National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Research Approach
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidance for Survey and Evaluation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22709.
×
Page 48

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.

8A. Introduction The survey and evaluation methodology for postwar single- family residences is intended to guide state and federal agen- cies needing to identify and evaluate individual properties, neighborhoods, and subdivisions built between 1946 and 1975. Use of this methodology by state DOTs provides for a streamlined and efficient survey and National Register eligi- bility evaluation process with consistent results across geo- graphic areas. As many state DOTs and SHPOs have specific survey and evaluation requirements, this document should serve as a tool rather than a prescribed requirement, unless approved by the project sponsor. Building upon the guidance of National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs, this methodology provides effi- ciencies in the survey and documentation of postwar single- family residences and addresses the challenges that the vast number of vernacular homes of the era pose to the evaluation of National Register eligibility of both individual houses and districts. In addition to being informed by this Bulletin, the survey and evaluation methodology adheres to the following: • The requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regu- lations at 36 CFR Part 60 • Relevant NPS guidance, including: – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, – Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years, – How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Land- scapes, – How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, – How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form, and – Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties. The NPS guidance recommends the following standard process: identification, evaluation, and documentation (which may include registration in the National Register if that is the intended result). Although development of a historic context is included within the identification and documentation steps within the NPS standard, it is presented as a separate step in this methodology, which is organized around the following five major steps to accomplish the survey and evaluation of postwar properties: 1. Project preparation—Including project scoping, prelimi- nary research, initial context development, and project coordination. 2. Identification—Including guidelines for the survey of individual postwar residences, as well as neighborhoods and subdivisions and recording field survey data. 3. Historic context development—Addressing development of the historic context for use in evaluating National Register eligibility; focused research is often completed at this stage. 4. Evaluation—Including applying the National Register Criteria to individual properties and potential historic districts and assessing historic integrity. 5. Documentation—Including reporting procedures to pre- sent the historic context and survey and evaluation results. Accepted practice for transportation compliance projects adds a preparation step at the front end of the methodol- ogy to coordinate with and address project sponsor needs; it also typically excludes registration as an end result. For effi- ciencies created by focused research and reporting, as well as practicalities of scheduling, historic context development for a compliance project usually occurs after the identification of properties in the field. Although this methodology is intended for survey and evaluation of postwar resources for transportation-related projects, it may also be applied to other survey efforts address- ing single-family residences from this era. It should be noted that subdivisions and neighborhoods may contain multiple- C H A P T E R 3 Guidance for Survey and Evaluation

9 family residences and non-residential properties, such as schools and churches, which should also be considered for survey and evaluation as components within the subdivision or neighborhood. The national historic context included in Chapter 4 will assist in understanding such properties; how- ever this report as a whole, as well as the specific methodol- ogy, is directed toward postwar single-family residences. B. Project Preparation 1. Identify Survey Requirements Prior to commencing fieldwork efforts, it is important to review survey parameters and required survey documentation with the project sponsor. For the purpose of this document, the project sponsor is considered the lead agency responsible for fulfilling the obligation of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (the implementing regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800). For most transportation-related proj- ects, the project sponsor will be the state DOT. The SHPO and/or FHWA may have oversight of the project depending on a state’s delegation arrangements. Many DOTs and SHPOs have survey manuals that prescribe survey methodology and documentation standards and some may have specific guid- ance applicable to postwar resources. Accepted methodolo- gies within a state and the needs and requirements of the project sponsor should be considered in determining how to apply the guidance provided in this document. For example, DOTs and/or SHPOs may require surveyors to create or modify existing database records for surveyed properties or prepare inventory forms following a set format. Surveyors should work with the project sponsor to obtain the required inventory forms or database, confirm how the final survey data will ultimately be delivered, and understand the requirements for any supplemental materials, such as maps and photographs. Although the NPS offers digital photo- graphic guidance, photograph requirements for survey proj- ects still vary between states. Surveyors should coordinate with the project sponsor to determine digital photo standards, including image quality and size, and how to submit files. In some cases, black-and-white photographic prints may still be required, and coordination with the project sponsor should occur to identify a qualified film processor. Understanding these project sponsor survey requirements will allow survey- ors to gather necessary and relevant data in the field. 2. Project Scoping Prior to undertaking a survey of postwar residential prop- erties, it is important to review the project area and gain an understanding of potential resources. It is also important to coordinate with the project sponsor to determine the Area of Potential Effects (APE), which will assist in defining the survey area. Once the APE is established, it is important to review aerial and street maps, often available online, to orient and under- stand the overall spatial relationships of properties within the APE and the immediate area. This review will help to identify potential historic resources, groups of buildings, street and development patterns, and subdivisions or neighborhoods that may extend beyond the APE. The APE may be refined in the field, when considerations such as deep setbacks, viewsheds, topography, and the overall setting are taken into account. However, any refinements to the APE should be con- firmed with the project sponsor. 3. Preliminary Research Once project scoping is complete and before commencing field survey, it is important to conduct preliminary research. Having an understanding of the general history and develop- ment patterns of the survey area, as well as the historic and cur- rent boundaries of neighborhoods and subdivisions, is critical and will inform survey efforts. Research prior to fieldwork may also reveal potential National Register Criterion A asso- ciations, such as postwar industrial expansion that resulted in large-scale housing developments or groupings of prefabri- cated residences constructed in a community. Municipalities, universities, state and local libraries, and historical societies may have digitized information that is available online. Other sources of information may include the following: • DOT project files, including survey reports for similar or comparison properties or survey areas. • SHPO site files, including records for previously surveyed properties, historic contexts, maps, and photographs. • Historic and current maps and aerial images of the survey area, which may be used to identify development patterns and subdivision dates. A comparison of historic and cur- rent aerial images can show changes in land use and infill development. • Tax parcel information on the assessor’s website, including construction dates, names of builders and/or developers, and plat maps, which may focus future research efforts. • County and community histories and information on local neighborhood associations. • Available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, which may provide a predictive tool for the field survey. For example, a review of available data may determine concentrations of modern infill development that may be eliminated from consideration for survey. Preparing a research design can help set the objectives and goals for the survey. The research design may vary based on

10 the requirements of the project sponsor, but at a minimum, should include the following: • Purpose and goals of the survey; • Description of the APE and survey area; • Summary of preliminary research results for the project area, with preliminary context statement including poten- tial Criterion A associations; • Identification of any previously surveyed and/or evaluated historic properties; • Survey methodology, including documentation standards and deliverable requirements; and • Project schedule. Some states require the project sponsor to approve a research design. The results of the preliminary research, including the research design, serve as a basis for focused research that is completed after field survey efforts. See Section D for guid- ance regarding focused research efforts. The following case study demonstrates how preliminary research and review of historic plat maps assisted with iden- tification and subsequent evaluation of a postwar neigh- borhood of prefabricated homes in Mason, Michigan. The Northbrook Farms Subdivision, platted and developed by the Kessler Construction Company in 1959 and 1960, was iden- tified during reconnaissance-level survey efforts for a trans- portation compliance project. Twelve homes were adjacent to the proposed transportation project and 38 extended beyond the APE. Review of historic neighborhood plat maps and tar- geted preliminary research indicated that the subdivision was originally planned to include 260 prefabricated Harnischfeger homes built in increments of 50 units, a shopping center, city park, and neighborhood swimming pool. However, only 50 of the homes were erected by Kessler, and the shopping center and other subdivision amenities were never executed. Although the existing homes retain many of their character-defining features, research efforts determined that the subdivision, as a whole, is not a significant representation of the community planning trends of the postwar period in the greater Lan- sing area, particularly because the subdivision was not fully executed as planned and infill development has occurred throughout the plat. Other planned neighborhoods in the area better represent this trend in postwar residential devel- opment. As a result, it is not eligible for listing in the National Register and intensive-level survey and evaluation were not necessary. Figure 1 shows one of the Harnischfeger homes in the subdivision. C. Identification The period between 1946 and 1975 was the most produc- tive period in American history in terms of overall housing construction. Various architectural forms and styles were introduced and utilized in this period. In some cases the post- war house is defined by its form alone, and in other cases it is better described and classified by the style applied to the form. In this report, the term “form” refers to the overall house type as defined by its massing, layout, and shape, while the term “style” refers to the decorative elements and materials that are applied to exemplify a particular architectural style. House forms may or may not include stylistic details. The national historic context in Chapter 4 discusses architectural forms and styles and their character-defining features, and provides more detailed information regarding the forms and styles discussed in this methodology. These classifications inform the survey methodology as they help to identify postwar resi- dences for field survey. Reconnaissance-level survey, also referred to as a Phase I sur- vey, records properties at a base-level without intensive-level research. The majority of data collected at the reconnaissance- level is from field review of property exteriors. Reconnaissance- level survey records properties that are representative of the period and provides a context for the overall types of resources in a community. Reconnaissance-level survey is not limited to properties that meet the National Register Criteria but should be informed by an understanding of these criteria. This section provides guidance for conducting a reconnais- sance-level survey. Intensive-level survey, also referred to as Phase II Evaluation or a Determination of Eligibility, involves more in-depth review and research and typically results in a recommendation regarding the National Register eligibility of an individual property or grouping of related resources.7 Section E provides guidance for evaluating National Register eligibility. Two approaches are provided to streamline the reconnais- sance survey process. The first approach consists of document- Figure 1. A prefabricated Harnischfeger residence erected c.1960 in the Northbrook Farms Subdivision in Mason, Michigan (Mead & Hunt photograph). 7 Although eligibility recommendations are often made by the surveyor, the eligibility decision is made by the project sponsor or lead federal agency.

11 ing concentrations of similar properties as a single group or potential district. This approach works best in an area that developed as a planned subdivision or within a neighbor- hood where homes were constructed during the postwar period and display similar forms, massing, and materials. The second approach is the selective survey of individual proper- ties that are not part of a grouping and have the most poten- tial to be eligible for the National Register. This methodology for individual properties allows for selective documentation of properties that meet a minimum threshold, which is based on the exterior appearance and retention of a degree of integ- rity and character-defining features. This selective approach works best in areas that did not develop as a single planned subdivision or neighborhood, including infill development in older neighborhoods, postwar neighborhoods with lit- tle or no architectural cohesion, and isolated rural postwar residences. Section C.1 provides the survey methodology for documenting neighborhoods and subdivisions. Section C.2 provides the survey methodology for documenting indi- vidual properties, as well as recommended approaches for documenting properties in the APE that do not meet the selective survey criteria where required by a project sponsor. It is important to confirm these methodologies with the proj- ect sponsor. 1. Survey Methodology for Subdivisions and Neighborhoods To streamline the survey and documentation process, concentrations of similar properties identified during pre- liminary research efforts should be surveyed as a group rather than as individual resources since they are recom- mended to be evaluated collectively as a potential historic district. Reviewing aerial photographs, plat maps, and tax parcel data gathered in the preliminary research phase will assist with the identification of these groupings and delineation of boundaries for survey. For example, review of a subdivi- sion plat or aerial photograph may assist in determining if properties within the APE are located within a large planned development or unplanned neighborhood that experienced slow development. A review of the plats and aerial photo- graphs may also help determine if a large portion of a sub- division was not developed as originally planned, modern development has occurred within the initial plat, or com- munity resources of the postwar period, such as a park or public pool, are no longer extant. Understanding the extent of the original plat or neighborhood development patterns will assist in identifying if the field review will need to extend beyond those properties in the project APE to identify and document the full extent of the overall grouping, which may comprise a potential historic district. a. Recording Field Survey Data To complete a reconnaissance-level survey of a group- ing of postwar homes, surveyors will need to document the overall characteristics of the subdivision or neighborhood, as well as representative examples of properties within the overall grouping. This methodology provides a way to clas- sify and document the variety of architectural forms and styles present in a neighborhood or subdivision. The fol- lowing options may be used to identify resources for clas- sification purposes: • Forms/styles—Classification by architectural style or form works well in areas where a variety of styles and forms are present. This allows for the documentation of represen- tative examples of styles and forms along with providing general information related to the overall number and use of materials. The guidance in the selective survey approach for individual properties in Section C.2 may be used to assist in identifying examples of styles and forms that retain a degree of integrity as well as character-defining features, which would serve as representative examples within the grouping. • Variations within forms/styles—In areas with a large num- ber of homes representing a single form or style, variations within the form or style may allow for classifying resources. For example, in an area with a high concentration of two- story Colonial Revival homes, properties could be classi- fied by exterior cladding materials, such as clapboard or brick veneer. In the case of similar Ranch homes, the roof form (side gable or hip) or exterior cladding could serve as a distinguishing factor. In this case, representative exam- ples of these variations should be documented. • Prefabricated models—In subdivisions or neighborhoods comprised of prefabricated homes, identification of the housing model allows for a way to classify these resources. For example, many prefabricated home companies pro- duced a variety of floor plans and exteriors. In the case of Wisconsin-based Harnischfeger Homes, two standard models were available in a 1955 catalogue: the side gable model and the hip roof model.8 Although both models allowed for variations in the interior floorplan, square footage, and exterior materials, the exterior roof forms are an easy way to classify these similar prefabricated homes for survey and documentation purposes. During field survey efforts, surveyors will collect data to support evaluation and documentation efforts, which are out- lined in Sections E and F of this chapter. At a minimum, the 8 P & H Homes, Plans for Better Living . . . P&H Homes (Post Washing- ton, Wis.: Harnischfeger, 1955).

12 following should be recorded in the field for a concentration of postwar residences, including subdivisions and neighbor- hoods that are being documented as a group: • Overall architectural styles and forms, construction dates, materials, setbacks, and distinguishing features identified in the grouping; this could also include identification of representative examples of styles/forms and variations or models, as described herein. • Circulation patterns, including streets and sidewalks. • Green spaces, vegetation, and landscape features, or lack thereof. • Associated resources, such as parks, pools, community buildings, schools, churches, and commercial areas, or lack thereof. • Representative photographs of residential properties, street- scapes, and associated resources to convey styles and forms, setback, cohesion, landscapes, and other distinguishing elements. • Preliminary recommendations for contributing and non- contributing status, which will assist in determining if a grouping may qualify as a historic district. This may be presented in a table format with additional information, including addresses and construction dates. • Preliminary subdivision/neighborhood boundaries based on aerial photographs, plat maps, and field observations (see Section E.9 for more information regarding defining historic boundaries). Due to the relatively recent construction dates of postwar residences, property owners may be familiar with the con- struction history of the neighborhood. Fieldwork may offer an opportunity to discuss the properties with owners (to confirm the construction dates); builders, architects, or developers; and associations with historic events or trends. Within potential historic districts, surveyors may also elect to apply the selective survey methodology (described in more detail in Section C.2) to individual properties within the larger group, allowing for more detailed documentation of the most intact examples in the larger grouping. This combined approach would allow for documentation of the group and those individual properties that retain both integrity and character-defining features and may be considered for indi- vidual National Register eligibility. b. Application of Methodology to Groupings The following case studies show how concentrations of post- war homes within an unplanned neighborhood and a planned subdivision, which are located in the APE for a compliance project, should be surveyed and documented. A postwar neighborhood in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, includes approximately 350 Minimal Traditional and Transi- tional Ranch homes constructed between 1945 and 1950. The neighborhood is comprised of several 1910s and 1920s plats that were not developed until the community experienced rapid growth beginning in 1945 due to its proximity to the city of Minneapolis. A large number of small-scale developers purchased lots and constructed modest homes, using similar forms and materials. Although not a planned subdivision, the neighborhood developed within a fairly short period on the traditional grid layout, with homes that display similar forms, massing, and setbacks. Lot sizes and layouts are similar throughout the neighborhood and it is not possible to dif- ferentiate between the plats in the field. Approximately 100 homes are located immediately adja- cent to a transportation corridor and within the project APE. Rather than conducting an individual survey of these 100 homes, surveyors should apply the methodology that allows for documentation of the overall neighborhood as a grouping. One record that documents the group should be prepared rather than individual records for the 100 resources in the APE. This streamlines documentation efforts and allows for evaluation of the group as a potential historic district. Because two popular postwar forms are represented, the documentation should identify intact examples of these forms. In addition, variations within the Minimal Traditional form, such as different roof forms, are present. Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict the different forms identified in the APE. The represen- tative examples of Minimal Traditional and Transitional Ranch homes should be discussed in more detail in the survey doc- umentation, with photographs keyed to maps. In addition, Figure 2. Intact c.1945 house in the postwar St. Louis Park, Minnesota, neighborhood. This residence represents the Minimal Traditional form with a side gable roof and prominent gable above the entrance. The house retains the original footprint, wood shingle siding, and double-hung windows (Mead & Hunt photograph).

13 surveyors should record data on the overall neighborhood for use in the evaluation and inclusion in the survey documenta- tion, including the presence of schools, parks, or other ameni- ties. Streetscape images showing the general setback, massing, and relation between the houses should be incorporated into the documentation (see Figure 5). The Maenner South subdivision in Omaha, Nebraska, was developed by Theodore H. Maenner, a prominent developer, between 1953 and 1955. Figure 6 is the original subdivision plat filed in 1953. The 64 lots in the addition feature prefabricated Gunnison Homes (see Section G.3 in Chapter 4 for more infor- mation on Gunnison Homes). The homes display the same form and massing, but a number have experienced alterations, including additions, replacement siding, and altered fenestra- tion, such as downsized and replacement windows. Fifteen homes are located along 40th Street, adjacent to a highway improvement corridor and considered to be within the project APE. Rather than individual survey of these 15 homes in the APE, the survey methodology allows for documenta- tion of the entire plat as a grouping, including those proper- ties that extend beyond the APE. This eliminates individual documentation efforts and provides a single survey record and streamlines the effort to evaluate the grouping as a poten- tial historic district. As the homes are prefabricated rectangular side gable resi- dences with minimal fenestration variations, no particular form or model stands out and documentation may be lim- ited to those properties that retain the original massing and exterior materials. In this case, surveyors should select those homes that retain massing, siding materials, and fenestration for documentation. An example of one such house is depicted in Figure 7. These properties should be discussed in more detail in the survey documentation, with photographs keyed to maps. The documentation should also include a discussion of alterations within the district, including specific examples illustrated with images. In addition, surveyors should record data on the overall neighborhood, including schools or green spaces, for use in the evaluation and inclusion in the survey documentation. Streetscape images showing the general set- back, massing, and relation between the houses should also be incorporated into the documentation (see Figure 8). 2. Selective Survey Methodology for Individual Properties The selective survey methodology of individual postwar residences allows for a streamlined identification process by Figure 3. Intact c.1945 house in the postwar St. Louis Park, Minnesota, neighborhood. This residence represents the Minimal Traditional form with a side gable roof. The house retains the original footprint, wide-lap wood siding, and double-hung windows (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 4. Intact c.1950 house in the postwar St. Louis Park, Minnesota, neighborhood. This residence represents the Transitional Ranch form. The house retains the original footprint, wide-lap wood siding, and double-hung windows, which are partially obscured by modern storm windows (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 5. Streetscape image showing a number of Minimal Traditional homes in a postwar neighborhood in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. This image should be incorporated into survey documentation to show the overall similarity of the resources massing, setback, and materials (Mead & Hunt photograph).

14 Figure 6. Maenner South Plat, filed by T. H. Maenner, Inc. in August 1953 and recorded by the City of Omaha, Nebraska, in September 1953 (available at http://webarc.co.douglas.ne.us/Plat-new/PLAT_00067987.pdf). documenting only those examples of postwar residences that retain a degree of integrity and display character-defining features, thereby having the potential to be eligible for the National Register. This eliminates blanket survey of numerous resources that do not display historic integrity or characteristic features. As previously stated, this selective approach will work best for areas that did not develop as a single planned subdivi- sion or unplanned neighborhood, such as infill development in older neighborhoods, postwar neighborhoods with little or no architectural cohesion, and isolated rural residences. The selective survey approach requires all properties within the APE to be surveyed, or looked at, in the field. However,

15 only those individual properties that meet the criteria out- lined below are documented as a result of the survey effort. Properties that display significant exterior alterations may be excluded from documentation because they do not retain the historic integrity necessary to convey significance. Likewise, individual properties that do not possess character-defining features may be excluded from documentation because they do not have potential to be eligible for the National Register. The survey criteria, outlined herein and organized by forms and styles, was developed by identifying the exterior character- defining features and architectural elements of common post- war residential forms and styles. Character-defining features are defined as prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of an architectural style or form that contribute significantly to its physical character. Architectural elements are defined as decorative exterior features that are commonly applied to the styles and forms. With the exception of the Min- imal Traditional, Cape Cod, and Transitional Ranch forms and prefabricated houses, in addition to character-defining features, a minimum number of architectural elements should be present for a resource to be surveyed. As a general rule, three architectural elements are recommended. It should be noted that the lists of architectural elements included in this methodology are not inclusive and additional elements may be identified during field survey efforts. Surveyors should adhere to this guidance but also exercise professional judg- ment during field survey efforts, so documentation is limited to intact and distinguishable examples of postwar style and forms. For example, surveyors may choose to document a Ranch house that does not display the recommended mini- mum number of three architectural elements if it stands out among other properties in the survey area. Likewise, a surveyor may elect not to document a Split-level house that displays several architectural elements if it also has several minor modifications that cumulatively diminish the historic integrity. Surveyors may not always be able to determine if exterior materials are original during reconnaissance-level field sur- vey efforts and should rely on their professional judgment when selecting properties to document. Simulated stone, including Permastone, asbestos shingles, and aluminum sid- ing may be original siding materials for the styles and forms. As a result, they may not detract from the historic integrity. Properties with replacement materials may be documented if they appear to be compatible with the historic fabric. In almost all cases, narrow-gauge modern vinyl siding is con- sidered a non-compatible cladding material. A discussion of siding materials developed during the postwar period is included in Chapter 4. The survey criteria are organized by the popular forms and styles of the postwar period. Properties should meet the following minimum survey criteria to be documented individually. a. Minimal Traditional Form The simplicity of the Minimal Traditional form is con- sidered its primary character-defining feature. Therefore, large alterations to the footprint, such as additions that alter the front facade or modify the roofline, should be consid- ered significant and disqualify the property from individual documentation. Because the Minimal Traditional form dis- plays few architectural elements, it should retain original features, including siding, doors, and windows. It is impor- tant to note that simulated stone, asbestos shingle, and alu- minum siding may be original cladding materials. Minimal Traditional homes typically do not have attached garages Figure 8. Modified Gunnison houses in the Maenner South Addition in Omaha, Nebraska. This streetscape documents the similar form and massing and setbacks within the addition (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 7. Gunnison house in the Maenner South Addition in Omaha, Nebraska. As one of the most intact of the similar prefabricated c.1955 homes in this addition, it serves as a representative example for the survey documentation (Mead & Hunt photograph).

16 or carports. If these are present, they should have minimal alterations. Figures 9 and 10 show examples of Minimal Traditional houses. To merit individual documentation, a Minimal Traditional residence should: • Retain original massing, and additions, if present, do not detract from the historic appearance; • Retain original exterior siding materials, or materials appear original; • Retain original doors and windows; and • Retain original roofline (incompatible dormers and sec- ond story additions are not acceptable). b. Cape Cod Form As a subset of the Minimal Traditional Form, Cape Cod houses should meet the criteria outlined for that form. Fig- ures 11 and 12 show examples of the Cape Cod form. c. Transitional Ranch Form The Transitional Ranch house shares the Minimal Tradi- tional’s compact floorplan but has an exterior appearance that Figure 10. Minimal Traditional house in Prince George’s County, Maryland, constructed c.1945, with non-compatible vinyl siding, replacement windows, and a modified stoop. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration). Figure 9. Minimal Traditional house in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed c.1945, retains its original siding, massing, simple entrance, and windows, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 12. Cape Cod house in Fairfax County, Virginia, constructed c.1945, with exterior cladding altered to create a Tudor Revival appearance, replacement windows and door, and altered stoop. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration). Figure 11. Cape Cod house in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed c.1945, retains its original massing, siding, windows, and entrance, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

17 resembles the Ranch form, with one-story horizontal mass- ing, a shallow roof pitch, and overhanging eaves. As with the Minimal Traditional form, the simplicity of the Transitional Ranch form is considered its primary character-defining feature. Therefore, large alterations to the footprint should be considered significant and disqualify the property from individual documentation. Because the Transitional Ranch form displays few architectural elements, it should retain the original features, including exterior siding, doors, and win- dows. Figures 13 and 14 show examples of the Transitional Ranch form. To merit individual documentation, a Transitional Ranch residence should: • Retain original exterior materials, or materials appear original (replacement siding limited to the side gable ends is acceptable; however, replacement siding on the facade or side elevations that is not compatible in material or appearance is considered unacceptable); • Retain original massing, and additions, if present, do not detract from the historic appearance; • Retain original doors and windows; • Retain the original porch or entry stoop; • Retain the original roofline; and • Display minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached. d. Ranch Form The Ranch was the most popular architectural form con- structed during the postwar period, and vast numbers exist in urban and suburban communities nationwide. Therefore, the Ranch house should retain character-defining features (as discussed in Section G.3 of Chapter 4), as well as architectural elements and a degree of historic integrity, to merit individ- ual documentation. Figures 15 through 20 present examples of the Ranch form. To merit individual documentation, a Ranch house should: • Retain original exterior materials or have replacement materials that are compatible with the original materials (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non-compatible due to the change in material and appearance); • Retain original massing, and additions, if present, should not detract from the historic appearance; • Retain original door and window openings; • Have replacement windows, if present, with a similar sash configuration to the original windows; • Retain original roofline and eave overhang; • Display minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached; Figure 13. Transitional Ranch house in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed in 1949, retains its original siding, windows, and entrance with a decorative support, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 14. Transitional Ranch house in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, constructed in 1953, does not meet the survey criteria due to the replacement vinyl siding and windows (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 15. Ranch house in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed c.1955, retains multiple architectural elements, including accent brick veneer, prominent wide chimney, integrated planter, and wrought iron support, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

18 • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, includ- ing, but not limited to: – Wide or prominent chimney; – Combination of siding materials or accent siding materi- als, such as brick or stone veneer or textured brickwork; – Large expanses of windows, corner windows, bands of windows (ribbon windows), or clerestory windows; – Integrated planters; – Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade ornamentation (a simple railing near the entrance is not considered an architectural feature); – Decorative porch/entry supports; – Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with “prowed” eaves, eave cutouts, or exposed beams; – Unaltered breezeway; – Patio (front patios are most visible during field survey; however, side and rear patios are common); Figure 16. Ranch house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, constructed c.1960, retains multiple architectural elements, including accent wood shingle siding, prominent wide chimney, and corner windows, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 17. Ranch house in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed in 1958, retains its original massing, siding, and window configuration but does not display three architectural elements and does not meet the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 18. Ranch house in Grain Valley, Missouri, does not meet the survey criteria due to absence of architectural elements and altered attached garage that has been converted into living space (photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of Transportation). Figure 19. Ranch house with Colonial Revival influences in Arlington, Texas, constructed c.1965, that does not meet the survey criteria due to the large second story addition that detracts from the historic appearance (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 20. Ranch house in Arlington County, Virginia, constructed in 1959 that does not meet the survey criteria because the multi-light, “cottage- style” replacement windows are non-compatible. In addition, it does not display three architectural elements (Louis Berger photograph).

19 – Colonnaded porch along the facade that recalls the “cor- redors” of nineteenth-century Californian and Mexican Ranch house antecedents; – Integrated wingwalls; and – Original applied stylistic features (i.e., Colonial Revival or Contemporary details). e. Raised Ranch Form To merit individual documentation, the Raised Ranch form should meet the criteria outlined for the Ranch form and retain an elevated or partially elevated basement story. Figures 21 and 22 show examples of the Raised Ranch form. f. Split-level and Split-foyer Form The Split-level and Split-foyer are simple forms that were constructed in large numbers during the postwar period. Therefore, the Split-level or Split-foyer house should display character-defining features, as well as architectural elements and a degree of historic integrity, to merit individual documen- tation. Figures 23 through 26 show examples of these forms. To merit individual documentation, a Split-level or Split- foyer residence should: • Retain original exterior materials or have replacement materials that are compatible with the original materials (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non-compatible due to the change in material and appearance); • Retain original door and window openings; • Have replacement windows (if present) with a similar sash configuration to the original windows; • Retain original massing, and additions, if present, do not detract from the historic appearance; • Retain original roofline and eave overhang; • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached; • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, includ- ing, but not limited to: – Wide or prominent chimney; – Combination of siding materials or accent siding materi- als, such as brick or stone veneer or textured brickwork; – Large expanses of windows, corner windows, bands of windows (ribbon windows), or clerestory windows; – Integrated planters; – Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade ornamentation (a simple railing near the entrance is not considered an architectural feature); Figure 21. Raised Ranch house in Parkville, Missouri, displays only one original architectural element—the combination of board and batten and clapboard siding—and as a result does not meet the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of Transportation). Figure 22. Raised Ranch house in Hennepin County, Minnesota, with non-compatible replacement wood siding and only two architectural elements: accent brick veneer and the prominent chimney. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 23. Split-level residence in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed c.1965, retains its original form, doors and windows, and displays multiple architectural elements, including accent stone veneer, wrought iron support, and prominent front entrance. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

20 – Decorative porch/entry supports; – Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with “prowed” eaves, eave cutouts, or exposed beams; – Prominent front entrance that could include twin doors, transoms, decorative lighting, or an exaggerated height to depict multiple stories; and – Original applied stylistic features (i.e., Colonial Revival or Contemporary details). g. Colonial Revival Style Postwar examples of the Colonial Revival style are com- mon and should display character-defining features as well as architectural elements and a degree of historic integrity to be considered for individual documentation. For example, a large modern addition on the front facade would disqual- ify a property due to lack of historic integrity. Replacement materials are acceptable if they replicate the original siding materials and do not detract from distinguishing architec- tural elements. It is important to note that aluminum siding may be original. Figures 27 through 29 show examples of the Colonial Revival style. To merit individual documentation, a Colonial Revival residence should: • Retain original exterior materials or have replacement materials that are compatible with the original materials; • Retain massing and symmetrical proportions; • Retain original door and window openings, including sash configuration; • Retain the original door surround; • Retain the original roofline; Figure 24. Split-level residence in Richmond Heights, Missouri, retains its original form, and displays multiple architectural elements, including accent board and batten siding, prominent chimney, and bands of windows. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of Transportation). Figure 25. Split-level house in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed in 1960, retains its original form but only two architectural elements: colonnaded porch along the facade and accent brick veneer. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 26. Split-foyer house in Arlington County, Virginia, retains its original form but features only one architectural element: applied Colonial Revival details. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 27. Colonial Revival in Arlington, Texas, constructed in 1967, retains its original materials and massing and displays multiple architectural elements, including a decorative door surround, projecting front gable, and compass vent. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

21 • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached; • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, includ- ing, but not limited to: – Overhanging second story (referred to as a jetty or garrison); – Frieze or cornice boards; – Decorative door and window surrounds; – Pedimented or projecting front gable; – Compass (round) window or vent in the gable end; – Pent roof; and – Other decorative details, including quoins, jack or flat arches, cupolas. h. Georgian Revival Style Postwar examples of the Georgian Revival style should display character-defining features as well as architectural elements and a degree of historic integrity to be consid- ered for individual documentation. Similar to the Colonial Revival style, a large modern addition on the front facade would disqualify a property due to lack of historic integrity, and replacement materials are acceptable if they replicate the original siding materials and do not detract from distinguish- ing architectural elements. Figure 30 shows an example of this style. To merit individual documentation, a Georgian Revival residence should: • Retain original exterior materials or have replacement materials that are compatible with the original materials; • Retain massing and symmetrical proportions; • Retain original door and window openings, including sash configuration; • Retain the original door surround; • Retain the original roofline; • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached; and • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, includ- ing, but not limited to: – Decorative door and window surrounds, including sidelights; – Colonnaded porch or portico; and – Other decorative details, including pilasters, quoins, and pediments. Figure 28. Colonial Revival house in Arlington County, Virginia, does not meet the survey criteria because it has replacement siding and does not feature three architectural elements (Louis Berger photograph). Figure 29. Colonial Revival house in Arlington County, Virginia, has an altered front portico and modern side addition. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria due to lack of historic integrity (Louis Berger photograph). Figure 30. Georgian Revival house in Fairfax County, Virginia, retains the original materials and massing; displays multiple architectural elements, including a colonnaded portico, quoins, and door surround. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Anne Bruder, Maryland State Highway Administration).

22 i. Storybook Style The Storybook style is most commonly applied to the Ranch form but may also be applied to other forms from the period. Figures 31 and 32 show examples of the Storybook style. To merit individual documentation, a Storybook residence should retain its form, massing and materials and feature architectural elements of the style, including: • Fanciful details; • Scalloped or shaped bargeboards; • Sweeping gables; • Diamond-pane, decorative leaded, or stained glass windows; • Decorative window trim and shutters; and • Planter boxes or shelves below the windows. j. Spanish Colonial Revival Style The Spanish Colonial Revival style, also referred to as the Spanish Contemporary or Spanish Eclectic style, was com- monly applied to popular forms during the period. Figure 33 presents an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. To merit individual documentation, a Spanish Colonial Revival residence should retain its form, massing, and mate- rials as well as feature architectural elements of the style, including the following: • Adobe, adobe-type brick, or stucco exterior cladding; • Red tile or built-up roofs; • Arched entrances and windows; and • Decorative wrought iron details. k. Asiatic Style The Asiatic style is most commonly applied to the Ranch form, but may also be applied to other forms from the period, including the Split-level. Figure 34 shows an example of the Asiatic style. To merit individual documentation, an Asiatic residence should retain its form, massing, and materials and feature architectural elements of the style, including the following: • Exaggerated eaves or upturned corners and gable ends; • Vertical wood latticework or Shoji decorative screenwork; • Red or persimmon front entrances; and • Asian-inspired exterior hardware. l. Contemporary Style Contemporary style residences should display character- defining features, as well as architectural elements and a degree Figure 31. Storybook style house in Los Angeles, California, constructed c.1958, retains its massing and materials and displays multiple architectural elements, including sweeping gables, scalloped bargeboards, and diamond-pane windows. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 32. Storybook style house in Omaha, Nebraska (locally referred to as a Chalet Ranch), constructed c.1950, that has sweeping gables and non-compatible replacement vinyl siding and windows. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria due to the lack of historic integrity (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 33. Spanish Colonial Revival house in Arlington, Texas, constructed in 1968, retains its form, massing, original cladding, arched porch and windows, and decorative wrought iron details. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

23 of historic integrity, to merit individual documentation. Fig- ures 35 and 36 show examples of the Contemporary style. To merit individual documentation, a Contemporary resi- dence should: • Retain original exterior materials or have replacement materials that are compatible with the original materials; • Retain original door and window openings; • Retain original massing, and additions, if present, do not detract from the historic appearance; • Retain original roofline; • Have minimal alterations to the garage or carport, if attached; and • Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, includ- ing, but not limited to: – Wide or prominent chimney; – Combination of wood, brick, or stone cladding materials; – Large expanses of windows, bands of windows (ribbon windows), or clerestory windows; – Integrated planters; – Wrought iron integrated into the entrance or facade ornamentation (a simple railing near the entrance is not considered an architectural feature); – Decorative porch/entry supports; and – Exaggerated eave overhang or prominent roofline with “prowed” eaves, eave cutouts, or exposed beams. m. Prefabricated Houses Due to the simple nature of prefabricated housing units, it is generally recommended intact examples be considered for survey documentation. Any alterations to the footprint, such as additions, or replacement materials, including siding and windows, that are not consistent with the original materials should be considered significant alterations and disqualify the property from individual survey. Figures 37 and 38 show examples of prefabricated houses. However, due to the relative rarity of Lustrons, they should be documented regardless of alterations. This is also the case with examples of other rare local or regional prefabricated houses. Figure 39 shows an example of an altered Lustron House that should be documented for survey. To merit individual documentation, a prefabricated resi- dence that is not rare should: • Retain original exterior materials or have compatible replace- ment siding (narrow-gauge vinyl siding is considered non- compatible due to the change in material and appearance); • Retain massing, without additions; • Retain original door and window openings; and • Retain original roofline. Figure 34. Asiatic residence in Fullerton, California, constructed c.1963, retains its massing and materials and displays architectural elements of the style, including upturned vertical wood trim on the facade and latticework. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (photograph courtesy of Andrew Hope, Caltrans). Figure 35. Contemporary house in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed in 1963, retains its original massing and window configuration and displays three architectural elements: combination of wood and brick siding, wrought iron ornamentation at the front entrance, and prominent roof cutout. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 36. Contemporary house in Arlington, Texas, constructed in 1967, retains its original massing and displays three architectural elements: bands of vertical windows, wrought iron ornamentation on the facade, and Spanish Eclectic stylistic influences. As a result, it meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph).

24 3. Recording Field Survey Data To support documentation efforts, surveyors will collect data for individual properties in the field that meet the survey criteria. At a minimum, the following should be recorded in the field for individual properties: • Architectural form and/or style; • Construction date, or approximate construction date; • Exterior materials; • Window type and configuration; • Character-defining features and architectural elements, including those not clearly visible in the photographs; • Alterations; • Associated resources, such as garages or carports; • Associated landscape features, such as retaining walls and fences; and • Photographs of the property, its setting and landscape, and associated resources. Due to the relatively recent construction date of postwar residences, property owners may be familiar with the construc- tion history of their property or neighborhood. Fieldwork may offer an opportunity to discuss properties (and confirm the construction date) with the owners; the builder, architect, or developer; and associations with historic events or trends. a. Additional Streamlined Approaches In instances where the selective survey approach for indi- vidual properties is not accepted by the project sponsor, additional approaches may provide the necessary level of documentation while still streamlining the survey process. The following options are examples and cultural resource professionals and/or project sponsors may identify addi- tional options. Selective Survey and Supplemental List of Non- documented Properties. The selective survey documen- tation may be supplemented with a table or list of properties in the APE that did not meet the survey criteria and were not documented. Information on properties that were not documented could include the address, style or form, and a brief statement regarding the alterations or lack of character- defining and/or architectural features and why the property did not warrant documentation. Properties may be illus- trated with photographs and keyed to a map. This approach may also be used to document modern properties within the APE that fall outside the postwar study period. Table 1 pres- ents an example of this type of documentation, which could be incorporated into the survey report. Single Record for Collection of Non-documented Properties. In cases where the majority of resources are Figure 37. Prefabricated U.S. Steel home in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed in 1955, retains its original footprint, windows, and cladding materials, and thus meets the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 38. Prefabricated National Homes residence in Madison, Wisconsin, constructed c.1951, retains its massing and roofline, but is clad in non-compatible narrow-gauge vinyl siding. As a result, it does not meet the survey criteria (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 39. Although this c.1950 Lustron house in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, has replacement casement windows and a large modern addition, it should be surveyed due to the limited number of Lustrons constructed nationwide (Mead & Hunt photograph).

25 similar in size and scale but do not meet the selective survey criteria due to alterations or lack of character-defining fea- tures or architectural elements, they may be documented with a single record that includes a narrative statement regarding the overall number of resources, styles and forms represented, and alterations or lack of character-defining features and/or architectural elements. The record may be supplemented with representative photos or streetscapes. Management Summary for Overall Survey Area. The selective survey documentation may be supplemented with a brief narrative that outlines why properties did not meet the survey criteria. It may be illustrated with representative photographs and statistics regarding the overall number of properties in the APE and number of properties that meet and do not meet the survey criteria. D. Historic Context Development After completion of fieldwork, more detailed research and analysis should be completed to develop a historic context for use in evaluating the National Register eligibility of indi- vidual properties and potential historic districts identified as groupings. The research will build upon the preliminary research efforts and field observations and should focus on the history and development of the community or region, especially within the project’s survey area. 1. Guidelines for Research In conducting project-specific research, repositories and resources that should be consulted may include: • Collections of state and local libraries; • Collections of the SHPO, including architect and property site files; • Prior DOT compliance surveys and Certified Local Gov- ernment surveys in the area and region; • Local tax assessor records (often collected in a database that may be available online), which may provide informa- tion on dates of construction, dates of additions, builder names, subdivision plat maps, and information regarding local developers and deed restrictions; • County or local government records, especially for GIS mapping and property data; • City directories, which may provide information on the occupations of residents; • Historic photographs and aerial images; • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Sanborn Fire Insur- ance Maps; • Newspaper articles, including real estate advertisements for subdivisions and neighborhoods (newspapers from the recent past are often indexed to assist with focused research efforts); • Clippings files at local libraries or historical societies, which are often organized by subject or theme; Table 1. Example: properties in APE that do not meet survey criteria. Address Form/Style Brief description/ explanation Date Map code Photo 123 Main Street Minimal Traditional Replacement vinyl siding, replacement windows, and altered entrance. c.1945 1 456 Main Street Ranch Replacement vinyl siding and replacement windows. 1954 2 789 Main Street Ranch Does not display three architectural elements. 1958 3

26 • Promotional materials for real estate developers and builders; • Promotional materials for prefabricated home manufac- turers, especially to identify building types, forms, models, original materials and character-defining features, and con- struction dates; • Oral interviews with residents, if applicable; and • National Register Nominations, especially historic district nominations and MPDs for the subject period. Where available, GIS maps and data are informative tools that can facilitate development of the historic context. GIS analysis can indicate housing construction trends and devel- opment patterns, especially where it includes tax assess- ment records with construction dates (see Figure 40 for an example). Some municipalities may record the original con- struction date, as well as the dates of major alterations. These tools can help researchers identify development patterns over time, both geographically and descriptively; determine build- ing construction and alteration dates; and identify “typical” features such as garages or carports, number of rooms, size of parcels, and average square footage. This information can be incorporated into the historic context and assist in the evalu- ation of individual properties and potential historic districts. 2. Guidelines for Developing Historic Contexts It is important to develop an appropriate local or regional historic context to evaluate the significance of subdivisions and/or neighborhoods and individual resources when apply- ing the National Register Criteria. The National Register defines a historic context as follows, explaining its purpose: An organizing structure for interpreting history that groups information about historic properties that share a common theme, common geographical area, and a common time period. The devel- opment of historic contexts is a foundation for decisions about the planning, identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties, based upon comparative historic significance.9 Development of a context specific to the study area should be sufficient to guide identification and evaluation efforts to Figure 40. Example of GIS-based map identifying construction dates in the Hill Farms Neighborhood in Madison, Wisconsin (prepared by Department of Planning and Community & Economic Development, Planning Division: June 28, 2010; courtesy of the City of Madison). 9 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, 59.

27 a level typically expected for a DOT-sponsored compliance survey. The context should identify postwar residential devel- opment trends in the region and allow for them to be placed within the broader context of postwar development. Based on the extent of postwar development in the survey area, the con- text may illustrate local and regional influences, such as plan- ning and zoning regulations; the work and influence of local architecture firms, builders, or plan services; and regional variations in building types and styles. Although this meth- odology focuses on residential properties, the context should recognize that postwar subdivisions and neighborhoods often include schools, churches, parks, and other resources that are integral components of the historic area. The written historic context is incorporated into the survey documentation and used to evaluate the significance of individual properties and potential historic districts in the evaluation phase as described herein. The national context for postwar residential development (see Chapter 4) frames overall residential development dur- ing the postwar era, as well as the predominant architectural forms and styles. A model context outline, which follows the organization of the national context, is provided to guide the development of a location-specific historic context that would be expected for a transportation compliance project. This outline is included in Appendix B. The historic con- text developed for Arlington County, Virginia (the primary demonstration area used to test the survey and evaluation methodology for this project), may also serve as a guide for professionals who are developing a location-specific historic context. This context is included in Appendix D. Keep in mind the length and level of detail of the context should be informed by the geographic area, identified postwar themes, the scale of the project at hand, and the number and type of potential historic properties affected. Approaches to the development of a historic context differ from state to state. Some agencies suggest or require that the historic context be developed prior to commencement of field survey activities. The Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin also suggests that the historic context statement be developed prior to the survey efforts. It is important to understand the require- ments of the project sponsor prior to commencing research and fieldwork activities and note that preliminary historic contexts should be refined following fieldwork as additional research and site observations can improve the document and enhance resource understanding. The efficiencies created by focused research and reporting, as well as practicalities of scheduling, can also dictate the timing of context development. E. Evaluation Upon completion of the field survey and historic context, documented properties should be evaluated to determine if they meet the National Register Criteria. This step is referred to by the NPS as an intensive-level survey, and in compli- ance projects as either a Phase II Evaluation or a Determina- tion of Eligibility. It involves more in-depth field review and research and typically results in a recommendation regarding the National Register eligibility of an individual property or grouping of related resources as a potential historic district. To undertake this step, the following guidance provides for the evaluation of postwar residences, neighborhoods, and subdivisions under National Register Criteria A and C. These criteria are most likely to be applied to postwar proper- ties.10 The evaluation methodology is based on the following National Register Bulletins: • Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places; • How to Apply the National Register Criteria of Evaluation; • How to Complete the National Register Registration Form; and • How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. As outlined in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin, defining significance under National Register Criteria A and C: requires a close analysis of information about the develop- ment and design of a particular historic neighborhood and an understanding of local, metropolitan, and national trends of sub- urbanization. The property is viewed in relationship to the broad patterns of suburbanization that shaped a community, state, or the nation and to determine whether the area under study meets one or more of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.11 The same is true of individual properties. The historic con- text should support significance under one of the criteria for a property to be considered individually eligible for listing in the National Register. The particular guidance in this meth- odology is beneficial because it improves the understanding of the postwar period, which in turn informs evaluations and ultimately contributes to the achievement of consistent, objective results. Specific guidance is not included for determining the period of significance for eligible properties since this process does not differ from that for properties that pre-date the post- war period. NPS guidance is outlined in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. As defined in the Bulletin, the period of significance is the “length of time when a property was associated with 10 Evaluation under Criterion B is less dependent on the nuances of the postwar period because of the narrow requirements of this criterion that restrict it to a property that best illustrates a person’s significant achievements. For the evaluation of properties that may qualify under Criterion B, please refer to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 11 Ames and McClelland, 94.

28 important events, activities, or person, or attained the char- acteristics which qualify it for National Register listing.”12 The period of significance is called out as a “benchmark” against which resources should be compared to determine whether or not they contribute to a neighborhood’s history and, thus, its integrity. 1. Evaluation Methodology: Historic Districts The evaluation of a planned subdivision or neighborhood as a potential historic district builds upon the information collected during the field survey, research efforts, and devel- opment of the historic context. This information is analyzed against the National Register Criteria, resulting in an eligibil- ity recommendation. If the district conveys significance under the National Register Criteria and retains historic integrity, it is considered eligible for listing in the National Register. The evaluation requires that properties within the dis- trict be classified as contributing and noncontributing, which assists with the assessment of integrity. Buildings, structures, objects, and sites within a district are classified as contributing resources if they were built within the period of significance and possess historic integrity. Resources built or substantially altered after the period of significance are classified as non- contributing. To be considered as contributing, properties should generally retain their overall form and massing and not detract from the sense of time and place. See Section E.5. for more information on integrity. To be considered eligible, the majority of properties in the district should retain a degree of integrity and be consid- ered contributing. Coordination with the project sponsor is recommended to identify the level of documentation neces- sary to detail this status. In many cases, the documentation includes a listing of properties within the potential district by address along with their contributing or noncontributing status. An eligibility statement should be prepared that articu- lates the evaluation process and eligibility recommendation; it is included in the overall survey documentation (see Sec- tion F). The eligibility statement for a district should include the following: • National Register area of significance (e.g. Criterion A: Community Planning and Development); • National Register level of significance: local, state, or national; • Period of significance; • Narrative statement of significance, including a historic context that conveys the importance of the district at the local or regional level, and discussion of comparison dis- tricts, if necessary; • Narrative statement of integrity; • List of properties and contributing or noncontributing status; • Narrative description of historic boundary, including jus- tification; and • Map delineating historic district boundary. 2. Evaluation Methodology: Individual Properties As with historic districts, the evaluation of an individual resource builds upon prior information from the field sur- vey, research, and context development. This information is analyzed against the National Register Criteria and results in an eligibility recommendation. If the resource conveys sig- nificance under the National Register Criteria and retains historic integrity, it is considered eligible for listing in the National Register. See Section E.5 for more information on integrity. An eligibility statement should be prepared that articulates the evaluation process and eligibility recommendation; it is included in the overall survey documentation (see Section F). The eligibility statement for an individual resource should include the following: • National Register area of significance (e.g., Criterion A: Community Planning and Development); • National Register level of significance: local, state, or national; • Period of significance; • Narrative statement of significance, including a historic context that conveys the importance of the resource at the local or regional level, and discussion of comparison prop- erties, if necessary; • Narrative statement of integrity; • Narrative description of historic boundary, including jus- tification; and • Map delineating property boundary. 3. National Register Criterion A As defined in the National Register Bulletin, Criterion A relates to the association with events or trends that have made a significant contribution to the broad historical patterns of the country, state, or region. There are many influences on national trends in housing, including government legislation and loan programs, social history, and community planning 12 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, National Register Bulletin, 42. It is important to note that for postwar properties the period of significance may extend beyond the National Register’s 50-year guidance.

29 and development, that may relate to the development of a neighborhood, subdivision, or individual property during the postwar period. In accordance with the Historic Residential Suburbs in the United States, 1830-1960 Multiple Property Document (His- toric Residential Suburbs MPD), Criterion A applies when:13 • A neighborhood reflects an important trend in the devel- opment and growth of a locality or metropolitan area; • A suburb represents an important event or association, such as the expansion of housing associated with wartime industries during World War II, or the racial integration of suburban neighborhoods in the 1950s;14 • A neighborhood is associated with the heritage of social, economic, racial, or ethnic groups important in history or a locality or metropolitan area; and • A suburb is associated with a group of individuals, includ- ing merchants, industrialists, educators, and community leaders, important in the history and development of a locality or metropolitan area. Although the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD only dis- cusses the application of Criterion A to suburbs constructed through 1960, the same criteria can readily be applied to a more defined and expanded period of postwar housing devel- opment, from 1946 to 1975, for neighborhoods, subdivisions, and individual residences. To be eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, a direct and significant association with one or more National Register areas of significance should be established for an indi- vidual residence or a grouping of residences (neighborhood or subdivision). Postwar housing is a significant national trend in housing; however, mere association with this time period is not sufficient to meet National Register Criteria. For example, the fact that a house or neighborhood is associated with the postwar period because it was constructed following World War II does not provide enough contextual informa- tion within which to evaluate its relative importance, even at the local level, or to demonstrate significance under Cri- terion A. The building or neighborhood should demonstrate a particular and significant aspect of the postwar housing themes as identified in the historic context to be eligible for the National Register. The historic context developed for an area will assist in identifying the history and important themes and events that may be associated with a neighborhood or individual residence. In addition, the house or neighborhood should be differen- tiated from other similar examples. Not all postwar houses and neighborhoods can be significant examples of the response to housing needs following World War II. It should be under- stood and demonstrated that an individual residence or district is an important example representing the area of significance if there are similar properties or groups in the area. To iden- tify relative importance among similar properties, refer to the historic context and consider whether the neighborhood or property is: • One of the firsts of its type; • A model that influenced other property development; • A subdivision that introduced a new concept; and • Distinctive from others and why. A number of National Register areas of significance under Criterion A, as identified in the National Register Bulle- tins, may relate to residential postwar housing. Eligibility is derived from a demonstrated significance at the local, state, or national level, to one of the identified National Register areas of significance. It is common that more than one area of significance related to Criterion A may apply to a neighbor- hood. It is expected that neighborhoods or groups of houses are more likely than individual residences to be found eligible applying Criterion A, as groups of houses are more likely to demonstrate the areas of significance. Individual residences may be eligible under Criterion A, but it is often more chal- lenging for a single property to demonstrate a trend or pattern of association. To be eligible, a property should demonstrate the area of significance and also retain sufficient integrity to represent the area of significance (see Section E.5 for further discussion on integrity). Areas of significance most likely found to be applicable to postwar housing are outlined in the following sections, with specific examples of properties that have been listed in or determined eligible for the National Register. Additional areas that are less likely to apply are also identified. a. Area of Significance: Community Planning and Development Community Planning and Development is defined in the National Register Bulletins as “the design or development of the physical structure of communities.”15 It is further defined 13 Linda Flint McClelland, David Ames, and Sarah Dillard Pope, His- toric Residential Suburbs in the United States 1830-1960, National Reg- ister Multiple Property Document, F-58, F-59. The Historic Residential Suburbs MPD was developed in tandem with the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin. The MPD provides the framework for listing proper- ties in the National Register. 14 Note that the example of association with wartime industries dur- ing World War II pre-dates the study period for this report. However, housing associated with industries during the 1946 to 1975 study period may be significant applying Criterion A. 15 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 40.

30 in the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD as an area of signifi- cance that: . . . recognizes the contribution a neighborhood makes to the historic growth and development of the city, for example, by providing much-needed housing to serve a local industry or by introducing a concept of community planning that influenced subsequent patterns of local or metropolitan development.16 The area of significance under Criterion A includes the influence of developers or municipalities on subdivision planning and land use, such as the developer’s initiation of an important trend that led to the growth of a locality or suburban area. It should be noted that Community Planning and Development is also an area of significance under Crite- rion C, which “applies to areas reflecting important patterns of physical development, land division, or land use.”17 Under Criterion C, it is manifested more in the design aspect and physical layout of a development (see Section E.4). Community Planning and Development as an area of significance is often interrelated with another area of sig- nificance: Social History. Both areas of significance relate to neighborhood planning principles that influence residential growth and human lifeways. These two areas of significance are most frequently applied to residential neighborhoods and subdivisions of the postwar period and cited in National Reg- ister Nominations. When considering the application of Criterion A: Com- munity Planning and Development, the following questions may assist in determining if a property possesses significance related to this theme:18 • Is the subdivision or residence important in the devel- opment of the community or region as an innovative or trendsetting response to community planning? • Did an important local or metropolitan trend in subdivi- sion development originate in the subdivision? • Did a particular subdivision develop in response to hous- ing shortages following World War II and introduce new planning ideas, or did it influence other developments or community planning? • Was the subdivision associated with a particular industry during its development or was it associated with a signifi- cant local event? The following National Register-listed and -eligible dis- tricts and individual properties demonstrate the application of Criterion A: Community Planning and Development: Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia. The Collier Heights Historic District (see Figures 41, 48, and 53) demonstrates significance in the area of Commu- nity Planning and Development for its neighborhood layout, including “all the prevailing suburban amenities including single-family Ranch and Split-level houses, large and infor- mally landscaped lots, subdivisions with curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, nearby neighborhood services including schools, churches, and parks, and restrictions on through traffic and incompatible land uses.”19 North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, Iowa. The North Fellows Historic District (see Figures 42 and 60) is eli- gible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A “as a good example of the residential building boom that occurred as World War II veterans returned to their com- munities, married, and started families.”20 The North Fellows Historic District was one of the first two developments in the city built following World War II. Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District (see Figures 43, 51, and 63) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A “as the first mid-20th century suburban residential development intended for middle-to-upper mid- dle class white homeowners outside the Savannah city limits 16 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-59. 17 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-60. 18 Some questions adapted from Dianna Litvak, Post World War II Resi- dential Development Abutting the US36 Highway Corridor, Addendum Report (Colorado Department of Transportation, 2009), 29-30. Figure 41. Ranch and Split-level houses in the National Register-listed Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). 19 Richard Cloues, Collier Heights Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-27. This district is significant in multiple areas of signif- icance under Criterion A: History and under Criterion C: Architecture. 20 Molly Myers Naumann, North Fellows Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-4. This district was identified as eligible in an intensive survey and a nomination was prepared; however, the nomi- nation has not yet been accepted by the NPS. This district is also sig- nificant under Criterion C: Architecture.

31 featuring the new-to-Savannah curvilinear street layout with cul-de-sacs and irregularly shaped wooded lots.”21 Virginia Heights Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia. The Virginia Heights Historic District (see Fig- ure 44) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Community Planning and Development as “a planned neigh- borhood of affordable housing that was a direct response to the large number of returning veterans to the Washington, D.C., area after World War II.”22 The cohesive plan of four small subdivisions incorporated garden city planning ideals, such as interconnecting curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, promoted by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in addition to house setbacks. Claremont Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia. The Claremont Historic District (see Figure 45) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Community Plan- ning and Development “as a planned neighborhood of afford- able housing that was a direct response to the large number of returning veterans to the Washington, D.C., area after World War II.”23 Although the neighborhood planning follows many Figure 42. Minimal Traditional houses in the North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, Iowa, constructed c.1945 (photograph courtesy of Molly Myers Naumann and the State Historic Preservation Office of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs). Figure 43. Ranch and Split-level house in the Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). 21 Richard Cloues and Robert Ciuecevich, Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-15. This district is also significant under Criterion C: Architecture. 22 EHT Traceries, Inc., Virginia Heights Historic District National Reg- ister Nomination, 8-32. This district is also significant under Crite- rion C: Architecture. Figure 44. House in the Virginia Heights Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia, that reflects the response to the demand for postwar housing in the Washington, D.C., area (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 45. Claremont Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia. Although some of the homes have replacement siding and windows, as a collection, the district is able to convey significance as a planned neighborhood of affordable housing (Mead & Hunt photograph). 23 EHT Traceries, Inc., Claremont Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-104. This district is also significant under Criterion C: Architecture.

32 of the FHA standards, the exclusion of amenities, such as shopping centers and schools, demonstrates the housing shortage following World War II and efforts to keep up with demand. Indian Village Historic District in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Indian Village Historic District (see Figure 46) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Community Plan- ning and Development “as a significant example of a revolu- tionary period in 20th century subdivision development that demonstrates the national policy shift to the support of home ownership for the middle class, the federal government’s establishment of minimum standards for small homes, the emergence of construction techniques such as prefabrication and site fabrication, and the growth of the automobile sub- urb.”24 Although platting of the district began in the 1920s with some residential construction, the majority of homes in the district (95 percent) were built from 1945 to 1960.25 Harold and Marion Ruth Residence in Billings, Montana. The Ruth Residence (see Figure 47), constructed in 1956 and listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Community Planning and Development, is “representative of a process where people increasingly moved from the city into the sub- urbs and outlying areas around the city as economic pros- perity and improved transportation allowed them to relocate to areas of their choosing.”26 This economic prosperity and the automobile allowed for an exodus to rural areas, and the Ruth Residence demonstrates this new trend in suburban development outside the traditional urban area in Montana. b. Area of Significance: Social History Social History is defined in the National Register Bulletin as “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups.”27 It is further defined in the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD as an area of significance that “recognizes the contribution of a his- toric neighborhood to the improvement of living conditions through the introduction of an innovative type of housing or neighborhood planning principles, or the extension of the American dream of suburban life or home ownership to an increasing broad spectrum of Americans.”28 This area of sig- nificance may also demonstrate trends in choices of residential location and demographics. Residences developed to respond to changes in lifestyles and family needs following World War II may be eligible under Social History. As an area of significance, Social History often overlaps with another area of significance: Community Planning and Development (see above). When considering the application of Criterion A: Social History, the following questions may assist in determining if a property possesses significance related to this theme:29 • Does the subdivision or neighborhood demonstrate the accomplishment of the American dream of homeowner- ship for a distinct group of individuals? Figure 46. Postwar Ranch residences in the Indian Village Historic District in Fort Wayne, Indiana (photograph courtesy of Margaret E. Caviston, ARCH, Inc.). Figure 47. Harold and Marion Ruth Residence in Billings, Montana, as it appeared c.1965 (photograph courtesy of Jon Axline, Montana Department of Transportation). 24 John Warner, Indian Village Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-17. This district is also significant under Criterion C: Architecture. 25 Warner, 7-2 and 7-3. 26 Jon Axline, Harold and Marion Ruth Residence National Register Nomination, 8-1. This house is also significant under Criterion C: Architecture. 27 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 41. 28 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-59. 29 Questions adapted from Litvak, 29-30.

33 • Does the subdivision have a model or housing type con- sidered to be locally, regionally, or nationally innovative in improving living conditions? • Was the neighborhood associated with important local events that have an important role in suburban growth and development? The following National Register-listed and -eligible districts and individual properties demonstrate the application of Cri- terion A: Social History: Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia. The Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta (see Figures 41, 48, and 53) is also listed in the National Register under Crite- rion A in the Social History area of significance. Intertwined with the theme of Ethnic Heritage, the residential Collier Heights Historic District represents the area of Social History when “the way in which the newly emerging and economi- cally empowered African American middle and upper-middle classes at mid-century developed their own version of the sub- urban ‘American Dream’.’’30 The nomination recognizes the uniqueness of the development of this residential subdivision. Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood, Colorado. Arapahoe Acres in Englewood, Colorado (see Figures 49 and 62), built from 1949 to 1957, is listed in the National Register under Criterion A “for its social history, displaying new pat- terns of residential development which emerged in response to the family housing needs of hundreds of thousands of mil- itary personnel resuming civilian life after the war.”31 The dis- trict also “reflects a new class egalitarianism which emerged in the post-war years, providing homes in a variety of sizes and purchase prices to produce a more diverse community for families of varying size and financial resources.”32 In addi- tion, “as an alternative to traditional architectural styles and plans which dominated the post-war home buying market, Arapahoe Acres illustrates the nationwide struggle to success- fully achieve full FHA/GI Bill funding for homes designed in modern styles, revealing the influence of the Federal govern- ment in suppressing modern residential design in post-war America.”33 Greenbelt Knoll Historic District in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Greenbelt Knoll Historic District (see Figure 50) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A “for association with the development of integrated housing in Philadelphia during the post-World War II period.”34 This Figure 48. Hermann J. Russell Ranch house, constructed in 1963 and located in the National Register-listed Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). 30 Cloues, 8-27. 31 Diane Wray Tomasso, Arapahoe Acres Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-27. This district is also significant under Crite- rion C: Architecture. Figure 49. Postwar residences in the Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood, Colorado (photograph courtesy of Diane Wray Tomasso). 32 Tomasso, 8-49. 33 Tomasso, 8-49. 34 Charles Fuller and Art Friedman, Greenbelt Knoll Historic District National Register Nomination, 8-7. Figure 50. Residence in Greenbelt Knoll Historic District in Philadelphia (photograph courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office).

34 neighborhood was the second of a regional developer’s inte- grated housing developments. It was one of a few success- ful housing developments to integrate working and middle classes and one of only eight mentioned in a 1960 national study on privately developed interracial housing.35 Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District (see Figures 43, 51, and 63) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Social History for the Fairway Oaks Asso- ciation, which was among the earliest non-profit neighbor- hood organizations to be founded in the city and the state. The association funded improvements within the subdivi- sion, including a sewerage system, street paving, and a neigh- borhood park with a clubhouse.36 Bishop Family Lustron in Glenville, New York. The Bishop Family Lustron House in Glenville (see Figure 52) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Social History for its “direct linkage to the Town of Glenville’s tran- sition from farming community to thriving suburb in the post WWII period.”37 “The house is a reflection of the social attitudes and aspirations of the emerging middle class.”38 It is recognized as the best surviving Lustron in the Town of Glenville and one of the best preserved Lustrons in the state. c. Area of Significance: Ethnic Heritage Ethnic Heritage is defined in the National Register Bulle- tins as “the history of persons having a common ethnic or racial identity.”39 It is further defined in the Historic Residen- tial Suburbs MPD as an area of significance that “recognizes the significant association of a historic neighborhood with a particular ethnic or racial group.”40 The significance may be seen in trends in racial, ethnic, or religious segregation through restrictive covenants, sales, or financing. When considering the application of Criterion A: Ethnic Heritage, consider the following question to determine if a property possesses significance related to this theme:41 • Does the neighborhood, subdivision, or residence dem- onstrate an association with an ethnic group and dem- onstrate a response to segregation, restrictive covenants, or other issues with financing or home ownership? The following sections discuss National Register-listed dis- tricts that demonstrate the application of Criterion A: Ethnic Heritage. Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia. In the area of Ethnic Heritage, Collier Heights (see Figures 41, 48, and 53) “is a premier example of such a mid-20th century suburb built to meet the rising expectations of an emerging and economically empowered middle and upper-middle class of African Americans eager and able to fully participate in and benefit from new lifestyle opportunities in suburbia.”42 The Figure 51. Early 1960s Ranch houses in the Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). Figure 52. Bishop Family Lustron House in Glenville, New York, erected in 1949 (photograph courtesy of Kimberly Konrad Alvarez, Landmark Consulting LLC/ NYS Lustron Project Coordinator). 35 The nomination states that it was not possible to identify all eight housing developments mentioned in the book. Eunice Grier and George Grier, Privately Developed Inter-Racial Housing: An Analysis of Experi- ence, Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960). This district is also signifi- cant under Criterion B: Significant Person and Criterion C: Architecture. 36 Cloues and Ciuecevich, 8-15. 37 Daniel McEneny, Bishop Family Lustron House National Register Nomination, 8-1. This property is also significant under Criterion C: Architecture. 38 McEneny, 8-4. 39 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 40. 40 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-59. 41 Question adapted from Litvak, 29-30. 42 Cloues, 8-27.

35 nomination recognizes the uniqueness of the development of this residential subdivision. Bennett Avenue Historic District in Richmond Heights, Missouri. The Bennett Avenue Historic District (see Fig- ure 54) is listed in the National Register under Criterion A: Ethnic Heritage. It contributes to St. Louis County’s African American history as a neighborhood that “was established by and for African Americans during the 1940s-1960s as a mod- ern suburban development. Today the neighborhood sym- bolizes the struggle for fair and equal housing in St. Louis County, Missouri—one that continued well into the twenti- eth century.”43 d. Additional Areas of Significance Other areas of significance may apply to postwar resi- dential housing on a more limited basis. Again, the specific historic context must support significance in order for a property to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. These areas include: • Transportation—housing related to important advances in transportation. • Government—housing related to government financing, adherence to government standards, or the institution of zoning by local governments. • Economics—postwar building boom affected social his- tory and economics. • Education or Medicine—housing built to accommodate an educational institution or medical facilities. • Industry—housing built to house workers or developed in response to a housing need caused by industry. • Natural Resources—housing that relates to available water and relationship to prior land use (such as the conversion of a farm/ranch to a subdivision). 4. National Register Criterion C As defined in the National Register Bulletins, Criterion C relates to the physical design or construction of a property. For a property or district to be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, it must meet one of the following criteria:44 • Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; • Represent the work of a master; • Possess high artistic value; and • Represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (historic districts). As outlined in the National Register Bulletins, distinctive characteristics are the “physical features or traits that com- monly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true rep- resentative of a particular type, period, or method of con- struction.”45 It is not necessary for properties to represent high-style forms or the work of noted architects. Rather, Figure 53. House in the Collier Heights Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Sandy Lawrence, Georgia Department of Transportation). Figure 54. Bennett Avenue Historic District in Richmond Heights, Missouri. Although some of the homes display exterior alterations, as a whole the district is able to convey significance (photograph courtesy of Toni Prawl, Missouri Department of Transportation). 43 Ruth Keenoy and Joellen Gamp McDonald, Clayton Park Addition Historic District [Preferred Name-Bennett Avenue Historic District] National Register Nomination, 8-13. 44 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 17. 45 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 18.

36 postwar properties may be eligible as intact examples of post- war architectural styles and forms if they meet the criteria and integrity requirements. Criterion C is the most likely criterion to be applied to individual postwar residential resources and subdivisions. Although architect-designed and high-style examples of postwar residences may qualify as the work of a master or for high artistic value, the majority of traditional and vernacular postwar residential properties will be significant for embody- ing distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Groups of postwar properties that lack individ- ual distinction yet represent a significant and distinguishable entity may be eligible as a historic district. In accordance with the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD, Criterion C applies when:46 • A collection of residential architecture is an important example of a distinctive period of construction, method of construction, or the work of more notable architects. • A suburb represents the principles of design important in the history of community planning and landscape archi- tecture, or is the work of a master landscape architect, site planner, or design firm. • A subdivision embodies high artistic values through its overall plan or the design of the entranceways, streets, homes, and community spaces. Although the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD only dis- cusses the application of Criterion C to suburbs constructed through 1960, the same criteria can readily be applied to a more defined and expanded period of housing from 1946 to 1975. More than one area of significance may relate to indi- vidual properties or historic districts. For example, a sub- division that resulted from the collaborative efforts of real estate developers, architects, and landscape architects may have significance in the areas of Community Planning and Development, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture.47 In addition, individual properties and historic districts may also meet National Register Criterion A areas of significance (see the Criterion A discussion in Section E.3). Three National Register areas of significance under Crite- rion C, as identified in the National Register Bulletins, typically relate to residential postwar housing: Architecture, Commu- nity Planning and Development, and Landscape Architecture. Eligibility is derived from demonstrated significance at the local, state, or national level. To be eligible, a property must serve as an important example within the context and retain sufficient integrity to represent the area of significance (see Section E.5. for further discussion on integrity). Due to the ubiquity of postwar residential architecture, properties will typically be significant at the local level; however, some prop- erties may also have significance at the state level. Eligible properties should retain historic integrity, character- defining features, and architectural elements (as defined in Section G.3 of Chapter 4) that characterize the style or form. Not all intact postwar residences are significant either indi- vidually or collectively as examples of architectural forms and styles from the period. Conversely, within a specific geo- graphic area, more than one postwar residence or district may be eligible for the same area of significance. It should be understood and demonstrated that an individual residence or district is an intact and distinguishable representation of the historic context and period of significance. The three areas of significance most likely to be found to be applicable to postwar housing are outlined below, along with specific examples of properties that have been listed in or determined eligible for the National Register. a. Area of Significance: Architecture Architecture is defined in the National Register Bulletin as “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.”48 As an area of significance under Criterion C, Architecture applies “when significant qualities are embodied in the design, style, or method of con- struction of buildings and structures.”49 To be individually eligible, postwar resources should embody a distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of con- struction. To demonstrate significance, individual properties should retain enough distinct characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. Properties may be significant as an example of the popular architectural styles or forms from the postwar period if they display key character-defining features and if they are important within the context of the community or region (see Section G.3 in Chapter 4 for a discussion of archi- tectural styles and forms). A comparison with similar postwar properties within the community is necessary to determine if the individual property is a distinguishable example of the type, period, or method of construction. Early postwar properties that influenced residential archi- tecture within a community or region and properties that represent the innovative use of designs or materials from this 46 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-60. Although properties may meet Criterion C as the work of a master, the properties covered under this methodology are vernacular or traditional in nature and not designed by recognized architects. 47 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-60. 48 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 40. 49 Ames and McClelland, 99.

37 period of residential development may also meet Criterion C: Architecture. To convey that a specific property influenced postwar residential architecture or represents an innovation in design or materials, a historic context should be developed and used to clearly link the property to such influences or innovations. Several prefabricated housing companies experienced great success in the postwar era, with thousands of their homes erected across the country. Some of these companies relied on standardized construction materials (e.g., dimensional lumber) that were developed and widely accepted prior to the postwar period. The stressed-skin plywood construction methods utilized by Gunnison Homes and National Homes exemplify a standardized system employed in large numbers throughout the country both before and after World War II. As a result, an individual Gunnison Home or National Home residence is not an important example of prefabricated hous- ing during the postwar period (see Figure 55). Other prefab- ricated companies were innovative, yet less proliferate with their standardization methods, and had only a limited num- ber of homes produced. For example, the Lustron Corpora- tion erected approximately 2,500 houses nationwide during the brief time the company was in operation. An intact Lus- tron may be significant for representing the relatively rare and innovative system of panelized prefabricated housing using steel framing and porcelain enamel coated steel panels employed by the company during the postwar era (see Fig- ure 56). Individual examples of prefabricated housing from local or regional companies may also be considered signifi- cant within the local context. Likewise, an individual house that was used to test the development of a prefabricated housing system in the postwar period may represent innova- tions. Collections of prefabricated houses that are significant within their context should be considered as potential his- toric districts. Collections of properties that represent “a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individ- ual distinction” may also meet Criterion C: Architecture as a historic district.50 As is the case with an individual property, groups of properties must stand out amongst other examples within the community or region to be considered eligible. Due to the large number of postwar subdivisions and neigh- borhoods found in many communities nationwide, they should be compared with other subdivisions and neighbor- hoods to determine if they are important within the context of postwar residential architecture in the community or region. The historic context should identify local develop- ment patterns, which will provide guidance for determining significance under this criterion. It is unlikely that vernacular or traditional postwar resi- dences will meet Criterion C: Architecture as the work of a master or for possessing high artistic value. However, indi- vidual residences or subdivisions may have significance as the work of a noted architect who is significant or influential in the community or region. As outlined in the National Reg- ister Bulletin, to meet the Criterion C the property should reflect a particular phase or aspect of an architect’s work or a particular idea in their theme or craft. Mere association with a recognized architect is not enough.51 Research efforts and the historic context should identify if individual properties or subdivisions are associated with significant local architects and if the properties are important examples of their work. Figure 55. Prefabricated Gunnison Homes residence in Omaha, Nebraska, erected c.1955, that individually does not represent innovations in postwar residential prefabrication since the construction materials were already widely accepted (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 56. Lustron House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, erected c.1948 (Mead & Hunt photograph). 50 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 17. 51 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 20.

38 The following sections discuss National Register-listed, -eligible, and -evaluated districts and individual properties that demonstrate the application of Criterion C: Architecture. Lustron House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This Lustron house (see Figure 56) is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture as an intact example of this prefabricated house type, which represents significant innovations in prefabricated housing in the postwar era.52 Erected c.1948, the house illustrates the distinctive features of the property type, including the enameled steel exte- rior panels, roof panels, “modern” windows, and recessed entrance. Joseph and Mary Jane League House in Macon, Georgia. The Joseph and Mary Jane League House (see Figure 57) is listed in the National Register under Criterion C: Architec- ture as an early and exceptional example of a Contemporary style residence. Its low form, H-shaped footprint, zoned inte- rior, open-space plan, building materials, and integration of indoor spaces with outdoor landscaping all reflect up-to-date Ranch-house design nationally and, along with a small group of similar houses in Atlanta, set precedents for mid-twentieth- century Ranch-house design in Georgia.53 The house also has significance in this area as the work of an accomplished Georgia architect. Russell and Jeanette Williams House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The Russell and Jeanette Williams House (see Figure 58) is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture.54 Constructed in 1955, the house is an intact example of the Contemporary style and displays several distinguishing features that set it apart from other Contemporary homes in the community. These features include the low-pitched roof with a deep eave overhang and exposed beams, large picture windows that dominate the front facade, stone veneer accents, wide exterior chimney, and attached breezeway and garage. Eastridge Historic District in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Eastridge Historic District (see Figure 59) is eligible for list- ing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture. The neighborhood includes a concentration of architect- designed residences known as “Trendhomes” that were developed based on studies of what local homeowners wanted in a modern home. This concentration of Ranch and Split-level homes reflects the innovations in residential architecture developed by Lincoln builders and architects to meet the needs of Lincoln residents in the years follow- ing World War II.55 Figure 57. Joseph and Mary Jane League House in Macon, Georgia, constructed in 1950 (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). 52 Mead & Hunt, Inc., Historic Resources Survey, City of Oshkosh, Wis- consin (Prepared for the City of Oshkosh, Wis., 2006), 33. 53 Richard Cloues and Leslie N. Sharp, Joseph and Mary Jane League House National Register Nomination, 10. This house is also significant under Criterion B: Significant Person for its association within the con- text of Women’s History in Georgia and Criterion C: Architecture. Figure 58. Contemporary style Russell and Jeanette Williams House in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, constructed in 1955 (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 59. Ranch dwellings in the Eastridge Historic District in Lincoln, Nebraska, constructed c.1953. Carports are located prominently on the front facades (Mead & Hunt photograph). 54 Mead & Hunt, Inc. Historic Resources Survey, City of Oshkosh, Wis- consin, 36. 55 Mead & Hunt, Inc. Survey Findings Report Eastridge Neighborhood, Lincoln, Nebraska (Prepared for the City of Lincoln, Neb., 2006), 6.

39 North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, Iowa. The North Fellows Historic District (see Figures 42 and 60) is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C: Archi- tecture. It is a collection of modest brick houses that typified the “minimum” house type developed and promoted by the FHA during the 1930s and into the postwar period. Overall, the homes retain a high degree of integrity and are eligible for representing a distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. As stated in the National Reg- ister Nomination, “This ‘minimum house’ concept allowed millions of people to attain the American Dream of home ownership.”56 Blackhawk Park Historic District, Madison, Wisconsin. The Blackhawk Park Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture as a good example of prefabricated homes erected during the postwar era (see Figure 61). The district contains a collection of 145 modest single-family homes produced by Wisconsin- based Harnischfeger Homes, Inc., and erected by a local devel- oper between 1950 and 1951. They were intended to provide rental housing during a time of housing shortages in Madi- son, and the majority of units were occupied within months of construction completion. The district retains a high degree of integrity and all of the original homes remain as single- family dwellings.57 b. Area of Significance: Community Planning and Development As previously discussed in the section on Criterion A, Community Planning and Development is defined in the National Register Bulletin as “the design or development of the physical structure of communities.”58 It is important to note that Community Planning and Development is also an area of significance under Criterion C. As outlined in the Historic Residential Suburbs MPD, Community Planning and Development may apply to residential historic suburbs under Criterion C that reflect “important patterns of physical devel- opment, land division, or land use.”59 Postwar properties that meet Criterion C: Community Planning and Development will likely be grouped within subdivisions and neighborhoods that are able to convey patterns of land use and development and are better evaluated as districts. It differs from Criterion A, which emphasizes the trends in development and subdivision planning, as opposed to the physical features. When considering the application of Criterion C: Commu- nity Planning and Development, the following questions may assist in determining if a property or district possesses signifi- cance related to this theme.60 Research and the historic con- text must be used to convey this significance and determine if other properties or districts better represent this theme. • Does the subdivision, neighborhood, or residence con- vey historic design principles related to community development? Figure 60. Minimal Traditional houses in the North Fellows Historic District in Ottumwa, Iowa, constructed c.1945. Although some of the homes display exterior alterations, as a whole the district is able to convey significance (photograph courtesy of Molly Myers Naumann and the State Historic Preservation Office of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs). 56 Naumann, 8-4. 57 Elizabeth Miller, Blackhawk Park Historic District Determination of Eligibility. Unpublished document prepared for Wisconsin Depart- ment of Transportation, 2010, n.p. Available at the Wisconsin Depart- ment of Transportation Environmental Services Section. Figure 61. Harnischfeger house in the Blackhawk Park Historic District in Madison, Wisconsin, one of 145 prefabricated homes erected between 1950 and 1951 (Mead & Hunt photograph). 58 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 40. 59 McClelland, Ames, and Pope, F-60. 60 Litvak, 30.

40 • Does the subdivision or neighborhood plan reflect impor- tant advances, established principles, or popular trends in community planning? • Did the subdivision, neighborhood, or residence win an award or receive recognition from professional, trade, architectural, or housing research organizations? • Did the subdivision or neighborhood introduce patterns of subdivision design, housing, financing, or building practices that became influential in the local community or regional area? The following listed National Register districts demonstrate the application of Criterion C: Community Planning and Development: Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood, Colorado. The Arapahoe Acres Historic District (see Figures 49 and 62) is listed in the National Register under Criterion C: Commu- nity Planning and Development. It is significant for “displaying important modern concepts in residential site development and neighborhood planning.”61 The subdivision layout broke from the established traditional grid pattern in the commu- nity and was designed to include curvilinear streets that fol- lowed the existing grade of the land. As a result, lots varied in size, and the individual homes were oriented for privacy and to take advantage of existing mountain views. Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia. The Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District (see Figures 43, 51, and 63) is listed in the National Register under Criterion C: Community Planning and Development. It is one of the first Savannah subdivisions “to break with the traditional ‘pre-war’ mode of planning and to adopt all the elements of the FHA’s preferred pattern of residential development.”62 As it was laid out in 1950, the neighborhood broke from the standard grid system with uniform lots to include a series of curvilinear streets and wooded lots of varying shapes and sizes. c. Area of Significance: Landscape Architecture Landscape Architecture is defined in the National Register Bulletins as “the practical art of designing or arranging the land for human use and enjoyment.”63 As described in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin, it “applies when significant quali- ties are embodied in the overall design or plan of the suburb and the artistic design of landscape features such as paths, roadways, parks, and vegetation.”64 Neighborhoods and/or subdivisions may have significance for Landscape Architecture if they have special features that reflect design of the period, including tree plantings, street lighting, landscaped yards and open spaces, scenic vistas, roadways and entrances, or conser- vation of natural features. Although it is most likely that Land- scape Architecture significance will apply to historic suburbs and districts, it may also apply to individual postwar residences that retain a designed landscape from the historic period. Individual properties and subdivisions may also have sig- nificance for an association with a noted landscape architect Figure 62. Contemporary style house with an integrated carport in the Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood, Colorado (photograph courtesy of Diane Wray Tomasso). 61 Tomasso, 8-27. The district is also significant under Criterion A in the area of Social History and under Criterion C in the areas of Architec- ture and Landscape Architecture. Figure 63. Entrance sign at the Fairway Oaks- Greenview Historic District in Savannah, Georgia (photograph courtesy of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division). 62 Cloues and Ciuecevich, 17. The district is also significant under Cri- terion A in the area of Social History and under Criterion C in the areas of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. 63 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Regis- tration Form, 40. 64 Ames and McClelland, 99.

41 who is significant or influential in the community or region. The property should reflect a particular phase or aspect of a landscape architect’s work or a particular idea in their theme or craft. Mere association with a recognized landscape archi- tect is not enough.65 Research efforts and the historic context should identify if an individual property or subdivision is associated with a significant local landscape architect and if it best represents that architect’s work. The following section discusses a National Register-listed district that demonstrates the application of Criterion C: Landscape Architecture. Arapahoe Acres Historic District in Englewood, Colorado. The Arapahoe Acres Historic District (see Fig- ures 49 and 62) is listed in the National Register under Crite- rion C: Landscape Architecture. It is significant for “integrating the landscape and environment to create a neighborhood of remarkable visual continuity.”66 Rather than re-grading the lots within the subdivision, the landscape architect retained the existing grade and the “community was designed so that the landscape is integral to individual homes, joins multi- ple homes with shared landscape features, and unifies the 123 individually designed homes into a visually cohesive, park-like whole.”67 5. Integrity Requirements After determining if an individual property or historic dis- trict has significance under the National Register Criteria, it is necessary to assess whether the property or district retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Reg- ister Criteria for Evaluation defines historic integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”68 The evalu- ation of integrity can be a subjective judgment, but it should be grounded in an understanding of a property or district’s physical features and how such features relate to significance as established through the historic context. The following guidance provides for the integrity evaluation of individual postwar residences and residential historic districts in a con- sistent manner. a. Aspects of Integrity Within the concept of integrity, the National Register Criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property should possess several, and usually most, of these aspects. Due to the ubiquity of postwar homes, a higher degree of integrity should be required for individual resi- dences and historic districts to differentiate those resources that are able to convey significant historic associations or dis- tinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction. The seven aspects of integrity are the following: 1. Design—The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. 2. Materials—The physical elements that were used in the original design and construction. 3. Workmanship—The physical evidence of the crafts used in the construction of a property. 4. Location—The place where the historic property was con- structed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5. Setting—The physical environment of a historic property. 6. Feeling—An expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 7. Association—The direct link between an important his- toric event or person and a historic property. The following sections discuss in more detail the seven aspects of integrity as they apply to individual postwar resi- dences and potential historic districts. Design. Integrity of design is revealed through the com- bination of elements that create the form, plan, style, and spatial organization of a property or district. In a historic subdivision or neighborhood, the arrangement of houses, lots, yards, and streets comprise the design. Street plant- ings, parks, and other open spaces may be present as design features within a historic district. The Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin notes a distinction between planned subdi- visions and unplanned neighborhoods: Design may have resulted from conscious planning decisions set forth in the historic plat, project specifications, building con- tracts or deed restrictions, or it may be the result of the per- sonal tastes and individual efforts of homeowners to shape their domestic environment.69 Changes to the size of housing lots and additions or altera- tions to individual houses can affect the integrity of design. Street pattern and land use changes can also alter the design 65 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 20. 66 Tomasso, 8-27. As previously mentioned, the district is also signifi- cant under Criterion A in the area of Social History and under Cri- terion C in the areas of Architecture and Community Planning and Development. 67 Tomasso, 8-50. 68 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 50. 69 Ames and McClelland, 103.

42 of a historic subdivision or neighborhood. The extent of such changes, and their cumulative effects in the case of a district, needs to be weighed. For example, a subdivision that has experienced alterations to the original street patterns, sub- divided lots, and infill development within the original green spaces no longer retains integrity of design. Location. Location is the place where the historic prop- erty or district was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. For a planned subdivision, integrity of loca- tion requires that the boundaries that historically defined the area remain intact. The size of lots and placement of streets and open space should also remain unchanged. In general, an individual residence that was relocated to a new site no longer retains integrity of location. Workmanship and Materials. These two aspects of integrity recognize the physical elements used in the origi- nal design and construction, and the physical evidence of the crafts used in construction. Workmanship reflects the labor and craftsmanship skills of artisans. With the increasing stan- dardization and industrialization of design and construction during the twentieth century, the use of crafts became rare and is unlikely to be a significant aspect of integrity for prop- erties of the subject period. Construction materials vary from those that are man-made and used in buildings, roads, side- walks, and fences to the natural vegetation planted in yards, terraces, and gardens. Workmanship can be evident in how materials have been used to create a landscaped setting, such as planters and pathways, or architectural elements. Residential construction materials include those used for exterior walls, fenestration, roofs, and architectural elements. Cladding is the primary visible construction material and a distinctive feature of many postwar residences. It is also one of the most common exterior alterations to postwar houses. The original cladding materials used on many postwar homes, such as asbestos-based siding that was discovered to be unsafe, were commonly removed or encapsulated. Although installa- tion of modern siding materials, such as horizontal vinyl, has less adverse effect when it visually approximates the house’s original material and design, replacement of historic siding with modern materials greatly diminishes the integrity of materials. For example, an individual postwar residence that has had the original wide-lap clapboard replaced with narrow- gauge vinyl siding no longer retains integrity of materials. It is important to note that aluminum siding was developed and heavily promoted during the postwar period and may be original to the property. In this instance it should not be con- sidered as a loss of integrity. Other non-compatible replace- ment siding materials may include replacement cedar siding, vinyl shingles, and modern stone veneer, such as lava rock, that is inconsistent with the historic appearance. As outlined in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin, houses may be considered contributing to a historic district “where new siding: (1) visually imitates the historic material; (2) has been thoughtfully applied without destroying and obscuring significant details; and (3) is not accompanied by other alterations that substantially or cumulatively affect the building’s historic character.”70 However, in a historic dis- trict significant under Criterion C: Architecture, the majority of houses should retain the original exterior construction materials.71 For example, several Minimal Traditional homes within the National Register-listed Virginia Heights Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia, have replacement siding that replicates the original clapboard siding and original double- hung windows have been replaced with modern windows that retain the original size and configuration (see Figure 64). Although these properties do not meet the integrity require- ments to be listed in the National Register as individual properties, they retain enough integrity to contribute to the overall historic district. Setting, Feeling, and Association. These three aspects of integrity can often be reasonably assessed together. Setting refers to the physical environment of a property and the char- acter of the place in which the property or district played its historical role. The aspect of feeling results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic period of significance. A property or district retains integrity of association if it continues to convey the important Figure 64. Minimal Traditional house, constructed in 1950, with wide-lap replacement vinyl siding that visually imitates original materials in the National Register-listed Virginia Heights Historic District in Arlington County, Virginia (Mead & Hunt photograph). 70 Ames and McClelland, 106. 71 Ames and McClelland, 104.

43 event or activity to an observer. Continued residential use can contribute to integrity of association. Historic subdivisions or neighborhoods often have a semi-rural character that is reflected through their combination of urban amenities, like streets and sidewalks, and natural features, including private yards and public parks. When present in a historic district, the retention of such a semi-rural character contributes to the integrity of setting, feeling, and association. 6. Relationship Between Area of Significance and Integrity Different aspects of integrity affect the eligibility of a property or district in different ways, depending on how each relates to the property’s significance. For example, since Criterion A relates to significance gained through historical associations, the integrity aspects of location, setting, feeling, and association weigh more heavily in evaluating a property or district. Generally, historical associations are absent when a property is moved from its original location. Integrity of design, workmanship, and materials are also important, but alterations that affect these aspects may not result in the same level of diminished integrity for structures found to be sig- nificant under Criterion A. Since Criterion C relates to the architectural significance of a property or district, the integ- rity aspects of design, workmanship, and materials are typi- cally more important when evaluating a property or district under this criterion. These features allow a building to char- acterize its type, period, or method of construction. Location and setting may be important under Criterion C when the design responds to the immediate environment. The presence of certain physical features may be more important than others depending on the reason for a prop- erty or district’s significance. The Historic Residential Sub- urbs MPD notes the link between integrity and significance as follows: Where the general plan of development has importance, integ- rity should be present in the original boundaries, circulation pat- terns of streets and walkways, and the division of housing lots. Where architectural design is of great significance, integrity will depend heavily on the design, materials and workmanship of individual houses. Elements such as roadways, the arrangement of house lots, walls, plantings, walkways, parkland, ponds, statu- ary, and fountains may likewise contribute strongly to impor- tance in landscape architecture.72 In general, the loss of important aspects of integrity would render an individual residence or district ineligible under Criteria A and C. 7. Retention of Character-defining Features An important part of establishing integrity is determining whether a property or district retains the essential physical features that are considered character-defining and enable it to convey its historic identity. Character-defining features of postwar residences are described in detail in the national historic context, included in Chapter 4. The process of estab- lishing integrity involves the following steps: (1) defining the essential physical features related to significance, (2) determin- ing if the features are retained and visible enough to convey significance, and (3) determining which aspects of integrity are important to the property’s significance and if they are present. That is, the amount of change to a property or district (i.e., its loss of integrity) needs to be weighed against its his- torical significance in making eligibility recommendations. In general, a postwar house that possesses integrity would retain all its important aspects of integrity. For an individual prop- erty significant under Criterion C: Architecture, this should include original exterior materials, architectural elements, and massing; original configuration of doors and windows; and spatial relationships within its lot and to the street. A district significant under Criterion C: Community Planning and Development should retain its overall layout, landscape features, and circulation patterns, and include a collection of buildings that convey their original character. 8. Alterations Alterations to a property or district are weighed against its character-defining features and significance to determine historic integrity. Using the period of significance as a bench- mark for evaluating resources and historic districts, altera- tions introduced after the period of significance are generally considered to negatively impact historic integrity. For a prop- erty to retain physical integrity, its present appearance should closely resemble its appearance during the time the property derived its significance. For postwar residences, alterations to materials, scale, and massing are often observed. Note that not all alterations will result in a loss of historic integrity as explained through the lists and examples of alterations included herein. However, due to the large number of resi- dences constructed during the postwar period, the integrity requirements for an individual property should be more stringent than for homes that pre-date this period of rapid residential expansion. In addition, the Secretary of the Inte- rior’s Standards for Rehabilitation may provide additional guidance when evaluating how alterations impact integrity. Postwar houses, although often designed to be small and compact, have often been enlarged with garages, family rooms, porches, or additional bedrooms. Large-scale additions to houses that resulted in additional stories or substantially altered 72 McClelland, Ames and Pope, F-65.

44 footprints diminish historic integrity. Additions that are modest in size have less effect on integrity, especially if the alteration is not visible from the primary elevation or is made to a house that contributes to a historic district rather than one considered for individual significance.73 For properties within potential his- toric districts, the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin recom- mends the following: When evaluating the extent to which the addition changes the dwelling’s individual character and the character of the streetscape of which it is a part, it is important to consider the size, scale, and design of the addition as well as its placement on the house lot. Information such as original setback require- ments, historic design guidelines, and deed restrictions may also be useful in assessing the effect of additions on historic integrity.74 When evaluating a historic district, the ultimate decision as to whether or not it retains sufficient integrity depends upon the district’s overall condition and continued ability to convey significance. For historic districts, the presence of features from outside the period of significance or absence of features from within the period of significance are additional alterations to be considered. Alterations to the spatial orga- nization of lots and neighborhoods, circulation elements and patterns, and landscape features can affect the integrity of a district.75 The following sections provide guidance on alterations to individual residences and potential historic districts. Sur- veyors should use professional judgment in evaluating each resource and district. a. Individual Residences Because they represent a property type with many similar examples in almost every community nationwide, postwar homes should be critically assessed for historic integrity. It is recommended that integrity requirements be strictly applied whereby a loss of the aspects of integrity that make the prop- erty significant may render an individual property ineligible. Alterations That Do Not Compromise Integrity. Com- mon alterations that typically do not result in diminished integrity for an individual residence include: • Small-scale additions, such as modest porches, detached garages, or garages attached to the rear of the building; • In-kind replacement of entrance doors and garage doors (see Figure 65); • Replacement windows that match the original size and configuration; • Addition of features that are easily removed, such as shut- ters or awnings; • Addition of ramps and decks, especially at the rear of the house; and • Alteration of the original landscape, including plantings and trees, modern decks and patios located on the side or rear of the property, and playground equipment or swim- ming pools (see Figure 66). It should be noted that several non-compromising altera- tions may have a cumulative effect and result in the loss of integrity. For example, a house with a small addition, modern garage door, and replacement windows is no longer able to convey its significance and is considered not eligible for list- 73 Ames and McClelland, 106. 74 Ames and McClelland, 106. 75 Ames and McClelland, 107. Figure 65. Contemporary house in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed c.1960, with a modern garage door replaced in-kind; it retains enough integrity to be considered individually eligible under Criterion C: Architecture (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 66. Contemporary house in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, constructed c.1956, with an altered door and landscape and modern pavers and plantings; it retains enough integrity to be considered individually eligible under Criterion C: Architecture (Mead & Hunt photograph).

45 ing in the National Register as an individual property (see Figure 67). Alterations That Compromise Integrity. Common alterations causing the loss of integrity through diminishment of character-defining features and therefore significance of an individual residence include: • Removal of house from original setting; • Large-scale additions that substantially add to the mass of a historic house, including attached garages that are prom- inent on the front façade; • Additions that alter the spatial relationship between the house and street; • Installation of modern siding materials, such as vinyl; • Alteration of window and door openings that are inconsis- tent with the original size and configuration; • Reconfigured front entrances, including the addition of entrance vestibules and porches; • Altered roof lines, including added dormers and second stories (see Figure 68); • Loss of character-defining features, such as deep eave over- hangs and exposed beams; • Addition of incompatible architectural elements that detract from the original style or form, such as Colonial details on a Contemporary residence; and • Enclosure of carports or incorporation of garages into interior living space (see Figure 69). It is important to note that surveyors should use profes- sional judgment and evaluate alterations, including unsym- pathetic additions, on a case-by-case basis. In some instances the alterations listed may not rule out a property for indi- vidual eligibility. b. Historic Districts The Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin describes the special considerations for assessing the historic integrity of a historic subdivision or neighborhood: Weighing overall integrity requires a knowledge of both the physical evolution of the overall district and the condition of its component elements, including the design and materials of houses, the character of streets, and spatial qualities of commu- nity parks and facilities. Those making evaluations should take into consideration the extent to which landscape characteristics remain intact or have been altered. They should also be prepared to assess the cumulative effect that multiple changes and altera- tions may have on a neighborhood’s historic integrity.76 Figure 67. Contemporary house in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, constructed c.1960, with cumulative alterations, including vinyl siding, and an altered patio; it is not considered individually eligible under Criterion C: Architecture (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 68. Ranch house in Arlington, Texas, constructed c.1965, with a modern shed dormer that alters the roofline and results in diminished integrity; it is considered not individually eligible (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 69. Contemporary residence in Omaha, Nebraska, constructed in 1954, with a modern three-car garage that replaced the historic carport; this alteration compromises the integrity, and the property is considered not individually eligible (Mead & Hunt photograph). 76 Ames and McClelland, 101.

46 A historic district should retain “the spatial organization, physical components, aspects of design, and historic associa- tions that it acquired during its period of significance.”77 The period of significance is called out as a “benchmark” against which resources should be compared to determine whether or not they contribute to a neighborhood’s history and, thus, its integrity. Alterations introduced after the period of significance are generally considered to negatively impact historic integrity. As explained in the Historic Residential Suburbs Bulletin, alterations or additions made after the period of significance can affect a house’s contributing status. Houses with modest additions that have little to no effect on the original design can still be classified as contributing. The size, scale, and design of the addition, as well as its placement on the lot, should be considered.78 A residence with replacement vinyl siding may be considered contributing if no other alterations are pres- ent and it still conveys the original appearance. Cumulative alterations for an individual property will generally result in noncontributing status within a historic district. In general, at least half of the properties in a historic district should be considered contributing for the district to be considered eli- gible for the National Register. Alterations That Do Not Compromise Integrity. Com- mon alterations that typically do not result in diminished integrity in a historic district include: • Exterior alterations to a small number of properties within the district, including siding and alterations of garages and carports (see Figures 70 and 71); • Subdivision of a small number of lots within the district; • A small amount of infill construction, especially if similar in scale; • Loss or relocation of a historic transportation system that supported the genesis of subdivision; • Loss of original plant materials, especially where vegeta- tion of a similar scale and visual effect has been retained; • Maturation of trees that obscure original vistas; • Loss of a small number of features within a historic dis- trict, which may include residences, ancillary buildings, roads, or parks; • Maintenance of streets, paths, and sidewalks, including in-kind replacement of materials; and • Small number of noncontributing properties. As with individual residences, it should be noted that sev- eral non-compromising alterations may have a cumulative effect and result in the loss of integrity for a historic district. For example, a district with several residences that have exte- rior alterations, in addition to infill construction and loss of the original transportation system, may no longer convey its significance and would be considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. Alterations That Compromise Integrity. Common alterations causing diminished integrity to a historic district include: • Changes to the size of housing lots through division or consolidation outside the period of significance; • Multiple infill properties that detract from the size and scale of buildings within a district (see Figure 72); • Loss of entire sections of a planned neighborhood; • Cumulative alterations and additions to a large number of houses (see Figure 73); • Large number of noncontributing properties; • Alteration to an internal road network or access roads resulting in changed circulation patterns; Figure 70. Although these 1950s Ranch houses in Lexington, Nebraska, have modified windows and garage entrances, they are considered contributing in a potential historic district (Mead & Hunt photograph). 77 Ames and McClelland, 101. 78 Ames and McClelland, 106. Figure 71. Ranch house in National Register-eligible Eastridge Historic District in Lincoln, Nebraska, constructed c.1953; one of several homes with an altered garage that is considered contributing (Mead & Hunt photograph)

47 • Redesign of park landscape and circulation features; and • Widespread changes to land use. 9. Defining Historic Boundaries The National Register Bulletin Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties provides guidance for establish- ing historic boundaries for individual properties and historic districts. This Bulletin, along with specific guidance from the project sponsor or SHPO, should be referenced when defining historic boundaries for postwar resources. When establishing boundaries for postwar residential districts, it is important to note the following: • The extent of the original subdivision or neighborhood plat(s) and associated additions and/or re-plats, which may assist in identifying boundaries; • Historic land use within the original subdivision or neigh- borhood, including schools, churches, commercial nodes, formal recreational areas, and green spaces; • Concentrations of noncontributing properties, which may influence where the boundary is drawn; • Fieldwork observations, including changes to the land- scape, setting, and circulation patterns; and • Defined perimeters (e.g., signs, fences, and other boundaries). F. Documentation In this final step, the survey results, historic context, and eligibility evaluation are incorporated into final survey docu- mentation that meets the requirements of the project spon- sor. These requirements should have been identified during the project preparation phase to inform the data collected during field survey and research efforts. Otherwise, missing data may need to be gathered at a late stage, creating ineffi- ciencies and possible delays in submitting deliverables. The survey documentation should provide clear and con- cise information regarding properties in the APE, including a National Register eligibility statement for properties that required evaluation due to their potential for eligibility. The final survey documentation should include a written report, inventory forms and/or database records for documented properties and neighborhoods/subdivisions, photographs, and maps. Coordination with the project sponsor is neces- sary to determine the preferred format for inventory forms or database records and confirm that single inventory forms or database records may be prepared for subdivisions or neighborhoods that were documented as a single grouping. Based on the requirements of the project sponsor, documen- tation may also include a database and/or GIS shapefiles and attributes. At a minimum, the survey report should include the fol- lowing sections:79 • Description of the APE; • Description of the survey methodology; • Historic context, illustrated with relevant historic and cur- rent photographs and maps; • Summary of survey results, to include architectural descriptions, eligibility statements, and photographs; • National Register eligibility statement(s)—if evaluations were conducted; this may be omitted if a report only cov- ers reconnaissance-level survey; • Bibliography; and Figure 72. Large infill house under construction in Arlington County, Virginia, that detracts from the size and scale of the 1950s Transitional Ranch neighborhood (Mead & Hunt photograph). Figure 73. Collection of c.1950 Minimal Traditional and Transitional Ranch homes in Madison, Wisconsin, with substantial alterations to the majority of properties, including non-compatible siding, replacement windows, and altered entrances and carports (Mead & Hunt photograph). 79 The documentation should focus on the survey and evaluation; how- ever, an effective recommendation under Section 106 may be incorpo- rated into the report based on the requirements of the project sponsor.

48 • Map(s) of surveyed properties showing relation to project activities. Inventory forms or equivalent database records for docu- mented individual properties that met selective survey crite- ria should include the following: • Property name; • Location; • Construction date; • Architectural elements; • Alterations; • National Register eligibility recommendation; • Photograph(s); and • Tables or lists to supplement streamlined survey approach, if required by sponsor. For groups of properties documented as a potential historic district, the following details should be discussed in the survey report and illustrated with representative photographs: • Discussion of overall architectural styles and forms, con- struction dates, materials, setbacks, distinguishing fea- tures, and alterations; • Circulation patterns; • Green spaces and landscape features; • Associated features, such as parks, schools, churches, and community buildings; • Representative photographs; and • Lists of properties with contributing or noncontributing status. G. Conclusion The survey and evaluation methodology provides guid- ance for how to determine if individual properties and sub- divisions or neighborhoods of the postwar period are eligible or not eligible for listing in the National Register. It follows and builds upon the guidance of National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs, with supplemental guidance provided to address the challenges that the large number of vernacular homes of the postwar era poses to the evaluation of National Register eligibility of both individual houses and districts. This methodology is intended to offer a streamlined approach as well as consistency in regards to documentation standards and National Register eligibility recommenda- tions. Use of this methodology by state DOTs provides for an efficient survey and evaluation process that can be expected to yield consistent results across geographic areas. As previ- ously noted, many state DOTs and SHPOs have specific sur- vey and evaluation requirements; therefore, this document should serve as guidance rather than a prescribed require- ment, unless approved in advance by the project sponsor. The national historic context included in Chapter 4 provides the historic themes and framework for understanding such properties.

Next: Chapter 4 - National Historic Context »
A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 723: A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing provides an approach to the identification and evaluation of postwar housing resources that can be used within the framework of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.

The report includes a methodology for identification and evaluation of the National Register eligibility and non-eligibility of single-family housing built between 1946 and 1975. The report also includes a national context to understand the development of postwar housing and to help guide the evaluation of postwar residential types.

TR News 292: May-June 2014 includes an article about the report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!