Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 723 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing Emily Pettis Amy Squitieri Christina Slattery Christine Long Mead & Hunt, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin Patti Kuhn Debra McClane Sarah Groesbeck LouIs Berger group, Inc. Washington, DC Subscriber Categories Highwaysâ â¢â PublicâTransportationâ â¢â Environment TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON,âD.C. 2012 www.TRB.orgâ Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Boardâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National 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 responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation 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 reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 723 Project 08-77 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-25853-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2012946553 Â© 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
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 by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical 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 Academyâs 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 Boardâs 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
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research report was performed under NCHRP Project 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-Project 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. 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 PlanningâArea 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
F O R E W O R D ByâLoriâL.âSundstrom SeniorâProgramâOfficer TransportationâResearchâBoard NCHRP Report 723: A Model for Identifying 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 DOTâs 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 housesâlocated in every American city, town, suburb, and rural areaâare 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 next 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 framework 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 context 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 context, and the historic context 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.
C O N T E N T S 1â Summary 3 Chapter 1â Background 4 Chapter 2â ResearchâApproach 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 3â GuidanceâforâSurveyâandâEvaluation 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 f. Split-level and Split-foyer Form 20 g. Colonial Revival Style 21 h. Georgian Revival Style 22 i. Storybook Style 22 j. Spanish Colonial Revival Style 22 k. Asiatic Style 22 l. 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 4â NationalâHistoricâContext 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. Family 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 Styles 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 5â Conclusion 123 A. Expected Benefits 124 B. Dissemination of Results and Areas for Additional Research 126 Appendix Aâ Bibliography 134 Appendix Bâ ModelâContextâOutline 135 Appendix Câ GlossaryâofâTermsâandâListâofâAbbreviations 136 Appendix Dâ âArlingtonâCounty,âVirginia,â ModelâHistoricâContext Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.