential construction and
the unavailability of land in Arlington County by that time.
Overall, advertisements for Arlington County subdivi-
sions and single-family houses after World War II promoted
their convenient proximity to Washington, D.C., the overall
amenities of the house, the design, whether it was traditional
or modern, and often the affordability or available financ-
ing. Ads often exclaimed "G.I. Approved" to attract returning
veterans. Larger development companies could afford more
elaborate means of advertising, such as illustrated newspaper
ads and television spots; smaller -scale developers often used
the classified ads as their primary means of advertisement.
B. Utilities and Infrastructure
Before the 1930s, Arlington County lacked basic public
works, such as water and sewage systems. Even once those
utilities were put into place, service was constantly being
expanded as the county struggled to keep up with the rapid
development that threatened to overwhelm the capacity of
the system.96 By the early postwar era, the situation had not
improved. Although developers were responsible for the con-
struction of infrastructure in new developments, the county
worked to update utilities and infrastructure in older com-
munities. Improvements that were needed included storm
sewers, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. 97
Arlington's struggle to meet public works needs stemmed
partially from its governmental structure, which did not
allow it to assume financial obligations extending beyond a
single fiscal year. Additionally, its main source of income, tax
revenue, was insufficient to meet needed financial outlays. As
the postwar era began, incorporation as a city was proposed
as a panacea. Proponents of the city proposal argued that it
would give Arlington a "greater power of self-determination:
added power to regulate public utilities; power to make long-
range improvements; to undertake new activities; it would
have more effective control over local finances." Tax rev-
enue would increase through the addition of a wider base
that would include occupational and auto licenses, and other
96Rose, 179-181.
97130,000 Voted for Arlington Curbs, Sewers," Washington Post, 5
August 1945.
158
forms of local taxation available to a city." Although the
county never became incorporated, it would revisit the issue
in subsequent years.
The burden of rapid population growth and expansion on
county infrastructure is illustrated best by Arlington's lack
of sewage treatment facilities. During the late 1940s, it was
reported that half of its raw sewage was being dumped in the
river and the other half was treated only to remove solids.
Arlington was not alone in the practice, as both Washington
and Alexandria were also dumping large portions of their
raw sewage.99 Plans to remedy the problem took two decades
to complete, when finally, in 1968, the secondary treatment
plant at 3401 South Glebe Road was completed. Prior to
the plant's opening, the primary treatment facility removed
roughly 65 percent of the pollution before it flowed into the
river. The new plant was designed to eliminate 90 percent of
pollution.100
The builder's responsibility for ensuring utilities and
infrastructure increased when the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia passed a Subdivision Ordinance in 1959 that allowed
municipalities to require a bond or check from a developer
as a surety that improvements would be completed. The first
bond files on record at Arlington County date to 1964. Work
that was required to be completed included placement of
monuments at all corners of the subdivision and property
lines; storm sewers, culverts under roadways, and outlet
ditches; street construction; concrete sidewalks, curbs, and
gutters on both sides of all thoroughfares; frontage and ser-
vice connection for public water; and a public sewage sys-
tem at each building site. Once the work was completed and
accepted by the appropriate county divisions, the bond was
released.101
The Subdivision Ordinance guaranteed improvements
for new communities, but preexisting neighborhoods lagged
behind in receiving them. More than any of the other older
neighborhoods, living in one of the African-American areas
of Arlington at the time would have meant drastically dif-
ferent infrastructure conditions. These communities lacked
basic improvements long after other Arlington neighbor-
hoods had received them. In 1965 these areas were described
as having "dead-end streets and small `Berlin walls,' some cov-
ered with roses, separating Negro communities from the rest
of the county. [There was a] sharp contrast in the amount of
98Doretha Andrews, Arlington's Residents Form Their `Industry,"'
Washington Post, 11 September 1945.
99Verne C. Close, "Letter to the Editor," Washington Post, 16 January 1945.
100"A.lington Sewer Plant Dedicated, Washington Post, 19 May 1968.
101 For an example of what was required of developers, see Bond File
#65: Foster's Third Addition to Country Club Hills (Arlington County,
Va.: Department of Environmental Services, June 29, 1973).
Figure 8. 1966 photograph of an Arlington View
street illustrating the lack of improvements, such as
curb, gutter, and sidewalk (Arlington County Dept.
of Community Planning).
curbs, gutters, street lights, recreation space, trash removal
and other public improvements..... 101
In 1964 Arlington County created the Neighborhood Con-
servation Program to partially fund improvements to "elimi-
nate the influences of urban decay at the neighborhood level
while they are still controllable.' 103 Specifically, Arlington
developed the program to fight the encroachment of high-
rise apartment development, which targeted older residen-
tial neighborhoods where land values were lower and owners
might be willing to sell. It was set up as a community -initiated
program in which neighborhood commitment would involve
preparing and presenting a plan that would inventory the
neighborhood and propose improvements. Under the pro-
gram, owners paid for 50 percent of the cost of sidewalk, curb,
and gutter construction and driveway entrances. loo
African-American neighborhoods were among the first to
benefit from the program, with the neighborhood of Arling-
ton View acting as the pilot to test the new program. Arlington
View's Conservation Plan indicated that 80 percent of existing
street frontage had no curb or gutter, there were eight dead-end
streets, and some streets were so narrow as to make passing dif-
ficult (see Figure 8). Part of the problem in Arlington View and
other African-American communities was that, although there
was new building, it was not undertaken by a large developer
who was obligated to make street improvements. By 1957 there
101 Helen Dewar, "Integration Stops at the Doorkey," Washington Post,
20 June 1965.
10Arlington County Office of Planning, General Information. Neigh-
borhood Conservation Program Arlington County, Virginia (Arlington,
Va.: Arlington County Office of Planning, 1965), 1.
104Arlington County Office of Planning, 2-6.
were 351 miles of roads in Arlington and only 0.05 percent
was not hard -surfaced. 105 But 1960s neighborhood conser-
vation plans from African-American communities indicated
that unpaved roads were not uncommon, likely making up a
large portion of the total unpaved roads in the county. Com-
plete fulfillment of conservation plans could be slow. 106
The citizens of Nauck repeatedly petitioned for improve-
ments for their neighborhood. In September 1967 a group
of residents appeared before the Arlington County Board to
petition for more improvements. By that year slightly more
than half of Arlington's roads had curbs and gutters and less
than half had sidewalks. In contrast, about two-thirds of
Nauck's streets had no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. County
officials had included South Monroe Street in Nauck as one
101A.T. Lundberg, Arlington Won't Rest On Past Achievements," Wash-
ington Post, 27 April 1957.
116 Leeper.
159
of the priorities for improvements, admitting that there was
much to be done in the area. 107 Nauck citizen John Fitchett
presented a nine -point program for improvements costing
$250,000, stating that " ... the citizens of this area are of the
opinion that we have ... been bypassed in County investments
and programs."01 Though county officials agreed to schedule
a meeting with representatives of Nauck to develop a pro-
posal, the petition was not met with complete tolerance. After
Arlington Community Action Committee field coordinator
John Robinson cited Washington's investment in ghetto areas, a
board member replied, "If they're going to spend all that money
in Washington, why doesn't he (Robinson) move there?" 109 In
1973 the County approved a Nauck conservation plan, which
indicated that Nauck still lacked the basic improvements.' 10
107 Katharine Gresham, "Green Valley Sets a Protest," Washington Post,
25 August 1967.
"' Katharine Gresham, "Negroes Urge Arlington to Upgrade Area,"
Washington Post, 10 September 1967.
109 Gresham, "Negroes Urge Arlington to Upgrade Area.'
110Arlington County Board, "Nauck Conservation Plan," 1973.
160
CHAPTER 7
Architecture, Site, and Landscape
A. Design Characteristics
1. Materials and Construction Methods
Prior to World War II, the majority of single-family and
multi -family dwellings in Arlington County, as well as in the
surrounding region, were built of balloon framing or con-
crete block with a brick veneer. The brick building tradition
was deeply instilled in the Washington, D.C., area by the nine-
teenth century. By the early twentieth century, brick building
persisted due to the dominance of the Colonial Revival style
and the interest and publicity surrounding the restoration
and rebuilding of Colonial Williamsburg in 1927. Before and
after World War II, the local masonry and building indus-
try capitalized on the heightened interest in Williamsburg;
in particular, single and multi -family dwellings built in the
1930s and 1940s were predominantly brick and Colonial
Revival in style."' As explained by Martin, "High median
income, an affinity for the colonial period, and plentiful local
brickyards were key factors contributing to the high propor-
tion of brick homes in the postwar housing boom. 12
After World War II, shortages of traditional building
materials such as brick and lumber led to the use of new prod-
ucts. In August 1947, the Washington Post reported that few
frame houses were being built in the area. The use of frame
instead of brick, however, made the houses more affordable
and a "few new dwellings in the better residential areas [ could]
boast three bedrooms and an $11,000 sales price.' One of
these neighborhoods was Claremont in Arlington County,
which was built by the Claremont Development Corpora-
tion in 1946. The architects of Claremont, Allan E Kamstra
and Albert D. Lueders, both worked with Clarence Stein and
1 " Martin, 77.
112 Martin, 79.
113 "What's In the Future," Washington Post, 10 August 1947
Henry Wright, who were influential in promoting the Garden
City movement. Kamstra and Lueders designed affordable
housing that also upheld the ideals of the Garden City Move-
ment. Claremont offered two traditional housing types, the
Cape Cod and a two-story "Colonial," but unlike their Arling-
ton County predecessors, the houses in Claremont were clad
in Waveline asbestos shingles. Claremont stands out amongst
the numerous red brick Cape Cods and two-story Colonial
Revival -style single-family houses in Arlington County as a
conscious effort to gain public acceptance of nontraditional
building materials by using traditional forms.14
As new house forms and styles became popular in the years
following World War II, more non-traditional houses were
built using non-traditional materials. The majority of the
houses in Virginia Heights, built by Old Dominion Devel-
opment Corporation in 1950, used frame construction with
exteriors clad in asbestos siding with projecting front gables
clad in Perma-stone or brick veneer (Figure 9).15 Despite
the efforts to use cheaper and more readily available build-
ing materials, the prevalence of brick in Arlington County's
postwar construction is visible throughout subdivisions built
after World War II. Brick was often used in combination with
asbestos siding, stone, or even Formstone, but it was most
often the primary exterior cladding of the house.
The high construction and land costs in Arlington County
also led builders to use standardized plans with minimal
complexity and differentiation to reduce costs. By using one
basic design and varying the details, such as the door sur-
round, or by varying the houses between two designs, such
as a two-story Colonial and a one-story Ranch, developers
were able to offer houses at a faster rate and at a lower cost.
14EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register of
Historic Places Nomination.
"SEHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register
Nomination.
Figure 9. This house in Virginia Heights, built in 1950,
is clad with Formstone, a non-traditional material
introduced on Arlington houses in the 1950s (Mead &
Hunt photograph).
These construction methods were synonymous with postwar
development and can be seen throughout Arlington County.
2. Merchant Builders and
the Use of Architects
During the postwar housing boom, the relationship between
builders and architects shifted from "one of mutual skepti-
cism to increasing cooperation. Stereotypical perceptions
characterized the modernist architect as a social reformer
preoccupied with avant-garde aesthetics, and the tract builder
[developer] as a speculative profiteer that clung to conser-
vative mainstream taste."" The Washington, D.C., home
building market was one that promoted builder -architect
collaboration. The increase in population that drove the
postwar housing market also brought a large number of
architects to the area. In addition, the high median income
and cosmopolitan nature of the city also contributed to an
appreciation of contemporary design. The city was also the
headquarters for the American Institute of Architects (AIA)
and the National Association of Home Builders, which
brought coordinated efforts to promote builder -architect
collaboration during the 1950s.117
Builders and architects had been working together in
Arlington County prior to World War Il. Mace Properties, for
example, employed architect Harry E. Ormston to aid in the
design of the single-family houses in Westover between 1938
and 1942, and Meadowbrook used architect Robert O. Scholz
in the design of its single-family houses in Arlington Forest
"'Martin, 103.
"'Martin, 103-105.
161
in 1938.118 Both of these subdivisions were FHA -insured, and
the house designs were based on plans illustrated in FHA's
Principles of Planning Small Houses.19
One of the early examples of postwar builder/architect
collaboration in Arlington County is in the subdivision of
Claremont. The Claremont Development Corporation hired
architects Allan E Kamstra and Albert D. Lueders to design the
Cape Cod and Colonial houses in Claremont in 1946. As dis-
cussed above, both Kamstra and Lueders were known for their
involvement in the design of low-cost neighborhoods and also
served as the architects of the garden -apartment complex of
Buckingham in Arlington County. Although the designs for
the houses in Claremont were by no means elaborate and also
followed the design aspects illustrated in Principles of Plan-
ning Small Houses, the use of Kamstra and Lueders illustrates
the involvement of architects in Arlington's subdivisions.
Arlington merchant builders Broyhill and Mace also
worked with architects in the postwar period to design houses
in the subdivisions they developed. In 1948 Broyhill devel-
oped `Broyhill's Addition" to Arlington Forest and employed
Arlington County architect J. Raymond Mims to design the
two-story Colonial Revival houses. Mims, originally from
Luray, Virginia, established the firm of Mims, Speake and
Company in the 1910s and opened his architectural firm in
Arlington County in 1938 at 2429 Wilson Boulevard. Mims
designed several residential and commercial buildings in
Arlington and its neighboring counties over his 40 -year
career. Mace also used architects in its postwar subdivisions.
Between 1948 and 1949, Mace constructed 53 houses in Sec-
tions 4, 5, and 6 of Westover Park and employed Washington,
D.C., architect Albert Sidney Johnston Stephens. 110
Although the climate of Washington, D.C., promoted the
use of architects and modern design, the houses in Arling-
ton built by merchant builders and designed in collabora-
tion with architects are not the contemporary -style houses
that are often associated with the use of an architect. In most
cases in Arlington County, the architects were used to design
traditional two-story Colonials, Cape Cods, and standard
brick ramblers. This suggests that the architects were hired
by builders to ensure quality design practices and that the
houses would be FHA -insured. It also emphasizes the prefer-
ence for traditional dwellings in Arlington County. 121
I"EHT Traceries, Westover Historic District National Register Nomi-
nation, 140; Arlington County Preservation Program, 172.
1'Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Planning Small
Houses, 1.
12oA.lington County Preservation Program, 5; "j. Raymond Mims, 79;
Architect, Civic Leader, Washington Post, 24 December 1965; EHT Trac-
eries, Westover Historic District National Register Nomination, 140.
121 Martin, 113.
162
B. Popular Architectural Forms
and Styles
1. Minimal Traditional
As housing shortages reached all-time highs after World
War II, many developers built small, modest dwellings in
Arlington County in response. These Minimal Traditional
dwellings were often situated on smaller lots and were offered
at a lower cost than their prewar counterparts. The houses
were typically one-story with an L-shaped form, varied
only by exterior cladding, windows, and entrance stoops
or porches. One subdivision example in Arlington County
is Virginia Heights, which has over 50 Minimal Traditional
houses built by Old Dominion developers. The Minimal
Traditional model, built in 1950, is a small one-story house
with a projecting front gable. The five -room house features
two bedrooms and one bath. The model had two variations
determined by the location of the primary entrance. The
houses were further diversified by different window types,
such as six -over -six wood sash or two -over -two horizontal
wood sash, and exterior cladding material, including asbestos
shingles, Formstone, and brick (see Figure 9).122 Minimal Tra-
ditional houses are also common in lower-income neighbor-
hoods in Arlington County, such as Nauck, where the form
was often varied by facing the gable end towards the street,
both for variety and to accommodate long, narrow lots.
2. Cape Cod
The Cape Cod house, along with the two-story Colonial,
was one of the most popular house forms in the Washing-
ton region and in Arlington County before and after World
War II. The small, one-story, side -gable houses typically had
a central chimney in the Northeast, but in the Washington
area, the Cape Cod typically displayed a gable -end chimney,
illustrating the regional folk preferences in the Tidewater
and Mid -Atlantic. The Cape Cod was particularly prevalent
in the Washington, D.C., area because of its affordability,
costing between $7,000 and $10,000 in the late 1940s. Cape
Cod houses on small lots were emblematic of the postwar
developments in the Washington area. 123 By the late 1940s,
the Cape Cod was often larger than its predecessors and had
a steeply -pitched roof that allowed for an upper story illumi-
nated by dormers and gable -end windows.
In Arlington County, Cape Cod houses were individual-
ized by varying materials, ornamentation, and porches. Cape
122 EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register
Nomination, 36.
121 Martin, 80.
Cods were typically constructed of brick with gabled dor-
mers, an exterior -end chimney, and six -over -six wood -sash
windows. The houses were symmetrically fenestrated, and
the centered main entrance was often enhanced by a Colo-
nial Revival -style door surround. Additional ornamentation
commonly consisted of ogee or dentil cornices. 124 Examples
of the postwar Cape Cod are located in the subdivision of
Country Club Hills and were built by M.T. Broyhill and Sons
in 1948. Similar to examples built before the war, these Cape
Cods were brick with front -gabled dormers, a dentil cornice,
and an exterior -end brick chimney. 125
The popularity of the Cape Cod was also evident in less
expensive neighborhoods directly after World War II, which
emphasizes the comfort and popularity of the style and the
need for inexpensive housing. In order to keep costs low, many
postwar Cape Cods lacked ornamentation or had simple orna-
mentation that was suggestive of the Colonial Revival style.
These modest Cape Cod houses kept the traditional one -and -
a -half -story, three -bay form. Examples of modest Cape Cods
are located in the subdivision of Claremont, located in south-
western Arlington County. Like the Colonial model, the Cape
Cod in Claremont was built of wood framing with asbestos
siding. The Cape Cod offered five rooms (two bedrooms) with
an attic that was available for future expansion. Thus, as built,
many of the houses lacked the gabled dormers on the front
unless the attic was finished. The Cape Cod model in Clare-
mont was sold for $11,500 in 1948 with a down payment of
$2,900 and monthly payments of $61 a month with a 4.5 per-
cent FHA -insured mortgage. 126 At this price, the Claremont
Cape Cod offered a full basement, a fireplace, oak floors, and
plastered walls and ceilings (see Figure 10).12'
As the Ranch house became more popular in the late 1940s
and early 1950s, its popular features, such as large picture win-
dows and attached garages, began to influence the traditional
form of the Cape Cod in Arlington County. The houses retained
the one -and -a -half -story, three -bay wide form; however, many
exhibited a large picture window on the front facade and/or a
projecting front gabled bay. Others incorporated garages into the
design, with a one -bay garage attached to the side elevation. 128
124EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 68; EHT Traceries Phase XI Architectural Survey
Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 25.
125EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 24.
126 EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register Nom-
ination, 110.
127"Ready for Occupancy," Washington Post, 20 June 1948.
121 Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County,
Virginia, 35; EHT Traceries, Phase VIII Architectural Survey Report of
Arlington County, Virginia (Washington, D.C.: 2004), 19.
fi i,Ca;Intiucr�,�'
TWO SIVIES 4F WELL-PLANNHO HOINl£1
3
Cape Cod
-UUfr1f4J"diaef# Fe41r#0#V*
Yr Large kHtl 4nd%"f*0 end 3 'C."nplata ills 6&ch and 16va-
sad�sl # sm hat�wahar Mra4
llr +C1at iianrl * rXe6"ed rad'eleri
-l! H ortarad rralh and cmUrq& i ip.i"laf sy►v. 00ec I,�I•�ri�l
Plarriy of J.ho,. hw4am"
+ i*xia}•d c*.'$nv yM aas hefty►
r W*0Wr°FI+;rP1hd * Fdl ba meat
Mr ilii 61106K iAIIIRHWrh M i Ptw.a NNi4191
k+elsi# t C*nerbh tide -As
* Fireplac* Curka and Q***"
135 1if1IWlES Seto .%N" I0l`4'l'PIE11
rU Rlil-JI. t.r.. '�lA--,mow I{� i.wr, i.• a� M-
L.
MORM 04"iNw.. OPEN J2 .4(if]P % J0
644�
16 Stleai S'.-, .i: 1.L ...irVA, Vy.
Figure 10. 1948 Advertisement for Claremont
showing typical housing styles and forms offered
in the postwar period (Washington Post).
These modifications to the Cape Cod emphasize the popu-
larity of its form and the desire to attract home buyers who
preferred traditional houses but also wanted the modern fea-
tures of the Ranch house. Several examples of this Cape Cod
type were built in 1948 by Milton G. and Maude S. Smith in
the Williamsburg area of Arlington County. 129
129EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 34, 69.
163
r
3. Two-story Massed Form
Even as the Ranch house and other modern forms began to
dominate the residential housing market after World War II
across the county, the two-story massed form, particularly
with Colonial Revival -style influences, resonated in Arling-
ton County. As explained by Christopher Martin, "the rela-
tively high income level [in the Washington metropolitan
area] combined with a brick building tradition reinforced by
admiration of nearby Williamsburg, resulted in a suburban
landscape dominated by conservative brick houses displaying
variations of the Colonial Revival.' 130 In the early twentieth
century, one of the "biggest factors influencing the local and
regional preference for brick was the dominance of the Colo-
nial Revival in architectural taste' 131 Colonial Revival was the
chosen style for numerous apartment buildings and housing
developments supported by the FHA prior to World War II,
especially in Arlington County. Colonial Village and Buck-
ingham, both garden apartment complexes, and Westover
Village, a single-family housing development, all consisted of
red brick Colonial Revival -style buildings and were financed
through FHA -backed loans.
The ubiquity of the two-story Colonial dwelling in Arling-
ton County was also a result of the need for fast, inexpensive
housing. By building similar houses of similar materials, it
allowed for faster construction times and lower construction
costs. As the Washington Post stated, "Since the two-story
brick homes are essentially out of the same mold, prices vary
little for the same product. Land cost and extra trimmings
make up the difference (see Figures 11 and 12)."132
The two-story Colonial was a larger alternative to the Cape
Cod. The houses typically had a box -like form and side -gable
roofs; however, hipped roofs were also common and were
often called "Georgian.' The facade commonly displayed
either a two-part fenestration, with a single window and door
on the first story, or a three-part central hall version, with a
centered door flanked by single windows. The exteriors often
featured minimal classic details such as triangular or semi-
circular pediments over the main entry or dentil cornices."'
In Arlington County, two-story Colonials built directly
after World War II were more modest than most prewar
houses to meet the housing and economic demands of the
postwar home buyer. Typical features of houses built of this
type include accentuated main entry doors, symmetrical
facades, single and paired multi -paned double -hung sash
windows, and side gable or hipped roofs. The repetition of
form and detailing typically indicate the mass production by
"'Martin, 61.
"'Martin, 77.
112 Martin, 77.
"'Martin, 82.
164
- nrsrs�rrts rr�r z � � ■ r t� s r r�
Am"m T" 1 II r141L�>Ot' u*1Mqw-h-4 ♦-JAwuf
F�i��
Types i'JiiL81>EII
r .ca wx
. %41NJ7:S erg. oannronn Yx6.tu TfY
IY C_Titl PA -1 &r.050'
All is i.rL �.. SiErl:i. ...i •loq�•
T t•
�A r
!sem
low
- tsJa-rT tr'. x�rr FFrrf rtrtlr�riar
w Ft]�:Tl�FtsF Y:ITl]Ik'S i �Cal�A71Ax ■Ilknf Iti R4NIJN FAF7
■
IT INIU whww A nN34.u3 0'1VKV RUTH aIIs T fS;ai W.
4tti7R1)NIN9T.NW i # tel[■ MIOLJMIXD�t]IVA
TTT Is"VIN a• rA-M IsMAm lr •r &C%I F1F1 uI 1 ! 044 Imb Lan
i .-4.YS.u''¢wnu !"'L, I+altk # 1.fif-r_.•...:=E. Erni 07100lteNi
CIRMRM1 Tlili' ll- Arm Stir V-.
do" WdLy Una DARK
c ua4&" -:.!
' 4424 L4+ 140[hulkir CH. itis -
llrili��'
Figure 11. 1949 Advertisement for Colonial Revival -style
houses in Northern Arlington by Broyhill (Washington Post).
Figure 12. Examples of Broyhill's Colonial Revival -
style houses as built at 2541 and 2535 23rd Road
North, built in 1949 (Louis Berger photograph).
one developer or builder. In many instances, the houses con-
tinued the traditional two-story, three -bay form, but often
lacked the classical ornamentation that is characteristic of the
Colonial Revival style.
The subdivision of Dominion Hills in Arlington County is
a good example of this modest ornamentation and repetition
in design. Built by Mace Properties between 1945 and 1948,
the first section of Dominion Hills consisted of two-story
Colonials that are nearly identical in form, massing, design,
materials, ornamentation, and setback. The houses exhibit a
rectangular plan, side -gable asphalt -shingled roofs with shal-
low cornices and false returns, and a three -bay facade with an
off -set entrance. The exterior walls are clad in brick veneer
with soldier -coursed water tables and belt courses. Windows are
six -over -six wood -sash flanked by false louvered shutters. Each
house has an exterior -end brick chimney. Distinction between
the houses was only achieved by variance of the Colonial
Revival -style door surround, a technique that is common in
Arlington County. Typically door surrounds, built of wood,
incorporated fluted or plain Tuscan pilasters, ogee molded
architraves and cornices, dentil cornices, keystones, or pedi-
ments. The pilasters were often capped with closed or open
triangular or semicircular pediments. Mace Properties was
one of the prolific development companies in Arlington
County that used one basic two-story Colonial Revival -style
form that merely differed by their Colonial Revival -style door
surrounds. 134
Although the majority of two-story Colonial Revival -style
houses built in Arlington County after World War II were
built of concrete block or wood frame with a brick veneer,
some examples with alternative cladding were built. One
example is in the subdivision of Claremont, which was built
by the Claremont Development Corporation between 1946
and 1949. Here, the two-story, double -pile houses had a box-
like form with a two -bay facade. To lower the price and avoid
problems acquiring brick due to shortages, the houses were
clad in asbestos siding. The houses were differentiated by the
color of the siding and by the simple Colonial Revival -style
door surrounds or porticos on the main entrances. The two-
story model offered six rooms, including three bedrooms, and
was a larger alternative to the Cape Cod model that was also
offered in Claremont. The Colonial in Claremont was offered
at $11,650 in 1948 (see Figure 10).135
Alternative cladding was also used to provide differen-
tiation between houses of a similar or identical form. Since
many of the two-story Colonial Revival -style houses built in
Arlington County were very similar in plan, especially those
built by one developer, the houses were also varied by the
use of cladding materials. One common variation was a two-
story, three -bay house with its first story clad in stretcher or
five -course American -bond brick and the second story clad
in horizontal siding. Mace Properties used this technique in
Dominion Hills with a model that had its second story clad
in asbestos siding. In some examples, the second stories of
the houses were built with an overhang, or jetty, that is illus-
trative of seventeenth -century Colonial houses. Post -World
War II houses in Arlington County had shallower overhangs
than their Colonial -era predecessors but were still suggestive
of this Colonial building feature. Common to Colonial -era
buildings, the corners of the postwar houses' overhangs were
often finished with a corner drop or pendant.13'
13'EHT Traceries, Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 18-19.
131 EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register Nomi-
nation, 110; "Ready for Occupancy."
136 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 23, 66.
165
The popularity of the two-story Colonial began to decline
in the Washington metropolitan area and across the coun-
try during the 1950s, as preferences shifted towards Ranch
variations; however, the two-story Colonial form continued to
be built in many of the northern subdivisions of Arlington
County. As the lower-cost houses began to shift toward Ranch
houses and ramblers, builders still preferred the Colonial
Revival -style for larger, upscale houses. 117
4. Ranches and Ramblers
Although the two-story Colonial Revival -style house
dominated the postwar residential landscape of Arlington
County, the Ranch house slowly began to emerge in both
newly developed subdivisions and established neighbor-
hoods. The Washington Post noted in 1948 that in Arlington
County, "Ramblers are few and far between and nearly all are
custom-built.""
Builders and developers began constructing Ranch houses
in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area by the late 1940s,
and their popularity grew tremendously during the 1950s.
Ranch houses were typically one-story with a rectangular foot-
print and a side -gable roof, but local builders often modified
the Ranch house with the addition of a real or false cross -gable
roof to one side, often over the front door. Variations of the
Ranch house included a version with a projecting front gable,
creating an L-shaped footprint, and a larger version with a U -
or H-shaped footprint with two projecting gables. The latter is
a common form of custom-designed houses in the region. 119
Local builders commonly referred to Ranch houses as "ram-
blers;
166
Knolls) and Glencarlyn. These examples were constructed
by different builders: C.J. Saxer Construction, M. Company,
M. Pomponio and Sons, and John H. Gullett. The dwellings
are constructed of concrete block and covered in stucco,
which added to the California character of the house. Other
notable features are their unassuming, asymmetrically placed
recessed entries and large window openings that originally
held metal casements. 142 Ranch houses built in Virginia
Heights in Arlington County between 1951 and 1952 were
also advertised as "California Ranch Style.' The houses fea-
tured the "very latest in modern time saving equipment and
represent the finest in new home construction. "141 The Vir-
ginia Heights houses were advertised as one-story with a full
basement and a screened -in porch.144
The early Transitional Ranch houses in Arlington County
commonly lacked garages, which provided a smaller, truncated
appearance (see Figure 13). The lack of garages most likely
reflected the smaller available lots in Arlington County. In the
1950s, the Ranch houses in Arlington County were larger, often
built on a sloping lot that incorporated a walkout basement
or garage located on the basement level into the design. These
later Ranch houses were more typical in the sense that they
were large, horizontal buildings that emphasized the integra-
tion of the automobile into the design of the house.
As the Ranch style grew in popularity, developers and
builders frequently offered both two-story Colonials and
Ranch houses as options for buyers, such as those in Broyhill's
subdivision of Carlyn Springs. Here, Broyhill built the two-
story Colonial Revival -style dwellings on the corner lots to
instill the traditional nature of the subdivision and built one-
story Ranch houses on the interior lots. 145 In addition, Ranch
houses often appeared in existing neighborhoods where land
was available; thus a cluster of Ranch houses often stands on
the edge of a subdivision and greatly contrasts with the neigh-
boring two-story Colonials and Cape Cods. Illustrating this
phenomenon and the growing preference for Ranch houses,
the Claremont Development Corporation hired builders
Banks and Lee to build 36 Ranch houses on the eastern edge
of Claremont in 1954.146
5. Split-levels and Split -foyers
Although the Ranch dominated the housing market
as the preferred house type for potential buyers, the Split-
141EHT Traceries, Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 41-42.
141 "Virginia Heights," Washington Post, 20 January 1952.
194"Virginia Heights;" Washington Post, 20 January 1952; EHT Tracer-
ies, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register Nomination, 36.
145 Martin, 84-85.
146 EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register Nomi-
nation, 112.
A WAS011+.6104 +OST 1-4410 CF S]
��rwes
5
WTI,
fW T
ager MAY Irk I
Nom. ■70LLYA67 wrLw R--dvp --
w �17rJ t�•1's IW
UL I 'M
ULT
riii..J e. --.r. sir+
b sieife �4• �1+- ••a air i
..
"Now., eo
BMER HOM5 REALTY- ... .....
Figure 13. 1953 Advertisement for a Transitional
Ranch house in Boulevard Manor (Washington Post).
level's popularity rose dramatically two years later; in 1954
only 0.3 percent favored Split-levels and by 1956 it grew
to 34.3 percent. Builders introduced the Split-level to the
Washington area by late 1953 and immediately attracted
large crowds and advanced sales. In the Crestwood subdivi-
sion in Springfield, Virginia, southwest of Arlington County,
the developer pre -sold 108 of the 195 planned Split-levels.
Locally, the Split-level was popular during the mid-1950s and
remained so through the early 1960s.147
Although Arlington County lacks a large subdivision of
all Split-levels, builders and developers did erect Split-levels
in groups, along with Ranches or Colonials, or on single
lots available in existing subdivisions. The construction
of Split-level houses in Arlington County marked a shift
toward larger and more expensive houses compared to the
small, affordable single-family houses built directly after
World War II. Although not as common as Split-levels, Split -
foyers were also built in Arlington County during the 1950s.
Split -foyers, also called raised Ranches, bi-levels, or bi-level
147 Martin, 88-89.
C-1 Dow p s a1 'ardrrs , Ta 5 F u-. � ry
P�NflCMN7RY CLUB
AQEk
f �11 _
:I, New Group at Finn SpUil-Leval
And Gulonixl Rela, tigmblers
I
Figure 14. 1955 Advertisement for a Split-level house
in Jamestown Village (Washington Post).
ramblers in the Washington metropolitan area, offered many
of the traditional aspects of two-story Colonials and in a more
traditional appearance compared to Split-levels. These houses
had minimal ornamentation, yet had a two-story appearance,
often had symmetrical fenestration, and louvered -shuttered
windows. Garages were almost always incorporated into the
design of Split -foyers.
Many Split-levels, along with larger Ranch houses, were
built in the northeastern sections of Arlington County near
the Washington Golf and Country Club, which was mostly
developed in the 1950s. These subdivisions adjacent to the
country club typically were composed of larger lots, thereby
affording the construction of Split-level houses. A Split-level
house in Country Club Hills, for example, was marketed
as the "Washington Post Home of '53." The house, built by
Crestdale Inc., had four bedrooms and air-conditioning
throughout at a cost of $38,750.145 Split-level houses were
also built in Jamestown Village, a subdivision also located
near the country club. Advertisements for Jamestown Village
illustrate a Split-level built on a sloping lot, with a garage on
the basement level. The Jamestown Village Split-levels were
slightly smaller than those built by Crestdale Inc., with three
bedrooms and a cost of $28,750 in 1955 (see Figure 14).149
141 "Your Washington Post Home of '53," Washington Post, 27 Septem-
ber 1953.
149"Jamestown Village, A New Group of Fine Split Levels and Colonial
Brick Ramblers," Washington Post, 6 March 1955.
167
6. Contemporary
Beginning in 1948, the Washington, D.C., metropoli-
tan area saw its first neighborhood of contemporary -style
houses. Hollin Hills, located in Fairfax County, Virginia, was
the collaboration of developer Robert Davenport and Wash-
ington, D.C., architect Charles M. Goodman. Hollin Hills was
nationally and internationally recognized in trade journals
and consumer magazines early in its development. Good -
man's modular, post -and -beam modern houses were known
for their horizontality, large spans of windows, and butter-
fly and flat roofs that invoked influences from modernist
architect Mies van der Rohe. Prices for the initial three mod-
els ranged from $12,000 to $20,000.i50 By the time the last
Goodman -design house was completed in 1971, Hollin Hills
consisted of 458 single-family dwellings. Holmes Run Acres,
also located in Fairfax County, followed in 1950 with its first
houses completed in 1951. Holmes Run Acres was developed
by Luria Brothers with architects Donald Lethbridge and
Nicholas Satterlee and consisted of 281 contemporary single-
family dwellings. 151
In Arlington County, the popularity of contemporary
houses similar to Hollin Hills and Holmes Run Acres is illus-
trated in singularly built houses located in established neigh-
borhoods. Known examples of Contemporary houses are
located in northern and northwestern Arlington County and
include a single-family house at North Dinwiddie Street in
the Clark & Hill subdivision of Yorktown, built by builder
Will A. Lewis in 1948. The distinctive characteristics of the
wood -frame house are its shallow -pitched side -gable roof
with overhanging eaves, an open, inset bay on the east eleva-
tion that doubles as a porch and a carport, and large tripartite
windows with fixed one -light windows in the center and one -
light awning windows above and below.
A second example is located on Old Dominion Drive in
the Woodland Acres subdivision of Rock Spring. The one-
story house was built in 1948 by builder E.S. Cormany in
the Woodland Acres subdivision. The house is built of con-
crete block with a brick veneer and has a single sloped roof
with wide eaves and attached carport. The roads in Wood-
land Acres are not linear like most traditional mid-century
subdivisions in Arlington County; instead they meander
and respond to the existing topography, allowing for expan-
sive wooded yards and vistas, not unlike the roads and sur-
roundings of Hollin Hills and Holmes Run Acres. 152 Similar
topography in Bellevue Forest, along with a subdivider sell -
110 Martin, 115-118.
151 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 36-37.
152 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 36-37.
168
Figure 15. A Contemporary -style house located at
3710 30th Street North in Bellevue Forest, built in
1963 (Louis Berger photograph).
ing individual lots, allowed for variation and several con-
temporary houses. Examples include 3800 301 Street North
and 3710 301'' Street North (see Figure 15). In particular, the
house at 3710 3011' Street South is similar to many of Good -
man's designs with a small rectangular footprint, flat roof,
the use of brick and vertical board siding, and large spans of
floor -to -ceiling windows.
Although Contemporary -style houses in Arlington County
are rare, examples do exist and demonstrate the shift to a new
type of housing in the decades after the war. They were most
likely influenced by the nationally recognized and nearby
Hollin Hills and Holmes Run Acres. These houses occur more
often in areas that were developed by subdividers who sold
individual lots rather than as large-scale developments.
7. Pre -fabricated Houses
As plants formerly producing materials for World War II
began to shift towards the manufacturing of prefabricated
housing, the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area antici-
pated that this would help ease its desperate need for housing.
However, the prefabricated market faced prejudice from buy-
ers who favored more traditional houses and materials. Thus,
despite the tremendous need for housing, the construction of
prefabricated houses in Arlington County and the rest of the
metropolitan area began slowly.
One of the first subdivisions specifically planned for pre-
fabricated houses in the region was Virginia Heights, located
on the southwestern edge of Arlington County, with a few
lots spilling over into Fairfax County. The neighborhood,
owned and designed by Adolph K. N. Waterval, consisted of
approximately 21 acres with 107 lots. Waterval, an architect
and planner, was involved with the development of Langston
Terrace, in Washington, D.C., the first public housing project
in the United States. Waterval chose the William H. Harmon
Corporation of Philadelphia to erect 104 steel homes in Vir-
ginia Heights. The Washington Post reported in "Steel Home
Attracts Visitors" that the Virginia Heights Harmon house
was the first built in the area.153 The model house was open
to the public in August 1947. The Washington Post hailed it
a success and reported, "The home's flowing lines are eye-
catching. It is well situated on a wooded lot, with landscaped
sodded terrain. It has the `House Beautiful' look.' 154 The first
Harmon house in Virginia Heights (5209 12th Street South)
was also its last, as the Harmon Corporation went out of busi-
ness shortly thereafter.15'
To promote prefabricated houses, many dealers con-
structed model houses to draw potential buyers. In 1947 a
Gunnison House was erected in Chevy Chase View, Mary-
land, to discredit "the widely accepted theory that prefabs are
necessarily small, boxy, jerry-built dwellings usually situated
in low cost housing areas.' 156 The three-bedroom "luxury
model" was built on a $3,000 lot, and the cost of the house
was $13,700. The house was built in an existing upscale neigh-
borhood with houses ranging from $16,000 to $50,000. The
Washington Post reported that this was not the first Gunni-
son House to be constructed in the area; 17 were built before
World War II, the first in 1936, and 13 had been built in the
Washington, D.C., area since 1946. Gunnison had several
dealers in the metropolitan area. Newspaper advertisements
show that the Carey Winston Company, located in northwest
D.C., served Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the City of
Alexandria in Virginia. 157 One Gunnison House was built in
Virginia Heights after the failure of Waterval's plan for the
Harmon houses. The Gunnison "Rambler," located at 1231
South Forest Drive, was advertised in the Washington Post
as having three bedrooms, a stone fireplace, and a "fully
equipped" kitchen (see Figure 16).158
Lustron Corporation joined its competition in May 1948
when it erected a model house in Northwest Washington, D.C.
The enameled metal panel house attracted 75,000 visitors by
the end of the summer. Lustron Corporation President Carl
Strandlund appointed Carlton Construction Company as
the official dealer and builder of Lustrons in the Washington,
113 "Steel Home Attracts Visitors;' Washington Post, 21 December 1947.
134"Unique, Fast Rising Steel Prefabs Boost Factory -Made Housing,"
Washington Post, 3 August 1947.
"I EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register
Nomination, 33-34.
""'Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area," Washington Post,
1 June 1947.
157"Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area:'
""'Virginia Heights," Washington Post, 5 February 1950.
Figure 16. A Gunnison House erected in 1951 at 1231
South Forest Drive in Virginia Heights (Louis Berger
photograph).
D.C., area, including Arlington County. The area's first sales
office opened in August of the same year. 159
Between 1948 and 1949, 11 Lustrons were built in Arling-
ton County. The first Lustron was built in the established
neighborhood of Maywood in 1948. In 1949 five Lustrous
were built in Virginia Heights (see Figure 17). After Water-
val's plan with the Harmon Corporation failed, he sold the
majority of the lots to Old Dominion Development Cor-
poration; however, Waterval retained five lots that would
become the sites for Lustrous. Four of the five Lustrous
were built by the Construction Associates of Portsmouth,
Virginia, in 1949. The Construction Associates built two
additional Lustrons in Arlington County in 1949 in the
neighborhoods of Old Dominion and Cherrydale. The
other Lustrons, located in the neighborhoods of Arlington
Forest, Barcroft, Ballston -Virginia Square, and Maywood,
were built by Macfarlane Enterprises and the Carlton Con-
struction Corporation. 1611
In addition to Gunnison and Lustron, other prefabricated
housing firms operating in the area in 1947 included Arling-
ton Homes, Skill -Craft, and Johnson Quality Homes. 161 In
1950 the Washington Post reported that the acceptance of
prefab houses was growing "and some local builders and real -
tors think they're in on the hottest thing on the market. 162 At
least a half dozen new prefabricated housing firms entered
the market in 1950 and aimed at a selling price of $10,000
or under. National Homes Corporation was one of the new
firms that began to offer prefab houses in the Washington
15'Cynthia Liccese-Torres and Kim A. O'Connell, The Illustrious Lus-
tron: A Guide for the Disassembly and Preservation of America's Modern
Metal Marvel (Arlington, Va.: Virginia Community Program, 2007), 9.
160Liccese-Torres and O'Connell, 5.
161 "Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area:'
162 "Looks Like a Big Year for Prefabs," Washington Post, 9 April 1950.
169
Figure 17. A Lustron house erected in 1949 at 1124
South Forest Drive in Virginia Heights (Mead & Hunt
photograph).
region in 1950, one of the largest manufacturers of prefab
houses at that time. 163
In 1955 the Washington, D.C., supply company of Barber
& Ross entered the local prefabricated home market when it
established its "Packaged Home Division" that supplied a buyer
with the components for a do-it-yourself three-bedroom
house. The package, complete with nails and paintbrushes,
was priced at $3,495 and the option of monthly payments
of $35. The company advertised its first 1,200 -square -foot
model, the "Sun Valley," as something "the average man or
family could build using their own time and labor."164 The
buyer received separate truckloads of materials for each stage
of construction. The package did not include electric materi-
als or plumbing, and the buyer was responsible for the slab
foundation or basement. Shipping within 100 miles of Wash-
ington, D.C., was free. In order to attract buyers and show the
finished product, the company built a model home in North-
east Washington, D.C. The idea was the brainchild of S. Ross
Lipscomb, president of the company. 165 By 1956, the company
had sold over 600 houses and began to offer packaged heating
and plumbing. 166 Illustrating the rising popularity of prefabri-
cated housing in the Washington area, Barber & Ross opened
a second manufacturing plant in Leesburg, Virginia, in 1960.
By that time, the company offered seven different models
for buyers to choose from. The company offered a one-story
Ranch house model called "The Texan" or "The Californian,"
a Cape Cod model called"The New Englander," and two Split-
level models called "The Capri" and "The Westport 167
163 "Looks Like a Big Year for Prefabs.'
""Handymen Get Tough Challenge, Washington Post, 23 October 1955.
161 "Handymen Get Tough Challenge.'
166"Over 600 Sold!" Washington Post, 27 October 1956.
161 Martin, 91-92; "Barber & Ross Packaged Homes," Washington Post,
4 April 1959.
170
By 1960, 14 manufacturers had shipped prefabricated
houses to the Washington, D.C., area. While most of the
manufacturers were based in the Midwest, there were also
several in the Washington, D.C., region. In addition to Barber
& Ross, other prefabricated housing plants in the area were
Lesco Homes in Martinsville, Virginia; Continental Homes
in Boones Mill, Virginia; and Maryland Housing Corpora-
tion in Baltimore. Nearby Pennsylvania also boasted four
prefabricated housing firms with manufacturing plants. 161
C. Garages and Carports
The initial residential construction taking place after
World War II in Arlington County lacked attached garages
and carports. The tremendous need for housing resulted in
smaller lots and houses, and an attached garaged or carport
was not seen as a necessity. Garages also raised the price of the
house; thus they were often omitted. These new subdivisions
did not have rear alleys like their predecessors, and owners
did often construct garages or carports on the side of their
houses toward the back yard. As the lots were small, these
garages and carports also were small and typically accommo-
dated a single vehicle. In many cases, the garages were built
simultaneously with the accompanying house, and the form,
style, scale, and cladding materials of both the garage and
house were identical. 169
A 1949 article in the Washington Post emphasized the
increasing size of garages in relation to the growing size of
automobiles: "Parking a big sleek, long 1949 model car in
some prewar homes with built-in garages is like berthing the
Queen Mary in the Anacostia.' 170 Charles M. Goodman, archi-
tect of Hollin Hills, pointed out that the new ideal garage size
in 1949 was 9 by 20 feet compared to the typical 8 by 18 feet.
In 1949 the cost to add a garage to the house was estimated
at $1,000, depending on the materials and if a common wall
between the garage and the house was used. However, "garages
were an exception and not the rule for homes costing under
$15,000 in the Washington Area.' 171 Incorporated garages
became more common in houses that cost $20,000 and higher.
The article emphasized the popularity of the carport—"the
car port seems to have great possibilities of spreading"—and
cited an example of a luxury subdivision in Bethesda, Mary-
land, that used this "architecture innovation;' 171
161 Martin, 91.
169EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia, 73-74.
10"That Sleek '49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage," Washington Post, 8
May 1949.
""'That Sleek '49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage:'
""'That Sleek '49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage. "
In the decades following World War II, attached garages
and carports in Arlington County became more common-
place, in particular with the rising popularity of the Ranch
house. Some Colonial Revival -style houses did incorporate
garages into the main block of the house, often in a one-
story wing attached to the side elevation. In other instances, a
one -car garage was built on the basement level of the house,
in particular if the house was built on a sloping lot. Ranch
houses and Split-levels more commonly integrated one or
two -car garages into the design of the houses, a number of
which were built in the northern subdivisions of Arlington
County that were developed in the 1950s where larger lots
were available.
D. Landscape and Site Features
House setbacks and orientation to the street were impor-
tant aspects promoted by the FHA in their recommendations
for subdivision design. Thus, houses in Arlington are com-
monly set back from the street with ample frontage. Although
lots in subdivisions developed immediately after World War
II tended to be smaller than those developed in the 1950s and
early 1960s, the lots still offered rear yards that commonly
served as play areas for children, patios and decks, and stor-
age sheds. In many cases, subdivision covenants restricted the
placement of fences along the front property line; however,
fences often enclosed the rear yards, providing privacy and
security. Front yards are commonly more formal than rear
yards and display designed landscaping. Mature trees shade
both the front and rear yards.
Because many of the postwar houses lack attached
garages, paved driveways are commonly located in the front
or side yards of houses to provide off-street parking. Con-
crete sidewalks typically line the streets; however, sidewalks
are sometimes absent in subdivisions, such as Belleview
Forest and Woodmont in northern Arlington County. In
some instances, sidewalks end abruptly on a street, illus-
trating a change in subdivider or merchant builder, such
as in the 2500 block of North Buchanan Street in Old
Dominion.
In African-American neighborhoods, lots were typically
smaller, houses were set closer to the street, and often some
streets were planned as dead ends to cut off access from these
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were further isolated
by boundary walls that separated them from adjacent white
neighborhoods. As discussed above, African-American
neighborhoods initially lacked sidewalks and other pub-
lic works improvements and did not have the same design
conformity as the postwar white neighborhoods. Fences
commonly enclose the front yards in African-American
neighborhoods.
Bibliography
"5617 N 214th Street, Arlington, VA" Washington Post, 28 March 1948.
"$30,000 Voted for Arlington Curbs, Sewers." Washington Post,
5 August 1945.
Ames, David and Linda McClelland. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guide-
lines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of
Historic Places. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002.
Andrews, Doretha. `Arlington Is Modern `Cinderella:" Washington Post,
27 May 1945.
. Arlington's Residents Form Their `Industry:" Washington Post,
11 September 1945.
`Architect's `Dream House' Ordered Torn Down." Washington Post,
17 September 1969.
"Arlington Board to Get Report on Housing Plan." Washington Post,
20 February 1944.
Arlington County Board. "Nauck Conservation Plan," 1973.
Arlington County, Virginia, Department of Community Planning,
Housing, and Development. "Planning History and the Develop-
ment of the General Land Use Plan" http://www.arlingtonva.us/
departments/CPHD/planning/docs/CPHDPlanningDocsGLUP_
HISTORY.aspx (accessed 9 March 2011).
Arlington County, Department of Environmental Services. Bond File
#65: Foster's Third Addition to Country Club Hills. 29 June 1973.
Arlington County Land Records. Deed Book 800, Page 252, 1947.
Arlington County Office of Planning. General Information. Neighbor-
hood Conservation Program Arlington County, Virginia. Arlington,
Va.: Arlington County Office of Planning, 1965.
Arlington County Preservation Program. Arlington Forest National
Register Nomination (VDHR #000-7808).
`Arlington's Need for U.S. Aid Increased." Washington Post, 26 July 1941.
`Arlington's Population Now 123,832." Washington Post, 10 April 1948.
"Arlington Sewer Plant Dedicated" Washington Post, 19 May 1968.
Arlington View Civic Association. Proposed Conservation Program,
Arlington County, Va.: Arlington County Office of Planning, 1965.
"Barber & Ross Packaged Homes.' Washington Post, 4 April 1959.
Barnes, Bart. "Major Battle Shaped Up over Building of I-66" Washing-
ton Post, 7 March 1971.
Bellevue Forest Civic Association. "Bellevue Forest: Its History." http://
www.bellevueforest.org/BFHistory.htm (accessed 11 March 2011).
Bensinger, Gail. "Northern Va. Income Held at 165% of Nation's."
Washington Post, 27 August 1967.
"Big Four -Week Home Exhibition Endorsed by Housing Leaders."
Washington Post, 27 June 1948.
"Big Homes of '57 Exhibit To Be Held in September." Washington Post,
1 June 1957.
171
Bond File #65: Foster's Third Addition to Country Club Hills. Arlington
County, Va.: Department of Environmental Services, June 29,1973.
Bredemeier, Kenneth. "Suburbs Struggle to Preserve Quality of Life in
the 70s" Washington Post, 19 January 1972.
"Builders Charge High Lot Development Costs Peril Low Cost Homes"
Washington Post, 13 March 1949.
Burchard, Hank. "Hall's Hill: Blacks Hold the High Ground.' Washing-
ton Post, 27 February 1969.
Cheek, Leslie. "Fair Housing Ordinance Is Proposed for Arlington.'
Washington Post, 23 March 1966.
Cheek, Leslie and Hank Burchard. `Arlington Torn by Choice of Being
City or Suburb.' Washington Post, 26 June 1966.
Close, Verne C. "Letter to the Editor." Washington Post, 16 January 1945.
"Country Club View" Washington Post, 10 September 1950.
"Couple Beats Covenant.' Washington Post, 22 November 1950.
Dewar, Helen. "Integration Stops at the Doorkey." Washington Post,
20 June 1965.
"District Home Show Opens With 200 Different Booths" Washington
Post, 9 October 1949.
"Dunbar Homes Sold to Tenants at Half of Cost.' Washington Post,
11 December 1948.
EHT Traceries. Arlington Heights Historic District National Register of
Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-3383).
EHT Traceries. Claremont Historic District National Register of His-
toric Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9700).
EHT Traceries. Columbia Forest Historic District National Register of
Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9416).
EHT Traceries. Dominion Hills Historic District Preliminary Infor-
mation Form (VDHR #000-4212). On file in Archives, Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
EHT Traceries. Glencarlyn Historic District National Register of His-
toric Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9704).
EHT Traceries. Leeway Overlee Preliminary Information Form (VDHR
#000-4209). Washington, D.C.: 2010. On file in Archives, Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
EHT Traceries. Phase VIII Architectural Survey Report of Arlington
County, Virginia. Washington, D.C.: 2004.
EHT Traceries. Phase IX Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County,
Virginia. Washington, D.C.: 2006.
EHT Traceries. Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County,
Virginia. Washington, D.C.: 2008.
EHT Traceries. Phase X[Architectural Survey Report ofArlington County,
Virginia. Washington, D.C.: 2009.
172
EHT Traceries. Virginia Heights Historic District National Register of
Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-9701).
EHT Traceries. Westover Historic District National Register of Historic
Places Nomination (VDHR #000-0032).
Fairlington Historical Designation Committee. Fairlington Historic
District National Register of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR
#000-5772).
Federal Housing Administration. The FHA Story in Summary. 1934-1959.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
. Principles of Planning Small Houses, Technical Bulletin No. 4.
Washington, D.C.: National Housing Agency, Federal Housing
Administration, 1946.
Feeley, Connie. `Arlington No Longer a War Baby." Washington Post,
22 April 1956.
Gresham, Katharine. "Green Valley Sets a Protest." Washington Post, 25
August 1967.
. "Negroes Urge Arlington to Upgrade Area. Washington Post, 10
September 1967.
"Handymen Get Tough Challenge." Washington Post, 23 October 1955.
Harness, Conrad P. `Arlington Continues Hectic Building Pace."
Washington Post, 11 April 1948.
"Here is the Latest Mace Project." Washington Post, 12 April 1953.
"High Costs, Financing Forcing Many Builders to Postpone Projects.'
Washington Post, 19 December 1948.
"House Being Razed as `Inharmonious: ' Washington Post, 3 June 1972.
"J. Raymond Mims, 79; Architect, Civic Leader." Washington Post,
24 December 1965.
Jackson, Kenneth T. "Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: The
First Quarter -Century of Government Intervention in the Housing
Market." Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Vol. 50 (1980):
421-451.
. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
"Jamestown Village, A New Group of Fine Split Levels and Colonial
Brick Ramblers." Washington Post, 6 March 1955.
"Job Reports on Negroes Weighed." Washington Post, 20 March 1966.
John M. Langston Citizens Association. High View Park Neighborhood
Plan. Arlington County, Va.: Arlington County Office of Plan-
ning, 1965.
Lee, Dorothy Ellis. A History of Arlington County, Virginia. Richmond,
Va.: The Dietz Press, Inc., 1946.
Leeper, Pepper. `Arlington View War on Blight is a `We' Effort" Wash-
ington Post, 27 February 1969.
Lescaze, Lee. "Saving Aging Neighborhoods Goal of Arlington County
Plan." Washington Post, 1 September 1964.
Levy, Claudia. "The Syphaxes of Arlington: One House Led to Another."
Washington Post, 22 June 1974.
Liccese-Torres, Cynthia and Kim A. O'Connell. The Illustrious Lustron:
A Guide for the Disassembly and Preservation of America's Modern
Metal Marvel. Arlington, Va.: Virginia Community Program, 2007.
"Looks Like a Big Year for Prefabs." Washington Post, 9 April 1950.
Lundberg, A.T. Arlington Won't Rest On Past Achievements" Washing-
ton Post, 27 April 1957.
"Luria Firm to Quit Sale of Houses." Washington Post, 10 September
1960:134.
"Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area." Washington Post, 1
June 1947.
Martin, Christopher T. Tract -House Modern: A Study of Housing Design
and Consumption in the Washington Suburbs, 1946-1960. PhD Dis-
sertation, George Washington University, 2000.
Mathews, Jay. "Growth Still Main Issue in Arlington Board Race.' Wash-
ington Post, 21 October 1972.
McClatchy, C.K. Arlington Confident of Future Progress." Washington
Post, 24 April 1955.
"M.T. Broyhill and Sons." Washington Post, 10 September 1950.
Netherton, Nan and Ross. Arlington County in Virginia: A Pictorial His-
tory. Norfolk, Va.: The Donning Company, 1987.
"Offutt's Addition to Madison Manor." Washington Post, 9 February 1959.
"Over 600 Sold!" Washington Post, 27 October 1956.
Paradigm Development Company. Buckingham Historic District
National Register Nomination (VDHR #000-0025).
Pratt, Sherman W. Arlington County, Virginia: A Modern History.
Arlington, Va.: Sherman Pratt, [1997].
"Ready for Occupancy." Washington Post, 20 June 1948.
Rose, C.B. Jr. Arlington County, Virginia: A History. Arlington County,
Va.: Arlington Historical Society, Inc., 1976.
Schrag, Zachary M. The Great Society Subway. A History of the Wash-
ington Metro. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2006.
Scheel, Eugene. "With `the Park,' County's Growth Battles were Just
Beginning:' A History of Loudoun County, Virginia, 2002. http://
www.loudounhistory. org/history/sterling-park-beginnngs-1961.
htm (accessed 4 March 2011).
Scannell, Nancy. "Developments Provide Crucial Arlington Housing.'
Washington Post, 30 July 1972.
Shaffer, Ron. `Arlington Profile Projects Continued Population Loss."
Washington Post, 14 November 1974.
Smith, Donald. "Shirley Highway: A Chronicle of Nightmare Non -
planning.' Washington Post, 26 September 1971.
"Some Black History in Arlington County: A Preliminary Investiga-
tion." The Arlington Historical Magazine. Vol. 5 No. 4 (October
1973),11-17.
"Steel Home Attracts Visitors." Washington Post, 21 December 1947.
"Stratford Hills." Washington Post, 17 August 1952.
"Suit Attacks Race Covenant." Washington Post, 17 October 1950.
"That Sleek '49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage." Washington Post,
8 May 1949.
"Unique, Fast Rising Steel Prefabs Boost Factory -Made Housing.'
Washington Post, 3 August 1947.
U.S. Census Bureau. 17th Census of the United States (1950). Washing-
ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953.
U.S. Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 1448. Review of Federal
Housing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1956.
Virginia Department of Transportation. "List of Highways in Vir-
ginia, 2003." http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-
index-07012003.pdf (accessed 6 February 2011).
"Virginia Heights." Washington Post, 20 January 1952.
"Virginia Heights." Washington Post, 5 February 1950.
The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies. "Washington Area's
`Real Central City' Now Includes Arlington and Alexandria, Key
Indicators Show." Press Release. January 16, 1974. Arlington
County Public Library Population Vertical File, Arlington, Va.
"What's In the Future." Washington Post, 10 August 1947.
White, Leland. "Dividing Highway: Citizen Activism and Interstate 66
in Arlington, Virginia." Washington History Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring/
Summer, 2001): 52-67.
"Your Washington Post Home of 'S3." Washington Post, 27 Septem-
ber 1953.
Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications
AAAE
American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO
American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI—NA
Airports Council International—North America
ACRP
Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA
American Public Transportation Association
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA
American Trucking Associations
CTAA
Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP
Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOE
Department of Energy
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA
Federal Railroad Administration
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP
Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO
National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP
National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB
National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE
Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP
Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA -21
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB
Transportation Research Board
TSA
Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT
United States Department of Transportation