A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing (2012)

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.

136 A P P E N D I X D Arlington County, Virginia, Model Historic Context

137 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.1 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 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 II, 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. C h A P t E r 1 Introduction 1 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.

138 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, 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. C h A P t E r 2 History of Suburbanization, 1946-1975 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). 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.

139 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- 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 3 Rose, 138-139, 140, 242-244; Sherman W. Pratt, Arlington County, Virginia: A Modern History (Arlington, Va.: Sherman Pratt [1997]), 422. 4 Rose, 157. 5 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 Seannell, “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.7 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 metro politan 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.”8 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 of revenue, and required only 7 percent of expenditures on services.9 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.11 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 7 Fairlington 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. 8 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/CPHDPlanningDocsGLUP_HISTORY.aspx (accessed 9 March 2011). 9 Rose, 226; Pratt, 428. 10 Pratt, 429-430. 11 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.”

141 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, 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.”13 12 Christopher 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. 13 “Arlington’s Need for U.S. Aid Increased,” Washington Post, 26 July 1941.

142 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- 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. C h A P t E r 3 Transportation Trends 14 Doretha Andrews, “Arlington Is Modern ‘Cinderella’,” Washington Post, 27 May 1945. 15 Donald Smith, “Shirley Highway: A Chronicle of Nightmare Non- planning,” Washington Post, 26 September 1971. 16 Rose, 140.

143 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.17 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 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 of the commuters come.”19 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. 17 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. 1 (Spring/Summer, 2001): 53-57. Such citizen opposition existed in both Arlington and Fairfax Counties. 18 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. 19 Leslie Cheek and Hank Burchard, “Arlington Torn by Choice of Being City or Suburb,” Washington Post, 26 June 1966. 20 Schrag, 221.

144 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- 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.26 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 C h A P t E r 4 Government Programs and Policies 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. 24 “Builders Charge High Lot Development Costs Peril Low Cost Homes.” 25 Federal 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.

145 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.28 The use of curvilinear streets in particular can be seen throughout the 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.29 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. 29 Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Planning Small Houses, Technical Bulletin No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: National Housing Agency, Federal Housing Administration, 1946).

146 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 contributed to Washington’s ranking as first nationally in “buying power.”33 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.35 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 C h A P t E r 5 Social and Economic Trends 30 Rose, 200. 31 Rose, 200. 32 Connie Feeley, “Arlington No Longer a War Baby,” Washington Post, 22 April 1956. 33 Martin, 75. 34 Gail Bensinger, “Northern Va. Income Held at 165% of Nation’s,” Washington Post, 27 August 1967. 35 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.

147 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.38 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.”40 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 (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 2000.42 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.43 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.”44 New high-rise office, commercial, and residential development in Crystal 37 Rose, 197; “Arlington’s Population Now 123,832,” Washington Post, 10 April 1948. 38 “Arlington’s Population Now 123,832.” 39 U.S. Census Bureau, 17th Census of the United States (1950) (Washing- ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953). 40 McClatchy. 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. 44 The 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.48 During the 1950s and 1960s, the average income and education level of African-Americans in the communities 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.50 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.”51 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. 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). 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. 48 Cheek. 49 John M. Langston Citizens Association, High View Park Neighbor- hood Plan (Arlington County, Va.: Arlington County Office of Plan- ning, 1965), 11. 50 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.

149 A. Development Patterns Immediately following World War II, 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.”52 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 II, 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 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.57 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, C h A P t E r 6 Planning and Development 52 Andrews, “Arlington Is Modern ‘Cinderella’,” Washington Post, 27 May 1945. 53 Martin, 76. 54 David 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. 55 Martin, 60. 56 Martin, 60; McClatchy. McClatchy’s article states that many of the federal workers received “salaries in the upper-middle bracket.” See also Conrad P. Harness, “Arlington 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. 57 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.58 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 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.”62 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 58 Martin, 61, 67-68. 59 Martin, 79. 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. 63 Martin, 144-146.

151 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 II. “[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.’”65 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 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, 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). 64 EHT 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. 66 Levy. 67 EHT 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.”69 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. 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 II, some subdividers were active in Arlington County after the war. In many instances, the land had been subdivided in 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 II use a linear street alignment and hold larger lots; the postwar development utilized curvi linear streets and smaller lot sizes (Louis Berger map). 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. 71 EHT Traceries, Arlington Heights Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination (VDHR #000-3383), 8, 187-188.

153 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.72 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 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.75 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 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. 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). 74 Bellevue Forest Civic Association. 75 Bellevue Forest Civic Association.

154 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 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.”78 In addition, the parcels could not be divided or subdivided into smaller lots, 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). 76 Bellevue Forest Civic Association. 77 Bellevue Forest Civic Association. 78 Arlington County Land Records, Deed Book 800, 252, 1947.

155 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. 81 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 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.84 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.87 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.88 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 79 “M.T. Broyhill and Sons,” Washington Post, 10 September 1950. 80 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 208. 81 “Suit Attacks Race Covenant,” Washington Post, 17 October 1950. 82 “Suit Attacks Race Covenant.” 83 “Couple Beats Covenant,” Washington Post, 22 November 1950. 84 “Architect’s ‘Dream House’ Ordered Torn Down,” Washington Post, 17 September 1969. 85 “Architect’s ‘Dream House’ Ordered Torn Down.” 86 “House Being Razed as ‘Inharmonious,’” Washington Post, 3 June 1972. 87 “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 advertising and publicity, often resulting in innovative and novel marketing ideas that clearly separated some of them from their competitors.”89 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 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 89 Martin, 61. 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). 90 “Stratford Hills,” Washington Post, 17 August 1952.

157 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.92 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.95 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- 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 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. 96 Rose, 179-181. 97 “$30,000 Voted for Arlington Curbs, Sewers,” Washington Post, 5 August 1945.

158 forms of local taxation available to a city.98 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 curbs, gutters, street lights, recreation space, trash removal and other public improvements. . . .”102 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.104 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 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). 98 Doretha Andrews, “Arlington’s Residents Form Their ‘Industry,’” Washington Post, 11 September 1945. 99 Verne C. Close, “Letter to the Editor,” Washington Post, 16 January 1945. 100 “Arlington 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). 102 Helen Dewar, “Integration Stops at the Doorkey,” Washington Post, 20 June 1965. 103 Arlington County Office of Planning, General Information. Neigh- borhood Conservation Program Arlington County, Virginia (Arlington, Va.: Arlington County Office of Planning, 1965), 1. 104 Arlington County Office of Planning, 2-6.

159 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 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.”108 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.110 105 A.T. Lundberg, “Arlington Won’t Rest On Past Achievements,” Wash- ington Post, 27 April 1957. 106 Leeper. 107 Katharine Gresham, “Green Valley Sets a Protest,” Washington Post, 25 August 1967. 108 Katharine Gresham, “Negroes Urge Arlington to Upgrade Area,” Washington Post, 10 September 1967. 109 Gresham, “Negroes Urge Arlington to Upgrade Area.” 110 Arlington County Board, “Nauck Conservation Plan,” 1973.

160 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.111 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.”112 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.”113 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 F. Kamstra and Albert D. Lueders, both worked with Clarence Stein and 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.114 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).115 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. C h A P t E r 7 Architecture, Site, and Landscape 111 Martin, 77. 112 Martin, 79. 113 “What’s In the Future,” Washington Post, 10 August 1947. 114 EHT Traceries, Claremont Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination. 115 EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register Nomination.

161 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.”116 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 II. 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 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.119 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 F. 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.120 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.121 116 Martin, 103. 117 Martin, 103-105. 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). 118 EHT Traceries, Westover Historic District National Register Nomi- nation, 140; Arlington County Preservation Program, 172. 119 Federal Housing Administration, Principles of Planning Small Houses, 1. 120 Arlington 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 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).127 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.128 122 EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register Nomination, 36. 123 Martin, 80. 124 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 68; EHT Traceries Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 25. 125 EHT 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. 128 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.

163 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 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.133 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 129 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 34, 69. Figure 10. 1948 Advertisement for Claremont showing typical housing styles and forms offered in the postwar period (Washington Post). 130 Martin, 61. 131 Martin, 77. 132 Martin, 77. 133 Martin, 82.

164 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 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).

165 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.136 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.137 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.”138 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.139 Local builders commonly referred to Ranch houses as “ram- blers,” a name still used today by residents and area realtors. Builders satisfied the buyer’s need for two levels of living space by creating “basement ramblers,” Ranch houses with full base- ments. By the 1950s ramblers were the most popular type of house in real estate ads. A 1954 Washington area study revealed that the 63.5 percent of those considering a new house pre- ferred “basement ramblers” while 16.5 percent favored the Colonial, 11.4 percent Cape Cod, and 0.3 percent Split-level.140 Ranch houses in Arlington County were often advertised as “California-style” or “California Type.” One unique type of Ranch house built in Arlington County and referred to as a “California Type” had a modest square footprint with a pyramidal roof and a large, shouldered, exterior-end chim- ney on the facade.141 Examples of this house type are seen in the subdivision of Richmond Hill (Highland Park Overlee 134 EHT Traceries, Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 18-19. 135 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. 137 EHT Traceries, Phase IX Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia (Washington, D.C.: 2006), 21-22. 138 Harness. 139 Martin, 86. 140 Martin, 86. 141 “5617 N 214th Street, Arlington, VA,” Washington Post, 28 March 1948.

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.”143 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- 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 142 EHT Traceries, Phase XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 41-42. 143 “Virginia Heights,” Washington Post, 20 January 1952. 144 “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. Figure 13. 1953 Advertisement for a Transitional Ranch house in Boulevard Manor (Washington Post). 147 Martin, 88-89.

167 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 $38,750.148 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 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 $20,000.150 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- Figure 14. 1955 Advertisement for a Split-level house in Jamestown Village (Washington Post). 148 “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. 150 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 ing individual lots, allowed for variation and several con- temporary houses. Examples include 3800 30th Street North and 3710 30th Street North (see Figure 15). In particular, the house at 3710 30th 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.155 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, Figure 15. A Contemporary-style house located at 3710 30th Street North in Bellevue Forest, built in 1963 (Louis Berger photograph). 153 “Steel Home Attracts Visitors,” Washington Post, 21 December 1947. 154 “Unique, Fast Rising Steel Prefabs Boost Factory-Made Housing,” Washington Post, 3 August 1947. 155 EHT Traceries, Virginia Heights Historic District National Register Nomination, 33-34. 156 “Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area,” Washington Post, 1 June 1947. 157 “Luxury Prefab Holds Own in Fine Home Area.” 158 “Virginia Heights,” Washington Post, 5 February 1950.

169 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 Lustrons 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 Lustrons. Four of the five Lustrons 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.160 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 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 Figure 16. A Gunnison House erected in 1951 at 1231 South Forest Drive in Virginia Heights (Louis Berger photograph). 159 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. 160 Liccese-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. Figure 17. A Lustron house erected in 1949 at 1124 South Forest Drive in Virginia Heights (Mead & Hunt photograph). 163 “Looks Like a Big Year for Prefabs.” 164 “Handymen Get Tough Challenge,” Washington Post, 23 October 1955. 165 “Handymen Get Tough Challenge.” 166 “Over 600 Sold!” Washington Post, 27 October 1956. 167 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.168 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.”172 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. 168 Martin, 91. 169 EHT Traceries, Phase X Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia, 73-74. 170 “That Sleek ’49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage,” Washington Post, 8 May 1949. 171 “That Sleek ’49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage.” 172 “That Sleek ’49 Car Needs a Sizable Garage.”

171 “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. 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 XI Architectural Survey Report of Arlington County, Virginia. Washington, D.C.: 2009. Bibliography

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: B4. “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 Feb ruary 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). Seannell, 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 ’53.” 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