Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Beyond significance: integrity analysis considerations for modern residential tracts of the San Fernando Valley
(USC Thesis Other)
Beyond significance: integrity analysis considerations for modern residential tracts of the San Fernando Valley
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BEYOND SIGNIFICANCE:
INTEGRITY ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MODERN RESIDENTIAL TRACTS OF
THE SAN FERNANDO V ALLEY
by
Sarah Locke
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERV ATION
May 2017
Copyright 2017 Sarah Locke
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Introduction 1
Introduction Endnotes 8
Chapter One: Development of the Single-Family House in America 9
Chapter One Endnotes 22
Chapter Two: Development of the San Fernando Valley 25
Chapter Two Endnotes 39
Chapter Three: Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract 42
History 43
HPOZ Designation 47
Reflections 54
Chapter Three Endnotes 60
Chapter Four: Balboa Highlands 61
History 62
HPOZ Designation 64
Reflections 69
Chapter Four Endnotes 77
Chapter Five: Living-Conditioned Homes 79
History 79
!i
Significance 86
Integrity Analysis 88
Reflections 92
Points-Based Methodology 98
Chapter Five Endnotes 101
Conclusion 103
Conclusion Endnotes 113
Bibliography 114
Appendix A: National Register Criteria for Evaluation 119
Appendix B: Seven Aspects of Integrity 121
Appendix C: Postwar Tracts in the San Fernando Valley Identified by SurveyLA 123
Appendix D: Living-Conditioned Points-Based Methodology 126 !ii
Acknowledgements
My pursuit of a graduate degree from the USC School of Architecture has been a long-
term, part-time endeavor and I am incredibly grateful for the personal and professional support I
have received. I reconnected with Trudi Sandmeier, former Los Angeles Conservancy Director of
Education and current Director of Graduate Programs in Heritage Conservation at USC, four
years ago following my volunteer efforts as an advocate for Modern resources in Los Angeles.
Two weeks after our brief meeting, I was enrolled in classes and I will forever be grateful for her
encouragement to pursue this venture. Her perspective as an educator, including chair of my
thesis committee, and as a friend has been essential to my success. I have benefited from the
expertise of a phenomenal group of faculty while at USC. A special thanks is due to those who
have served on my thesis committee: Jay Platt, Senior Urban Designer for the City of Glendale,
and Katie Horak, Principal at Architectural Resources Group in Pasadena. Your feedback in
development of this research has been invaluable.
In the spring semester of 2016, Katie’s advanced site documentation class focused on the
Living-Conditioned subdivision, which advanced scholarship about a significant example of
Palmer and Krisel’s work and provided a foundation for the case study included in this thesis.
The group effort included Katrina Castañeda, Jonathan Kaplan, Christy Kim, Sean Morales, and
Jerome Robinson. We ventured to the San Fernando Valley to conduct integrity analysis of the
fifty-four Living-Conditioned properties and spent months compiling information to evaluate the
subdivision as a historic resource. As part of my assignment and in further pursuit of Living-
Conditioned subdivision research, I was fortunate to have access to the William Krisel papers at
the Getty Research Institute and archival copies of Living for Young Homemakers Magazine
through USC Libraries. I am also thrilled to have interviewed William Krisel, who was eager to
provide information to aid in my research. Thank you, Mr. Krisel, for your assistance.
I greatly appreciate the time and effort provided by residents of the Gregory Ain Mar
Vista Tract, Amanda Seward and Hans Adamson, along with Adriene Biondo from Balboa
Highlands. Their extensive knowledge and sustained advocacy have been crucial to HPOZ
designation and long-term management of their neighborhoods. I also want to extend thanks to
!iii
Yuki Arai and David Administer for inviting me into their home in Balboa Highlands to see
firsthand the great lengths they have gone to in their rehabilitation. These residents have
reminded me that heritage conservation is not only about the built environment, but about the
people who interact and dwell in historic buildings everyday. Appreciation for good design and
history can help identify and conserve places that enrich our lives and build strong communities.
Last, but certainly not least, I could not have completed this work without my
cheerleaders, those whom I so proudly call my family. I am indebted to my husband, Cézanne
Farris-Gilbert, whom has also requested to be called “senior editor” and “muse,” for his
unconditional love and support as I balance the roles of student, spouse and co-parent to our two
young children. My daughter, Cordelia, has been along for the ride from the beginning of this
journey and can now identify many of Los Angeles’ Modern landmarks and craft them in Lego.
My son, Calder, was born midway through the program, and in large part due to my “senior
editor,” we not only survived, but thrived during the transition. The USC sculpture garden
outside of Watt Hall will always be a special place to me because of the time we spent there
between classes during my son’s infancy. Thank you, family, for giving me the space I need to
pursue a professional life. My passion for history and architecture stems from well before I ever
met my husband. To my parents, Darrel and Maureen Locke, my grandfather, James Woodrow,
and extended family who have shared my interest in history and architecture, thank you for being
my earliest teachers and instilling within me that embracing people and places, both past and
present, provide potential to shape the future. !iv
List of Figures
Figure I.1 Map of Modern residential tracts used as case studies 6
Figure 1.1 Cliff May #3 in Riviera Ranch, Los Angeles (1939) 12
Figure 1.2 A 1930s residential tract in the San Fernando Valley 14
Figure 1.3 The Fritz Burns “Post-War House” 16
Figure 1.4 The “Ramona” model, Panorama City 17
Figure 1.5 An aerial view of Lakewood, California 18
Figure 1.6 The residential tract of Lakewood Rancho Estates 20
Figure 2.1 Agricultural activity on Ventura Boulevard (1955) 26
Figure 2.2 Transportation map of the San Fernando Valley (1923) 27
Figure 2.3 An early view of Metropolitan Airport (now Van Nuys Airport) 28
Figure 2.4 General Motors factory near Panorama City (1949) 30
Figure 2.5 Population density and distribution in the Valley from 1877-1963 32
Figure 2.6 Meadowlark Park by architect Edward Fickett 34
Figure 2.7 Corbin Palms House: Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #976 36
Figure 2.8 Woodside tract by architect Charles Dubois 37
Figure 3.1 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Historical photo by Julius Shulman 42
Figure 3.2 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Site Plan 44
Figure 3.3 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Contemporary view of parkway trees 46
Figure 3.4 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Contemporary view of landscape 46
Figure 3.5 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Example of mansionization 48
Figure 3.6 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Historical photo by Julius Shulman 50
Figure 3.7 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Contemporary view of residence 50
Figure 3.8 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Altered contributor 52
Figure 3.9 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Reconstruction 52
Figure 3.10 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Preservation Plan example 54
Figure 3.11 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Newly installed fencing 56
Figure 3.12 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract: Concrete wall on Beethoven Street 56
Figure 4.1 Balboa Highlands: Contemporary view of residence 61
!v
Figure 4.2 Balboa Highlands: Historical photo by Ernest Braun 63
Figure 4.3 Balboa Highlands: Floor plan with atrium (Model 1805) 65
Figure 4.4 Balboa Highlands: Non-contributing residence 68
Figure 4.5 Balboa Highlands: Original cladding 70
Figure 4.6 Balboa Highlands: Non-contributor with non-historic cladding 71
Figure 4.7 Balboa Highlands: Various roofline alterations (Model 1805) 73
Figure 4.8 Balboa Highlands: Atrium view 74
Figure 5.1 Living-Conditioned advertisement for Hotpoint Anniversary 80
Figure 5.2 Living-Conditioned: Rendering by William Krisel 82
Figure 5.3 Living-Conditioned: Model of landscape design by William Krisel 85
Figure 5.4 Living-Conditioned: Floor plan in Living for Young Homemakers 85
Figure 5.5 Living-Conditioned: Traditional Ranch house on neighboring parcel 87
Figure 5.6 Living-Conditioned: Proposed district boundary 90
Figure 5.7 Living-Conditioned: Model A residence 91
Figure 5.8 Living-Conditioned: Model A residence (altered) 91
Figure 5.9 Living-Conditioned: Two properties excluded from district 93
Figure 5.10 Living-Conditioned: Example of a converted carport 95
Figure 5.11 Living-Conditioned: Residence with high level of integrity 97
Figure 5.12 Living-Conditioned: Homogenized Modern renovation 97
Figure 5.13 Living-Conditioned: Property changed to altered contributor 99
Figure 6.1 Aerial view of the San Fernando Valley 104
Figure 6.2 Q Block Brochure featuring Living-Conditioned Homes 106
Figure 6.3 A tract house in Marlborough Palms with non-historic cladding 108
Figure 6.4 A tract house in Marlborough Palms with original cladding 108
Figure 6.5 Residence in Cliff May Ranchos (Long Beach) before landscaping 109
Figure 6.6 Residence in Cliff May Ranchos (Long Beach) after landscaping 110
!vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Employment Distribution for the San Fernando Valley 29
Table 3.1 Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract Character-Defining Features 49
Table 4.1 Balboa Highlands Character-Defining Features 67
Table 5.1 Living-Conditioned Character-Defining Features 89 !vii
Abstract
Southern California, particularly the Los Angeles area, has a high concentration of
residential tracts developed after World War II. Heritage conservation efforts, based on a well-
established case for significance of the postwar suburban landscape, will benefit from
examination of integrity assessment methodology to aid in implementation of conservation tools,
such as the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). Two postwar residential tracts, each
composed of Modern residences, have been designated in the City of Los Angeles. The Gregory
Ain Mar Vista Tract (1948) was the first to receive designation in 2003 for its significance in
patterns of postwar residential development and its association with architect Gregory Ain and
landscape architect Garrett Eckbo. Balboa Highlands (1962-64), a subdivision designed by
Claude Oakland with A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, and developed by Joseph Eichler,
became the second postwar residential tract to be designated an HPOZ in 2009. It remains the
only postwar residential tract with historic designation in the San Fernando Valley, despite
eligibility for dozens more tracts identified by SurveyLA, a comprehensive Historic Resources
Survey of the City of Los Angeles. This research uses findings from SurveyLA to emphasize the
need for application of conservation tools to the postwar suburban landscape of the San Fernando
Valley, and provides analysis of integrity assessment strategies used in three Modern residential
tracts. Case studies for the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract and Balboa Highlands summarize
lessons learned through the designation process and long-term management of Modern tract
residences. Exploration of integrity assessment methodology continues in a third case study,
Palmer and Krisel’s Living-Conditioned subdivision (1957-58), a Modern residential tract in the
San Fernando Valley that has been identified as an eligible HPOZ. The San Fernando Valley is a
prime example of a suburban landscape that requires recognition for its significance in
demonstrating patterns of postwar residential development and a high concentration of historic
residential resources associated with notable architects. Examining integrity assessment
methodology will assist this effort, in the San Fernando Valley and beyond, by acknowledging
that significance is only part of a successful heritage conservation strategy for the postwar
residential tract. !viii
Introduction
To own a house in the United States has long been intertwined with the American dream.
1
Home ownership became a reality for the majority of Americans in the years following World
War II. An entire generation that had suffered through multiple world wars and the turmoil of the
Great Depression was finally able to comfortably meet the needs of their families, as the
twentieth century unfolded and the tract house came to dominate the postwar suburban
landscape. The status of conservation efforts for the postwar residential tract vary depending on
location, but Southern California has become the subject of increased attention due to the
concentration of architectural talent and a booming population in the postwar era that facilitated
rapid growth of the built environment. Los Angeles has benefited from decades of advocacy and
outreach by local non-profit organizations and institutions to establish significance for postwar
resources, but many eligible resources and districts remain unprotected. A recently completed
citywide Historic Resources Survey identified properties eligible for designation. This research
focuses on findings for eligible postwar residential tracts in the San Fernando Valley region of
Los Angeles and the City’s existing Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ) for postwar
residential subdivisions. Heritage conservation efforts, based on a well-established case for
significance of the postwar suburban landscape and the Modern residential tract, will benefit
from examination of integrity assessment methodology to aid in implementation of conservation
tools, such as the HPOZ.
Historic Context and Evaluation Criteria
The National Park Service Bulletin, Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for
Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places (2002), and Tract
Housing in California, 1945-73: A Context for National Register Evaluation, prepared by the
California Department of Transportation (2011), were developed to guide conservation of
residential suburban development. These documents were used to evaluate postwar residential
2
tracts for the purposes of this research. The three phases of evaluation to determine eligibility for
!1
designation are determination of significance, integrity assessment of historic features, and
selection of district boundaries. The primary focus of this research is the assessment of historic
integrity and justification of boundary selection, but first an understanding of significance of the
postwar residential tract needs to be established.
The initial chapter of this research provides the necessary historical context to understand
the development of the single-family house from a national perspective, with emphasis on the
period following World War I. Suburban living, which offered refuge from urban life, was almost
exclusively for the affluent until the mid-twentieth century. During World War II
3
industrialization and in the postwar years, millions of people flocked to California and
suburbanization occurred at a much faster rate. Between 1942 and 1945, California cleared
approximately six thousand acres of farmland per year. Soon after that rate intensified to over a
hundred thousand acres per year. One orange tree was removed every fifty-five seconds by the
mid-1960s. The transformation of the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles saw land use for
4
agriculture reduced from eighty-three percent to thirty-nine percent between 1940 and 1965.
5
Chapter two presents the historical context for development of the San Fernando Valley and
summarizes the effort for identification of the area’s postwar residential tracts.
A growing body of scholarship in recent years has firmly established a case for
significance of the postwar residential tract. Richard Longstreth calls the suburbs an
“extraordinary and finite resource,” given residential growth patterns and architectural styles
changed by the late 1960s and the scale of the residential development constructed during the
postwar period could not be replicated today.
6
The postwar suburb is a resource that we cannot afford to squander. If we fail to address
the issue, it will be tantamount to admitting that much of our residential fabric, no matter
how historically significant and no matter how well built, is essentially disposable
matter. The comparatively small oases that are historic districts and others predominantly
occupied by the affluent will last for generations, renewed by reinvestment at regular
intervals, but the great majority of places are destined for a shorter, less productive lives
[sic]. What does this perpetual state of impermanence say about our cities and about our
society?
7
!2
Yet, the question of how to promote the conservation of postwar residential tracts has lingered
for more than a decade. Local planning initiatives are the most effective conservation approach.
8 9
In 2001, the Getty Research Institute released the Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey
Assessment Project, which led to SurveyLA, a citywide Historic Resources Survey conducted
between 2006 and 2017 and managed by the Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic
Resources.
The study concluded that comprehensive identification of the city's historic and cultural
resources would present compelling community, cultural, and economic opportunities. A
well-developed survey could play an important role in building civic pride and
appreciation of the city's historic and architectural heritage and could significantly
contribute to neighborhood conservation efforts and community development.
10
SurveyLA is a hybrid of a reconnaissance and intensive-level Historic Resources Survey.
The objective of a reconnaissance survey is to collect field data that aids in development of
historic context to determine eligibility based on the Criteria for Evaluation. (Appendix A) A
period and level of significance is then defined. Areas eligible for designation that warrant
intensive-level survey work can then be identified. For the residential suburb, information
collected includes transportation and other factors that influenced location, site plan and
subdivision design, character and condition of housing, distinctive aspects of landscape design,
presence of community facilities, such as schools or stores, and patterns of social history.
An intensive-level survey evaluates the integrity of individual properties and the entirety
of the proposed district to make a final recommendation about eligibility for designation.
Analysis is based on seven aspects of integrity — location, setting, materials, workmanship,
design, feeling, and association. (Appendix B) The presence of character-defining features and
absence of non-historic alterations and additions determine whether an individual property, or
element, is categorized as a contributor, an altered contributor, or a non-contributor.
Reversibility, the potential for a missing character-defining feature to be restored, heavily
influences assessment. Generally, a majority of properties must contribute to the district for
creation of an HPOZ in the City of Los Angeles. SurveyLA identified districts that appear to be
!3
eligible for HPOZ designation, but more focused intensive-level survey work must be done
before proceeding with conservation efforts.
For the purposes of this research, three postwar residential tracts in Los Angeles were
selected as case studies to more closely examine assessment methodology and district boundary
justification. Case study selection was based on availability of intensive survey data, as well as
significance for association with a master architect and/or developer of the postwar era. One case
study is a district in the San Fernando Valley identified by SurveyLA. The other two case studies
were chosen due to existing HPOZ designation, which provides an opportunity for the analysis
of long-term management of integrity in an HPOZ that consists of postwar residences.
HPOZ Fundamentals
The HPOZ ordinance is used to encourage the maintenance of character-defining features
and establish design guidelines that help reduce impact to historic integrity. A Preservation Plan
is developed using the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation and a five-member
HPOZ board for each district is appointed to guide change within the district. The tool has the
potential to stabilize neighborhoods, introduces financial incentives and commonly increases
property values. The collection of districts designated as an HPOZ throughout Los Angeles
highlight the diversity of its built environment and celebrate the city’s architectural and cultural
legacy. There are currently thirty areas designated as an HPOZ in the City of Los Angeles, with
11
a half dozen more formally under consideration. Angelino Heights was the first HPOZ to be
created and showcases the highest concentration of the best remaining examples of Victorian-era
architecture in the city. The majority of the districts established thereafter lie west of downtown
Los Angeles and generally consist of early twentieth-century residential neighborhoods. The
Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract is the lone HPOZ in west Los Angeles and it was the first HPOZ
composed of Modern residences. The San Fernando Valley, the primary focus of this research,
has three existing HPOZs. The first, Stonehurst, is an enclave of ninety-two vernacular
residences constructed with native rock by stonemasons in the 1920s. The second, Van Nuys, is
centrally located in the Valley and is a district composed of an eclectic mix of residential
!4
architecture demonstrating trends that evolved over the first half of the twentieth century. The
remaining HPOZ in the San Fernando Valley is Balboa Highlands, a tract of Joseph Eichler
homes located in Granada Hills, near the northern border of the City. It was the first postwar
residential subdivision in the San Fernando Valley to receive designation and joins the Gregory
Ain Mar Vista Tract as the only other postwar residential subdivision designated.
SurveyLA identified dozens more eligible historic districts in Los Angeles, with a high
concentration of postwar residential tracts in the San Fernando Valley. An overview of tracts
identified by SurveyLA will be provided to emphasize the vast number of historic resources that
need attention in the region. The primary goal of this research is to promote conservation of the
postwar landscape of the San Fernando Valley through examination of integrity assessment
methodology that supports better long-term management of historic resources.
As previously mentioned, the emphasis on Modern residences in this research is due to
existing designation for the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract and Balboa Highlands subdivision. It
also underscores a secondary goal to highlight the need for distinction between postwar
residential tracts. For the purposes of this study, Modern refers to association with the Modern
Movement. The Modern Movement was an artistic and architectural period in the twentieth
century that “emphasized expression of functional, technical or spatial properties rather than
reliance on decoration.” The third and final case study presented, the Living-Conditioned
12
subdivision by Palmer and Krisel in the Northridge community of the San Fernando Valley, is a
Modern residential tract identified as eligible for designation by SurveyLA. Examination of these
three significant Modern residential tracts in contrast to surrounding postwar residential
development of the Ranch house, allows for refinement of the general categorization of the tract
house. This distinction will aid in strengthening assessment methodology and application of
conservation tools to the postwar landscape.
Complexities of scale, quantity of resources, repetitiveness of features and subtle
diversity in postwar planning concepts and architectural variants are universal issues in integrity
assessment of mid-twentieth century residential tracts. The San Fernando Valley is a prime
example of a suburban landscape that demonstrates these issues, and significance of postwar
residential tracts in the region is amplified by the cultural influence of mid-twentieth century
!5
suburban living in California and associations with notable architects working in Los Angeles at
the time. The San Fernando Valley serves as the focal point of this research for this reason. The
overall intent, however, is to contribute to a universal model for integrity assessment strategies in
conservation of the postwar suburban landscape. While a solid case for significance has
developed in recent years, the next challenge is to examine complex integrity issues that will
!6
Living Conditioned Living Conditioned
Mar Vista Mar Vista
Balboa Highlands Balboa Highlands
Figure I.1: A map of the Los Angeles area shows the three Modern residential tracts presented as
case studies in this research. Created by author. 2016.
promote future conservation of postwar residential subdivisions, particularly Modern residential
tracts, across the nation. !7
Introduction Endnotes Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000, (New York: Pantheon Books,
1
2004), 8.
David L. Ames and Linda Flint McClelland, National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs, (National
2
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002).
Richard Longstreth, Looking Beyond the Icons: Midcentury Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism,
3
(Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2015), 52-53.
Francesca Russello Ammon, Bulldozer: Demolition and Clearance of the Postwar Landscape, (New Haven: Yale
4
University Press, 2016), 103.
City of Los Angeles Planning Department, San Fernando Valley Planning Area: Background For Planning
5
(January 1967), 22.
Longstreth, 56.
6
Ibid., 57.
7
Alan Hess, The Ranch House, (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004), 229.
8
National Register designation exists for a small selection of Modern residential developments throughout the
9
country. In California, Poppy Peak historic district in Pasadena and two Joseph Eichler subdivisions in Northern
California are designated.
The Getty Research Institute, “Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Assessment Project,”Accessed January 2,
10
2017, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/lahrs_summary_report.html.
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, Citywide Preservation
11
Ordinance, March 3, 2004.
Docomomo US, “How to evaluate,” Accessed January 12, 2017, http://www.docomomo-us.org/register/
12
how_to_evaluate.
!8
Chapter One
Development of the Single-Family House in America
America’s emphasis on the single-family house and garden has a history that extends
back for more than a century before postwar suburbs began to take shape. A combination of
1
social, economic and political factors influenced the gradual adaptation of housing outside the
urban core, from the borderlands to the picturesque enclaves in the mid-nineteenth century to the
streetcar suburbs at the turn of the twentieth century and beyond. Improved modes of
2
transportation continuously impacted growth patterns, the housing industry was revolutionized
through influential legislation and construction methodologies, and technological advancements
reimagined lifestyle possibilities as the twentieth century unfolded. Two world wars and the
Great Depression were dominant contributors to the overall tone of American politics and culture
up to mid-century, but the nation was poised for full enjoyment of the prosperity to come in the
years following World War II. The culmination of more than a hundred years of progress, the
sitcom suburb, aptly named for its depiction in the wholesome programming broadcast on newly
purchased television sets across the nation, began in earnest around 1940. This type of
3
development came to dominate the American landscape by 1960 when the majority of Americans
had migrated to the suburbs. At the core of this transformation was the federal legislation,
4
particularly the G.I. Bill that forged a path to homeownership for four million veterans in the
decade following World War II. The majority of Americans were first time buyers, purchasing a
5
newly constructed house. The participation of a robust middle-class in decision-making about
their lifestyle choices incentivized builders, innovative manufacturers and skilled merchandisers
to unite and market houses, goods and services that showcased possibilities for postwar living.
The middle-class gradually gained an increasing amount of market share that shaped the
popularity of architectural styles and influenced growth patterns that carried the nation into the
latter half of the twentieth century.
6
The scattered subdivisions and eclectic architectural styles of the streetcar suburbs began
to be replaced with the uniformity of residential tracts beginning in the interwar years. Real
estate professionals who had traditionally only subdivided the land saw an opportunity for
!9
growth through development of entire neighborhoods and communities — acquisition of the
land, and design and construction of the houses, public facilities and commercial centers, and
inclusive of sales and financing — which established the idea of merchant and community
builders. Herbert Hoover played a substantial role in shaping legislation that provided a
foundation for the success of privatized builders and inspired the dramatic growth of the postwar
period. As Secretary of Commerce, he created the Division of Building and Housing in 1921 and
introduced the Better Homes in America campaign. Nationwide building and zoning codes were
implemented and the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB) successfully secured
a tax deduction for mortgage interest to incentivize builders. During his presidency, which
7
began in 1929, he saw the partnership between private builders and the federal government as an
opportunity for recovery during the Great Depression. He heavily influenced the legislation that
would become part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which included the creation
of the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) of 1933 and the National Housing Act of 1934,
which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The stability created by the
federal government’s involvement in private development produced a new market for middle-
income, first-time homebuyers that dramatically increased housing starts from 90,000 in 1933 to
four times that in 1937. These promising results foreshadowed the success of the merchant
8
builders in the 1940s. The introduction of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also
known as the G.I. Bill of Rights), guaranteed an interest-free home mortgage for veterans and
amplified the effectiveness of earlier federal legislation. As a result, merchant builders revived
9
housing starts, which jumped to 1,183,000 by 1948, up from 114,000 in 1944. By 1950,
10
construction of nearly two million single-family houses in a single year shattered previous
records. Compared to 1920 when forty percent of homes were self-built, merchant builders
11
were responsible for two-thirds of the nation’s housing by mid-century.
12
Legislation may have propelled the effort to house America, but the creation of mass
quantities of housing was the true challenge. Initial exploration of rapid residential construction
methods began in an attempt to meet the demand for worker housing near manufacturing
facilities. The Lanham Act (1940) enticed thousands of private builders nationwide to assist in
the effort. Between 1941 and 1943, 7.5 million units of defense housing was completed by
13
!10
private builders. William Levitt, David Bohannon and Fritz B. Burns emerged as visionary
developers who leveraged industrialized building methods. Burns, with business partner Fred
14
Marlow, had already recognized the opportunity for worker housing with the creation of
Westside Village, two miles east of Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica. Completed in 1939, the
tract of 788 houses was one of the earliest examples of mass produced housing by a single
builder in the United States. At a time when only four percent of builders erected more than
15
twenty-five houses annually, Burns and Marlow rejected the centuries-old practice of a small
crew laboring on houses individually and looked toward assembly line methods in auto and ship
building for inspiration. All the houses in Westside Village shared identical floor plans, but
16
variation was achieved by rotation of the plan on the parcel, manipulation of setbacks, placement
of the garage and application of roofs and porches that distinguished each model. Homeowners
were further encouraged to customize their purchase by painting and landscaping the houses
themselves. Burns continued development using these construction methods for his first tract in
17
the San Fernando Valley, Toluca Wood (1941), and used the same location strategy with
placement near the Vega and Lockheed plants in Burbank. Westside Village and Toluca Wood
18
both utilized research Burns conducted in 1938: “The typical buyer wanted a bright, airy, single-
story stucco home with a big garage, a modern kitchen, and a room to raise a family without
feeling cramped.” This aptly described the qualities of the Ranch house, but Burns would not
19
fully explore use of the style until after World War II.
The Ranch house began to permeate mainstream American culture in the interwar years.
The horizontality and wide eaves of its one-story form, with strong outdoor connections, merged
the dwelling with the earth. Its qualities aligned with the vision of Frank Lloyd Wright and his
Prairie Style architecture from the turn of the twentieth century, but its lack of formality was
even more pronounced. The Ranch house lacked ornament of Period Revival styles, yet it was
firmly rooted in historical cues from western culture. The West was the final frontier in America
and it was there that architecture found its muse to create an American lexicon for the twentieth
century. A prompt by editor of American Architect, Henry Saylor, in 1925 defined its cultural
20
appeal:
!11
The California ranch house…just grew, naturally, inevitably, a logical result of meeting
definite needs in the most direct, workmanlike manner possible with materials at hand. It
borrows none of the finery of other architectural styles; it sounded no blatant note of
self-advertisement; it never; so far as I know, laid claim to even a name, and yet there it
stands, a vernacular that is as unmistakably part of the CA foothills as the stone houses
of eastern PA betoken that great treasure store of mica schist.
21
William Wurster won recognition in 1931-32 from the Better Homes in America campaign for an
entry that had “great appeal to the California style of living,” but it was Cliff May, widely
considered “father of the Ranch house,” who emerged in the 1930s as the primary figure in
promotion of western living. (Figure 1.1) Sunset magazine was highly influential in widespread
22
distribution of his work, in addition to that of Wurster and others who contributed to popularity
of the style. By the time of the 1946 publication of Sunset’ s Western Ranch Houses, which
23
quoted Saylor, Cliff May had secured his reputation as a nationwide influence on residential
architecture and prepared the nation for domination of the Ranch House in the postwar years.
!12
Figure 1.1: Cliff May #3 in Riviera Ranch, Los Angeles. Built in 1939. Maynard L. Parker,
photographer. Courtesy of The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
The Ranch style was not the only architectural movement of interest generated in the
West. The Los Angeles area became a hub of Modernism in the early twentieth century through
the work of American architects Irving Gill and Frank Lloyd Wright, and with the arrival of
Austrian architects Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra. This core group, along with their
protégés, had varied approaches to Modernism, but all helped advance the Modern Movement on
the West coast in the 1920s. Neutra became particularly influential following his inclusion in the
1932 International Style exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, curated by Philip Johnson,
which also included the work of Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The contrast of
the handcrafted qualities of Ranch style estates and the industrial aesthetic of the International
Style could not have been more different, yet both embraced a version of “form follows
function,” a cornerstone of the Modern Movement. The interwar years were a pivotal time for the
development of residential architecture, with experimentation by dozens of influential architects
of a “second generation” who sought to advance the Modernist agenda. Both the Ranch house
and International Style would vie for the approval of the American public when it came to the
execution of postwar residential architecture.
24
Meanwhile, developers continued to rely on the FHA’s Minimum Property Standards, set
in 1936 and revised in 1940, as a profitable model for residential tracts until several years after
the conclusion of World War II. (Figure 1.2) The Minimum House had a simple plan that
emphasized economy and ranged from 650-900 square feet with two bedrooms, a living room
and dining room, kitchen and bathroom. By 1940, the kitchen and dining spaces had merged and
the living room was prioritized. While these homes were modest, they were designed to meet
25
the immediate basic needs of workers and greatly improved the general quality of life for many
from rural areas who relocated to a manufacturing hub. For example, 45% of the nation lacked
indoor plumbing in 1940, but the Minimum House reduced this percentage to 16.8% by the end
of the war. Possibilities for later expansion by the homeowner were considered as builders
26
provided clever solutions such as an extra doorframe inserted in the living room wall that joined
the garage. This could be used for later conversion from garage to bedroom. Encouragement of
27
improvements by the owner alleviated the responsibilities of the builder, who could quickly
move on to the next project while the homeowners finalized the look of their new community.
28
!13
By 1941, private builders managed to reach the most housing starts since the building
boom of the 1920s. This productive period came to an abrupt halt, however, when the War
29
Production Board restricted construction beginning in April of 1942. America entered the
postwar years with a severe housing shortage, with many families living in substandard
conditions. An estimated three to five million houses were needed to recover. Units would
30
need to be produced faster than ever before and merchant builders were prepared to meet the
demand through industrialized construction of residential tracts. When the construction ban
31
was lifted at the end of the war, there was an immediate recovery effort and expenditures for new
residential construction surged from twenty-three million dollars to $670 million by the end of
1945. Soldiers returned to establish new households, with three million marriages occurring
32
within two years of the end of the war. They were eager to fulfill the American dream of home
ownership and start a family. The birthrate quadrupled over a thirty-year span, which doubled the
nation’s population to over 203 million by 1970. After World War II, for the first time, the
33
suburban ideal espoused in nineteenth-century America became a reality for millions.
34
!14
Figure 1.2: A 1930s residential tract in the San Fernando Valley. Dick Whittington
Collection. Downloaded from the USC Digital Library in November 2016.
The Postwar Ideal
Construction loans through the G.I. Bill and FHA reached ten million between 1946 and
1953. The opportunity to capitalize on this new market of home buyers was apparent to not
35
only builders, but a wide range of companies that stood to benefit from marketing lifestyle
concepts and selling goods and services for the single-family home owner. Consumers had more
disposable income than ever before and spending increased by sixty percent in the second half of
the 1940s. Furniture and appliances sales skyrocketed by 240%. Model home shows, which
36
originated in the 1930s, reached new popularity as a tool for showcasing ideas in postwar living.
Fully furnished demonstration homes became the norm in tract developments by the late 1940s.
In 1952, nearly one thousand organizations existed for housing research. These were both public
and private entities intertwined in finding ways to build faster, better and profit more. A constant
stream of research was distributed to builders and architects in trade publications and mass
consumption was fostered in the shelter magazines that found their way to homes across
America. House Beautiful, with editor Elizabeth Gordon at the helm, was instrumental in
37
promotion of an “unpretentious, convivial and yet securely private” type of architecture rooted in
fluidity between house and landscape and carefree western living. Fritz B. Burns shared her taste
for a moderate platform of “modernization" and Gordon seized an opportunity to showcase his
“Postwar House” in the May 1946 issue of House Beautiful. Burns’ Housing Research Division
was created in 1943 to predict postwar consumer trends and evaluate new materials and
construction methods. The venture culminated in the “Post-War House,” a 2,400 square foot
exhibition home at the corner of Highland Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.
(Figure 1.3) It opened to the public in 1946 and welcomed one million visitors by the end of the
decade. The u-shaped plan by architects Walter Wurdeman and Welton Becket redefined living
38
spaces with rooms that emphasized the indoor-outdoor connection through walls of glass that
wrapped around a rear patio and yard designed by Garret Eckbo. Complemented by the free
flowing interior arrangement, space was created for casual entertaining and recreation essential
to social bonding that helped heal the nation in the postwar years. A subtle shift away from
39
historical architectural styles felt modern yet comfortable while an interior outfitted with every
!15
innovation imaginable at the time dazzled the public. All-electric appliances, a garbage disposal,
washable wall finishes, built-in radio and intercom system, automatic climate control, expansive
storage walls (a Burns signature component), and a large television reflect only a partial list of its
features. While few of these features were accessible to buyers of an average tract home, the
Postwar House celebrated the optimism of the period and enticed buyers to seek out their own
version of residential bliss. Burns hoped it would be in one of his forthcoming tract house
communities with new partner, Henry J. Kaiser.
40
Kaiser Community Homes began construction on Panorama City in 1947. Located in the
San Fernando Valley, four hundred acres of agricultural land were transformed into a planned
community that included schools, churches, shopping centers and recreation facilities. The
adjacency of the development to the General Motors Van Nuys Assembly plant continued Burns’
earlier successful location strategies. The two and three-bedroom houses, ranging from 800-1000
square feet, were laid out along gently curved streets that discouraged automobile traffic. Burns
41
utilized some of the same methods for visual interest he had in earlier tracts, including altered
!16
Figure 1.3: The Fritz Burns “Post-War House” and traffic, Wilshire and Highland, Los
Angeles. 1945. Dick Whittington Studio Collection. Courtesy of The Huntington Library,
San Marino, California.
rooflines and varied placement of garages. Welton Becket delivered the designs for the model
42
homes, with the best-selling model being the “Ramona Ranch,” named for the best-selling novel
by Helen Hunt Jackson. (Figure 1.4) Burns had long relied on a design vocabulary and
43
marketing materials that capitalized on the appeal of the Ranch house. He had used “ranchos”
44
to describe his 1938 development of Windsor Hills and the sales brochure boasted “little country
estates” and featured people on horseback. Despite Burns’ consumer research that indicted wide
appeal for the Ranch house, he had not developed a mass produced example until the Ramona
Ranch in Panorama City, when Becket adapted Cliff May’s ideas on the “California Ranch
House.” First circulated in Architectural Forum in April 1949, publication of the Ramona Ranch
followed in Better Homes and Gardens and House Beautiful. It was celebrated as a successful
adaptation of the Ranch house within reach of the average American through mass production.
Other builders, on both a regional and national level, looked to Panorama City as a leader for
both its aesthetic and marketing strategies.
45
Massive developments such as Levittown in New York (1947-49) and Pennsylvania
(1952-53), as well as Lakewood (1950-53) near Long Beach, California soon dwarfed Panorama
!17
Figure 1.4: Historic Postcard of Panorama City. Gift from Gary Fredburg. Archives of The
Museum of the San Fernando Valley. January 28, 2009. http://
museumsanfernandovalley.blogspot.com/2009/01/change-of-museum-board-meeting-
location.html.
City in size. Construction methods pioneered in the previous decade were mastered with new
46
machinery and tool technology combined with advancement in shipping and handling of
materials that allowed specialized crews to maximize efficiency. Built in mass quantities, the
47
houses all shared similar design language and layout due to the conservative practices of the
FHA that ensured appeal and rapid construction. Levittown modified its Cape Cod aesthetic to
48
a Ranch home variant in 1949, likely due to the popularity of Panorama City. Lakewood relied
on similar traditional styling with 17,500 houses woven together with more modern public
spaces and commercial centers over four hundred acres. (Figure 1.5) It was a new achievement
49
for execution of a planned community — proof that an entirely new economic hub could be
created with such speed.
Alternatives to variations on the Minimum House were championed by architects who
had long envisioned idyllic planned communities and feared that speed compromised quality of
design. The Case Study House Program developed by John Entenza and published in his Arts
50
!18
Figure 1.5: An aerial view of 17,500 tract houses under construction in 1950 in the planned
community of Lakewood CA. © Estate of William A. Garnett. Courtesy of the Getty
Research Institute, Los Angeles, California.
and Architecture Magazine is now the most famous of these efforts to propose Modern designs
for the masses, although it was not as influential at the time of publication as Entenza had hoped.
While most of the proposals were realized as exhibition houses, none of the designs were
replicated. Other attempts proved mildly successful at reaching a profitable model for Modern
51
designs such as Bay Area developer Earl “Flat Top” Smith who by 1949 had produced twenty
flat-roofed residences that gained some traction with other builders. Architect Gregory Ain also
52
challenged the traditional model of the single-family residence with his Park Planned Homes in
Altadena and the Mar Vista Tract in west Los Angeles. Entenza proposed at the onset of his Case
Study Program, “Perhaps we will cling longest to the symbol of “house” as we have known it, or
perhaps we will realize that in accommodating ourselves to a new world the most important step
in avoiding retrogression into the old, is a willingness to understand and to accept contemporary
ideas in the creation of environment that is responsible for shaping the largest part of our living
and thinking.” Most large-scale builders continued to employ more conservative approaches to
53
residential tracts and the FHA rejected Modern design, such as flat roofs, unless there was one
contemporary model intended for integration with traditional models in a larger tract.
54
The popularity of the Ranch house continued to overshadow attempts to popularize
Modern dwellings for the majority, but clear Modern undertones were visible by the 1950s. For
example, Cliff May Homes introduced a house for residential tract development that blended
qualities of his Traditional Ranch aesthetic, with Modern refinements desired by an increasingly
sophisticated market. (Figure 1.6) Praise from House Beautiful, that said it was “a good example
of the emerging American Style of architecture” and House & Home equated its quality to a
custom house, stating “This is almost the first low-cost house to offer the kind of living almost
everybody back East imagines all Californians enjoy.” The housing shortage had largely been
55
resolved by 1953, with more than five million houses built between 1940 and 1950, and a
buyer’s market emerged. Quick and inexpensive building methods fell out of favor as builders
56
had to compete for buyers who expected higher quality, more space and the latest contemporary
trends and innovations. Builders and architects forged stronger relationships to offer more
57
home for the same amount of money as in the immediate postwar years. Square footage
58
generally increased. Three bedrooms were standard and a second half or full bath appeared.
59
!19
Relationships between architects and developers, such as Palmer and Krisel with Alexander
Homes and Jones and Emmons for Eichler Homes, proved good design was attainable without
sacrificing builder’s profits. A niche market for the Contemporary Ranch emerged and remained
popular for the duration of the 1950s. Additional variants of the Traditional Ranch house
60
included Cinderella Homes (1955-61), a theatrical version of the Ranch house that translated to
fast-paced sales for developers. It retained the elongated form and spaciousness of the Ranch
house, but traded rustic qualities for fanciful detailing and a trendy pastel color palette that
captured a market seeking “relaxed luxury.”
61
By 1960, seventy percent of American housing was produced by merchant builders who
averaged more than one hundred units per year. The market for the single-family house peaked
62
later that decade when land became more expensive and home loans were more challenging to
acquire. Builders shifted to apartment dwellings to cater to young adults and condominium
63
construction that showed strong potential due to FHA insured mortgages for this property type
!20
Figure 1.6: The residential tract of Lakewood Rancho Estates (1953-54) by Cliff May
Homes gave the Traditional Ranch a Modern update. Maynard L. Parker, photographer.
Courtesy of The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
under the National Housing Act of 1961. With more than three million acres of land
64
transformed by the single-family house by 1970, this dwelling type and the communities it
produced had come to define America as a nation that valued privatized development and
cultivation of one’s own property. Those who had rallied around the idea of the single-family
65
house, the legislators, real estate professionals, architects, manufacturers, marketing and
merchandising specialists had created an industry of extraordinary economic potential. The
enormous housing market in California translated to a nationwide influence in the building
industry and the next chapter will focus on the postwar development of the San Fernando
Valley. 66
!21
Chapter One Endnotes Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002), 55. Sitcom suburb was
1
coined by Delores Hayden in the early twenty-first century.
David L. Ames and Linda Flint McClelland, National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs, (National
2
Park Service, 2002), 16. The National Park Service uses the following categories to differentiate suburban
development: Railroad and Horsecar Suburbs, 1830 to 1890; Streetcar Suburbs, 1888 to 1928; Early Automobile
Suburbs, 1908 to 1945; Post-World War II and Early Freeway Suburbs, 1945-60.
Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000, (New York: Pantheon Books,
3
2004), 4.
Ames and McClelland, 2.
4
Francesca Russello Ammon, Bulldozer: Demolition and Clearance of the Postwar Landscape, (New Haven: Yale
5
University Press, 2016), 99.
Barbara Miller Lane, Houses for a New World: Builders and Buyers in American Suburbs, 1945-1965, (New
6
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2015), 3.
Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia, 97-127. “Mail-order and self-built suburbs” was used as a reference for this
7
research. Hoover was Secretary of Commerce from 1921-1928 and President of the United States from 1929-1933.
Caltrans, Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation, (Sacramento, CA:
8
California Dept. of Transportation, 2011), 5. Before World War II, housing starts were 940,000 in 1925.
James Thomas Keane, Fritz B. Burns and the Development of Los Angeles: the Biography of a Community
9
Developer and Philanthropist, (Los Angeles: Historical Society of Southern California, 2001), 98.
Ibid., 132.
10
Ames and McClelland, 65.
11
Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000, 115;147.
12
Keane, 79.
13
Joseph B. Mason, History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980, (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1982), 31.
14
Keane, 75-77.
15
Caltrans, 4;57.
16
Keane, 74;87.
17
Caltrans, 60.
18
Keane, 74.
19
Alan Hess, The Ranch House, (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004), 17.
20
David Weingarten and Lucia Howard, Ranch Houses: Living the California Dream, (NewYork: Rizzoli, 2009),
21
16.
Mason, 15.
22
Hess, 13.
23
Thomas Hines, Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism, 1900-1970, (New York: Rizzoli, 2010).
24
!22
Lane, 36.
25
Caltrans, 26.
26
Keane, 85.
27
Ibid., 87.
28
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Construction in the War Years 1942-45: Employment, expenditures and
29
building volume: Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 915,” 1948, 26.
Hayden, 131-132.
30
Keane, 103.
31
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5.
32
Caltrans, 15. These statistics reflect the first two years following the end of the war. The number of marriages
33
peaked in 1957 with 4.3 million marriages; The birthrate increased from 2.2 per woman in 1930s to 3.5 in late
1950s.
Hayden, 152.
34
Ibid., 131-132.
35
Caltrans, 17.
36
Lane was the primary reference for showcase home research. World’s Fairs were consistently a source of
37
inspiration in shaping the built environment. The World’s Fair of 1939-40 in New York featured model homes in
Tomorrow Town that included the “all-electric house” by General Motors Electric Company with cutting-edge
technology packaged in a traditional style house. The House of Glass sponsored by the Pittsburgh Plat Glass
Company challenged the rule of “no extreme or modernistic design” and showcased an example in International
Style.
Jennifer A. Watts, ed. Maynard L. Parker: Modern Photography and the American Dream, (New Haven: Yale
38
University Press, 2012). Maynard Parker was the lifestyle photographer for publicity materials for the Postwar
House. Historical information on its development was derived from this source.
Hess, 12.
39
Lane, 54.
40
Richard Longstreth, Looking Beyond the Icons: Midcentury Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism,
41
(Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2015), 55.
Kevin Roderick, The San Fernando Valley: America's Suburb, (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times Books, 2001),
42
126. The residential tract of Panorama City was bounded by Van Nuys and Roscoe, Woodman and Osborne.
Lane, 72-73.
43
Weingarten and Howard, 8.
44
Lane, 49;53;72-74 and Roderick, 127.
45
Lane, 16.
46
Caltrans, 60.
47
Keane, 109-110.
48
!23
Lane, 16-17.
49
Sian Winship, “Quantity and Quality: Architects working for developers in Southern California,
50
1960-1973,” (Graduate thesis: University of Southern California, 2011), 38.
Hess, 52.
51
Sidney Margolius, “The Race To Build Houses,” The Baltimore Sun, Feb 13, 1949, WM5.
52
John Entenza, “Introduction to the Case Study House Program,” Arts and Architecture Magazine, January 1945,
53
39.
Keane, 107.
54
Cliff May Homes, “It's fun to live in a magazine cover home designed by Cliff May,” Sales Brochure, 1953.
55
Caltrans, 16.
56
Wim de Wit and Christopher Alexander, ed., Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future, 1940-1990, (Los Angeles:
57
The Getty Research Institute, 2013), viii.
Winship, 40.
58
Ibid., 43.
59
Weingarten and Howard, 18.
60
Lane, 78-79.
61
Winship, 40.
62
Ibid., 49.
63
Caltrans, 52.
64
Lane, 4.
65
Hess, 56.
66
!24
Chapter Two
San Fernando Valley Development
The San Fernando Valley, from here forward simply referred to as the Valley, has served
as a scholarly case study for postwar development for good reason. It morphed from an
1
agricultural region dotted with small town sites to an extensive network of sitcom suburbs almost
entirely in the twenty years following World War II. Its tremendous population growth
2
demonstrates the wide cultural appeal of California and its diversity of residential tracts are a
microcosm of postwar planning strategies and architectural trends. As the mid-twentieth century
approached, many people were enticed by employment opportunities, a mild climate and the
casual lifestyle synonymous with Southern California living. Until the Second World War, Los
3
Angeles served as an exemplary model for suburban living, but a tremendous population influx
soon challenged plans for sustainable growth. Two and a half million residents would call the
4
Valley home by 1960 and agriculture land use clashed with the pace of suburban development.
5
(Figure 2.1) Diverse perspectives on how to best manage this surge and subsequent housing
shortage produced a tapestry of residences, seventy-five percent of which were built after 1945.
6
The popularity of Craftsman and Period Revival residential styles would wane after the war,
while the democratization of the Ranch house would result in scores of housing tracts built in the
style’s traditional and contemporary variants.
Transition from agriculture to residential
The San Fernando Valley maintained much of its rural character throughout the first
decades of the twentieth century. The flat, wide expanses of the valley floor that would
eventually attract subdividers were primarily dedicated to agriculture for more than a century.
7
Cattle ranching and citrus crops arrived after the establishment of the Misión San Fernando Rey
de Espana (1797). Agriculture dominated land use throughout transition of power from Spain, to
8
Mexico, and finally, the United States in 1848. When California became a state in 1850, only a
9
horse path connected the San Fernando Valley to Los Angeles through the Cahuenga Pass.
10
!25
Southern Pacific Railroad service began in 1874 and fueled growth of the first town site, San
Fernando (1876), near the mission ruins. A severe drought suppressed any further growth until
11
the next decade when a series of isolated “boom towns” developed with population growth
induced by newly minted railroad routes that finally joined California with the rest of the
nation. Burbank and Glendale, both established in 1887, proved to be successful and Toluca
12
(now North Hollywood) followed a year later. With drought and flood being one of the most
13
oppressive factors in further growth, fears subsided by 1909 once a plan for the Owens Valley
aqueduct solidified. Completed in 1913, the monumental project created stability for the region
and inspired bold development ventures. Two years after its completion, the City of Los
14
Angeles forced annexation of the first 170-square miles of the San Fernando Valley, and
expanded until a total of 212 square miles were acquired. Agricultural use flourished and a
15
variety of crops, including citrus, pecan and walnut groves, dominated the landscape for decades
following construction of the aqueduct. The Valley became an indispensable asset to Los
16
Angeles and its new found stability created intense interest in investment opportunities.
!26
Figure 2.1: The tension between agriculture and suburbanization is palpable in this
photograph of Ventura Boulevard in 1955. Courtesy of Water and Power Associates.
Accessed December 2016. http-//waterandpower.org/museum/
Early_Views_of_the_San_Fernando_Valley_Page_4.html Woodland_Hills_Sheep_1955.
Transportation routes helped define patterns of suburbanization in the early twentieth
century. Population density was initially concentrated in the southeast (closest to downtown Los
Angeles, Burbank and Glendale), and subdivisions expanded west and north based on
accessibility. The speculative towns of Van Nuys, Owensmouth (now Canoga Park), and
17
Marian (now Reseda) were part of a larger land acquisition known as Tract 1000 subdivided
simultaneously between 1911-12 and required access via streetcar and automobile to ignite
sales. Henry Huntington’s Pacific Electric Railway Red Cars helped build this network to fuel
18
real estate speculation and service to the Valley was announced in 1904. The line began
19
operation in 1911 through the Cahuenga Pass to connect North Hollywood via Lankershim
Boulevard. An extension to Van Nuys soon followed and branched off to reach San Fernando to
the north and Canoga Park to the west. (Figure 2.2) The Red Car routes came to define much of
20
the future growth patterns in the Valley and throughout Los Angeles County. Widespread
21
adoption of the automobile occurred simultaneously to Red Car development in the Valley.
22
!27
Figure 2.2: Map of the San Fernando Valley (1923) highlights transportation routes.
Courtesy of the San Fernando Valley Relics Museum. Donated by Robert Aitchison.
Accessed November 2016. https://valleyrelicsmuseum.org/museum-news/map-san-
fernando-valley-1923/.
Early motorist thoroughfares, such as Sherman Way (1912) that linked Van Nuys, paralleled
streetcar tracks. Eventually independent routes were constructed, as automobile ownership in
Los Angeles outpaced the rest of the world by the 1920s, and subdivisions no longer strictly
adhered to the streetcar network. North Hollywood has one example of an early suburb
23
identified to have relied on the automobile. The proposed Ben Avenue Historic District (1928),
situated one mile from the nearest Red Car stop, features a mix of Period Revival and Minimal
Traditional houses.
24
The population of the Valley, which hovered around 20,000 residents by the 1920s,
increased sevenfold by the conclusion of World War II due to a significant investment in
California’s industrial potential. Aviation/aerospace and its relationship with the Department of
25
Defense played a significant role in residential development for the worker housing demanded
by the presence of major manufacturers and research laboratories. Aviation history in the Valley
26
dates back to 1912, with a number of private airstrips scattered throughout the region. Grand
Central Terminal (1923) in Glendale became the primary facility for air traffic, while
!28
Figure 2.3: A 1929 view of the Metropolitan Airport, which opened in 1928 amid
agricultural fields in Van Nuys. Dick Whittington Collection. Downloaded from USC
Digital Library. December 2016.
Metropolitan Airport, now Van Nuys Airport, and United Field in Burbank were established in
1928 and 1930, respectively. (Figure 2.3) Lockheed took over United Field in 1940, followed by
the opening of a facility at Van Nuys Airport (1943). Lockheed proceeded to become the
27
Valley’s largest employer. Their success in Burbank precipitated continued growth of the
industry, prompting North American Aviation to open Rocketdyne (the Valley’s second largest
employer) in the late 1940s in Canoga Park. The following table demonstrates the sustained
28
availability of employment in the aerospace and defense industries through the Cold War era of
the 1960s. (Table 2.1) There were prospects through other major employers, such as Pacific
Telephone and Universal Studios, but aerospace and defense represented twenty-five to thirty
percent of total employment opportunities. Population in the Burbank area alone increased by
29
twenty-nine thousand people between 1940-46 to support the Vega and Lockheed plants. People
!29
Employer Number of Employees
Lockheed 21,000
Rocketdyne 15,000
Litton Industries 8,000
Pacific Telephone* 4,095
Bendix-Pacific 4,000
General Motors 3,570
Atomics International (North American) 3,400
Universal Studios* 2,800
L.A. City Department of Water & Power* 1,960
Sears* 1,700
Marquardt 1,550
Bunker-Ramo Corp. 1,450
Radio Corp of America 1,200
Whittaker Corp 900
Table 2.1: Data from City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 1967; *Four largest non-
industrial employers
were desperate for housing, ideally located near factories dedicated to the war effort. The highly
profitable venture by private builders to fulfill this need had produced subdivisions such as
Toluca Wood (1941) in Burbank and Fritz Burns continued this successful location strategy after
the war when General Motors opened a factory near the Panorama Ranch. (Figure 2.4) This
30
development was previously discussed for its nationwide significance in suburbanization and
mass production of the Ranch house, but the importance of this economic hub must be
underscored for its regional significance. It remained dependent to a certain degree on Los
Angeles for cultural and economic stability, but coupled with the presence of major employers,
the planned community achieved a self-sustainable urban alternative and spurred further
development of the Valley.
The Valley distinguished itself from other suburban landscapes across the nation through
its association with film and television. The industry provided a solid secondary economic base,
while the cultural allure made ownership of even a modest Ranch house within a short distance
of filming locations and celebrities seem glamorous to migrants. Lured to the region with the
!30
Figure 2.4: View of General Motors factory (1949). Panorama City can be seen in the
distance. Courtesy of Water and Power Associates. Accessed December 2016. http-//
waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Views_of_the_San_Fernando_Valley_Page_4.html
GM_Plant_1949.
promise of a mild climate for year-round production, filmmakers utilized the Valley from the
turn-of-the-twentieth-century. Carl Leammle’s Universal City, established in 1913 in the
31
Cahuenga Pass, emerged as a sizable employer by mid-century along with CBS Studio Center
(founded in 1928 as Mack Sennett’s Studioland) and nearby Warner Brothers Studios and Walt
Disney Studios in Burbank. At the time Studioland was founded, Sennett and producer Al
32
Christie joined real estate developers to subdivide a neighborhood in the pecan groves nearby.
33
Additional examples of subdivisions that attracted entertainers and other studio personnel
include Toluca Lake Park where Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra established
residences. Gary Cooper, Clark Gable and Carole Lombard, along with Lucille Ball and Desi
34
Arnaz settled in the Valley, out of convenience as well as enjoyment of the tranquil setting. The
35
Valley was well-known as a celebrity outpost by the war years, which contributed to an idealistic
image of suburban life in the postwar era. While the suburbs are not exclusively a postwar
36
product, the effects of suburbanization are most dramatic after the war when many flocked to the
Valley for its combination of attractive features and housing construction occurred at an
unprecedented pace.
A Postwar Population Explosion
Of the Valley’s 212 square miles, over eighty percent remained in parcels greater than
one-half acre in 1945. It was the ideal location for postwar expansion — “the perfect blank
37
canvas on which to paint an array of Ranch houses in the post-World War II years.” — as
veterans flooded into Southern California by the thousands. The City of Los Angeles released a
38
plan for responsible growth in the San Fernando Valley that aimed to sustain a population of
900,000 (estimated by the year 2000) and envisioned “small, compact, planned communities
which will possess all the amenities of a country town and be self-sustaining in every respect.”
39
This decentralized model, a concept based on Ebenezer Howard’s garden city movement of the
turn of the twentieth century retained much of the Valley’s agricultural use. Charles B. Bennett,
the Director Planning, had stressed “agriculture, which is so important to the economy of not
only the Valley, but the metropolitan area of Los Angeles as well, should be encouraged to
!31
further develop and should be adequately protected against the indiscriminate town lot
subdividing of good agricultural acreage.” Bennett planned for healthy growth of existing
40
commercial centers and residential districts, surrounded by greenbelts. He emphasized the need
for an improved parkway system, increased public services and creation of more jobs to alleviate
suburban dwellings of a lengthly daily commute. Development pressures would almost
41
immediately compromise Bennett’s idyllic vision. The demand for housing was intense and
42
merchant builders descended upon the wide open spaces of the Valley to continuously construct
tracts of single-family houses for the next two decades. Bennett’s sustainable population estimate
of 900,000 was eclipsed by 1964 and the ranches and orchards had almost entirely vanished.
43
Viability of the newly minted suburbs that spread northwest across the Valley was
dependent upon continued growth of a transportation network. (Figure 2.5) The freeway system
was seen as the future of the automobile and Los Angeles fully embraced experimentation in
urban design solutions for motorists. The Collier-Burns Highway Act of 1947 laid the
44
groundwork for such as system, but realization of the freeways that crisscrossed the metropolis
would take more than two decades to realize. The first accomplishment in improving access to
!32
Figure 2.5: Subdivisions rapidly spread northwest as the population increased and
accessibility improved. Los Angeles Department of City Planning (1967).
the Valley came with the completion of the Hollywood Freeway (U.S. Route 101) segment from
Highland to Vineland in 1949. The Ventura Freeway (Also U.S. Route 101) followed in 1960
45
and the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) opened in 1962. These monumental projects
addressed the traffic congestion that plagued the northern portion of the city, but proved to only
offer temporary relief. As more residents settled on the northern boundaries of the city and
46
became dependent on the freeways for transport, automobile ownership in the Valley trended
higher than almost anywhere in Los Angeles County, with forty-six percent of residents owning
two or more cars. Architecture adapted to this city designed for the automobile, and “the front
47
door is where you park your car” in the suburbs. Lot sizes became larger, conducive to
48
elongated plans that utilized the additional width, and the one-story scale of the Ranch house
came to dominate the Valley.
49
SurveyLA defined three types of postwar single-family residential developments,
including a wide variety of Ranch house styles, throughout the Valley. The first type, the
residential neighborhood allowed for more gradual development and where houses share a
design vocabulary, but are typically custom creations. The second type, housing tracts, were
constructed in a short span in a repetitive fashion that relies on a few identical models. The
development is often the work of a single developer and architect and packaged for sale with a
unified marketing concept. In the third type, the planned community (such as Panorama City),
50
housing tracts are integrated into the design of a more ambitious overall plan that includes public
and commercial space and is implemented by a single builder or development team. The
commonality between these three types of development is the use of some sub-type of the Ranch
house. Ranch houses are typically one-story in scale with a low-pitched, gabled, or hipped roof
51
with wide eaves. They are often asymmetrical and have a horizontal emphasis, sometimes with
additions or wings that suggest a rambling plan. The free-flowing spaces of the interior have a
strong connection with the outdoors, sometimes even emphasizing outdoor rooms. Materials are
often rustic, such as board-and-batten cladding, or have a general sense of informality. The
52
reasonably conservative style of the Ranch house correlated to FHA loan acquisition and healthy
profit margins found in refining an identical house plan to create a product that retained appeal
when used in a repetitive fashion. The precedent set by the democratized version of the Ranch
53
!33
house designed by Wurdeman and Becket for Panorama City promoted better relationships
between builders and architects in the postwar era. As these relationships matured, the Ranch
54
house was refined through exploration of functionality and applied motifs (or lack thereof).
Variants of the Traditional Ranch house include American Colonial, Cape Cod, Cinderella,
Hacienda, and Minimal Ranch. A second subcategory, the Contemporary Ranch, includes more
Modern stylings, sometimes with influences of Oriental and Hollywood Regency design.
SurveyLA describes the differentiation between the two categories:
The Contemporary Ranch style reflects architects and builders’ attempt to reconcile the
basic form of the Ranch house and the abstract geometries and contemporary details of
Modernism. This style was popular in the postwar era and was also applied to both
custom and mass-produced houses. As to assume a more Modern aesthetic,
Contemporary Ranches are generally devoid of the historicist references and rusticated
details that are found on Traditional Ranches. (Figure 2.6)
55
!34
Figure 2.6: A tract house in Meadowlark Park (Reseda) by architect Edward Fickett
demonstrates how architects in the early 1950s began to blend Modern details with the
Ranch house form. Maynard L. Parker, photographer. Courtesy of The Huntington Library,
San Marino, California. California.
Contemporary Ranches are more common after 1950, once housing demand was largely
fulfilled. Buyer’s preferences evolved, as the market became more competitive, and the services
of an architect became more advantageous to the builder. Of the seventy-nine potential historic
districts identified in the San Fernando Valley, several builder and architect relationships
produced work that deserves further exploration. Most notably for development of the
Contemporary Ranch in the Valley were architects Palmer and Krisel, Edward Fickett, Charles
Dubois, Smith and Williams, Jones and Emmons, and Claude Oakland who found outlets for
creativity with certain developers such as Alexander Construction Company and Eichler
Homes.
56
Thousands of tracts houses designed by Palmer and Krisel were erected in the Valley by
1960. The architects were dedicated to delivering Modernism to the masses and recognized the
effort required in the elimination of barriers between builders and architects in order to produce a
profitable model. Their first venture in the Valley was Corbin Palms, a Modern residential tract
by Alexander Construction Company, which began construction in 1953. (Figure 2.7) Alexander
had previously built the Traditional and Minimal Ranch homes of Encino Woods (1947), but was
persuaded to partner with Palmer and Krisel and the result proved to be enormously successful.
After the enthusiastic reception at Corbin Palms, developers embraced house designs that wove
Modernism together with the casual western approach to living embodied in the Ranch form. In
the Valley, just under a thousand houses by Palmer and Krisel have been identified by SurveyLA
as being eligible for designation: Northridge West for Cal-Frank Homes (1955-56); Marlborough
Palms for Porter Land and water Company (1957-58); and two tracts for developer Sanford D.
Adler, Storybook Village (1956) and Living-Conditioned Homes (1957-58). A later example of
residential work by Palmer, residences along Escalon Drive in Encino, also is eligible for
designation.
57
The sixty-five Palmer and Krisel-designed houses of Marlborough Palms (1957-58) by
the Porter Land and Water Company represent a portion of a larger tract of Traditional Ranch
houses. Marlborough Palms is notable for its association with a nationwide promotional
58
campaign for the promotion of electricity as the primary source of residential power. Live Better
!35
Electrically, launched in 1956, added a Medallion Home component that rewarded total electric
living with a gold medallion. Three hundred electrical utility companies and 180 electrical
manufacturers united to ensure that newly built homes featured electric washers and dryers,
garbage disposals, dishwashers, and all-electric heating. One million homes were built using the
auspices of the program and Marlborough Palms was often used in promotion of the campaign.
59
Developer Julian Weinstock, who partnered with Palmer and Krisel for Northridge
College Estates (1957-60), is most notable for his Traditional Ranch subdivisions. His
involvement in the Valley began as the architect and builder for Hillview Park Estates (1947-55)
for Associated Development Company in 1946. The tract includes some Contemporary Ranch
houses, but the majority of the 111 houses were built in Traditional Ranch styles: Minimal;
American Colonial; Hacienda. Weinstock also designed and built Minimal and Cinderella
Ranches in Walnut Haven (1951-54) and sixty-one Traditional Ranch houses in Louise Park
Estates (1956-57). For Northridge College Estates, he turned to Palmer and Krisel to create
60
!36
Figure 2.7: Corbin Palms House, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #976, is located
in the southern portion of the first tract Palmer and Krisel designed with Alexander
Construction Company. Photo by author. November 2016.
nine models that offered “the best of today with a flair for tomorrow” and the partnership
ultimately produced 188 houses. Weinstock’s choice of Palmer and Krisel reflects a growing
61
understanding of the importance of architectural talent and the marketability of good design in
the latter part of the 1950s. In 1957, Weinstock commissioned Charles Dubois to create a
showcase house, called the Northridger, to further diversify his offerings. Dubois was also the
62
designer behind Woodside (1959) and Kingswood (1963-65) in Woodland Hills. Between the
two tracts, more than two hundred Contemporary Ranch houses were built by Don-Ja-Ran
Construction Company that brought the unique Tiki and Chalet-inspired Ranch house variant to
the Valley. (Figure 2.8)
63
Developed concurrently were the Eichler Homes of Balboa Highlands (1962-64) in
Granada Hills. Eichler’s work in Modern residential tracts had matured in Northern California
and he brought the successful model to Southern California in the early 1960s, erecting over one
hundred residences designed by Claude Oakland, and Jones and Emmons in the San Fernando
!37
Figure 2.8: A Contemporary Ranch house in Woodside, a postwar residential tract designed
by Charles Dubois. Photo courtesy of Architectural Resources Group. Accessed January
2017. https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/woodside.
Valley. Balboa Highlands, a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) in the City of Los
64
Angeles, will be one of the three case studies presented in the subsequent chapters.
The three case studies to follow aim to develop a better understanding of significance and
treatment of Modern residential tracts. As the first postwar residential subdivision to become a
Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) in Los Angeles, the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract,
provides a foundation for evaluating the application of the HPOZ tool in a Modern residential
tract. While located on the westside of the city, and not in the San Fernando Valley, it is a useful
precedent that illustrates the challenges associated with making integrity assessments and
regulating residential tracts over the period of over ten years since the HPOZ was created. The
Balboa Highlands and Living-Conditioned Homes subdivisions will serve as the remaining case
studies. While the primary focus of this research is integrity analysis of Modern residential tracts,
and their environment, an overview of SurveyLA results for the San Fernando Valley is provided
in Appendix C.
65
!38
Chapter Two Endnotes Kevin Starr, Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance 1950-1963, (New York: Oxford University Press,
1
2009), 1. The geographic boundaries of the San Fernando Valley extend from Santa Monica Mountains to the south
to the Simi Hills to the west, the Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains to the north and Verdugo Mountains to
the east.
Kevin Roderick, The San Fernando Valley: America’ s Suburb, (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times Books, 2001),
2
169.
City of Los Angeles Planning Department, San Fernando Valley Planning Area: Background For Planning (1967),
3
21.
Wim de Wit and Christopher James Alexander, Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future, 1940-1990, (Los Angeles:
4
Getty Research Institute, 2013), 127.
Lane, 48.
5
City of Los Angeles Planning Department, San Fernando Valley Planning Area: Background For Planning (1967),
6
13.
De Wit and Alexander, 13.
7
Ibid., 15.
8
Discover Los Angeles, “Historical Timeline,” Accessed November 7, 2016, http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/
9
blog/historical-timeline-los-angeles. Spanish control was relinquished to Mexico in 1821, only to be ceded to the
United States in 1848 and California achieved statehood two years later. The white population of Los Angeles
surpassed that of Spanish and Native American descent for the first time in 1870.
Roderick, 32.
10
Ibid., 37.
11
City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945). Railroads: 1881
12
Southern Pacific Railroad connected Los Angeles to eastern United States, followed by a second line on Santa Fe
Railroad in 1885. San Fernando was founded in 1876.
Roderick, 44.
13
Starr, 4.
14
De Wit and Alexander, 16.
15
Starr, 4.
16
Ames and McClelland, 16.
17
De Wit and Alexander, 16.
18
Ibid., 36.
19
Los Angeles Metro, “Past Visions of L.A.'s Transportation Future”, Accessed December 4, 2016, https://
20
www.metro.net/about/library/archives/visions-studies/mass-rapid-transit-concept-maps/.
De Wit and Alexander, 18.
21
Ames and McClelland, 16.
22
De Wit and Alexander, 36.
23
!39
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, SurveyLA, North Hollywood, 1.
24
Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945), 7.
25
Roderick, 133.
26
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, SurveyLA, “Reseda-West Van Nuys,” 68.
27
Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945). Also see, Roderick, 134-35.
28
Background for Planning (1967), 16.
29
Gregory Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth-Century Metropolis, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
30
University Press, 1997), 194. Burns completed Toluca Wood (1941) followed by Panorama City (1947) in the San
Fernando Valley. For more, see the section on Development of the suburban house.
Lane, 47.
31
Roderick, 86; City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, SurveyLA, “Sherman Oaks,” 137.
32
SurveyLA identified five American Colonial Revival residences, built in the late 1930s, in the proposed Agnes
33
Avenue Historic District.
SurveyLA, “Sherman Oaks - Studio City - Toluca Lake - Cahuenga Pass,” 174. Toluca Lake Park no longer
34
retains the integrity necessary for a historic district, but the implementation of alternate planning tools may be
beneficial.
Roderick, 92.
35
Ibid., 169.
36
Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945), 3.
37
Los Angeles Conservancy, “Home on the Ranch,” Accessed April 2015, https://www.laconservancy.org/
38
collections/home-ranch.
Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945), 8; 11. A model for garden cities had been established in 1946 by
39
the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of New Deal reform. Accessed November 13, 2016, https://
livingnewdeal.org/tag/greenbelt-towns/.
Planning for the San Fernando Valley (1945), 7.
40
Ibid., 7.
41
Roderick, 124-125
42
Security First National Bank, The Growth and Economic Stature of the San Fernando Valley, (Los Angeles:
43
Security First National Bank, 1960), 3.
De Wit and Alexander, 36; 38.
44
Background for Planning (1967), 21.
45
Roderick, 136.
46
Background for Planning (1967), 43.
47
Hess, 60.
48
SurveyLA, “Ranch House Historic Context,” 6.
49
!40
Ibid., 14.
50
Categories and sub-types as outlined in SurveyLA.
51
Hess, 17.
52
Ibid., 40.
53
SurveyLA, “Ranch House Historic Context,” 9.
54
Ibid., 17.
55
Ibid., 16.
56
Identified by SurveyLA. Escalon Drive residences were built in 1966, after Palmer and Krisel’s partnership
57
dissolved.
These tracts were all identified by SurveyLA and retain sufficient integrity to warrant application of conservation
58
tools. See appendix A for an overview of all San Fernando Valley postwar housing included in the survey.
SurveyLA, “Granada Hills - Knollwood Report,” 1-2.
59
SurveyLA, “Reseda - West Van Nuys Report,” 1-13.
60
SurveyLA, “Northridge,” 137.
61
“Home Show Model for Suburban Living: Traditional Exterior, Modern Floor Plan,” Los Angeles Times, June 16,
62
1957, K12.
SurveyLA, “Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland Hills-West Hills,” 119; 40; Weinstein, Dave, “Swiss Misses,” CA
63
Modern, Accessed December 3, 2016, http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/swiss-misses. Dubois is widely
recognized as the architect behind the popular Swiss Miss Ranch houses in the Vista Las Palmas neighborhood of
Palm Springs, built in 1958 by Alexander Construction Company.
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Balboa Highlands HPOZ,” Accessed January 19, 2017, http://
64
preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/balboa-highlands.
Residential tracts evaluated by Survey LA that did not retain sufficient integrity for further analysis were excluded
65
from Appendix A.
!41
Chapter Three
Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract
The Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract has the distinction of being the first subdivision of
postwar resources to have been designated a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) in the
City of Los Angeles. (Figure 3.1) The collection of fifty-two single-family houses, built in 1948,
is a significant example of the work of master architect Gregory Ain along with celebrated
landscape architect Garrett Eckbo. The integration of the houses with their landscape was
1
essential to the overall design, but ultimately a single residence cannot be isolated for its
significance. The tract in its entirety demonstrates a progressive postwar community planning
concept that offered an alternative to more conservative residential developments of the era. The
designation of the tract as a historic district in 2003 demonstrated the need for implementation of
preservation tools, such as districting, to better represent the diversity of postwar resources. The
!42
Figure 3.1: Mar Vista Housing Development (Los Angeles, Calif.), 1950. Photograph by
Julius Shulman. © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10).
twenty-first century has posed many challenges: defining significance for Modern resources,
overcoming barriers in public perception of Modernism, and adjusting conservation strategies to
address the cultural landscape created by rapid suburbanization. The Mar Vista Tract set a
precedent as the first successful attempt in Los Angeles for framing an argument for conservation
of Modern residential tracts. The HPOZ was ultimately successful due to intense community
outreach and a committed group of homeowners working with the City of Los Angeles, local
advocacy organizations, and preservation professionals to establish significance and develop
methods for managing change to the individual resources and the neighborhood as a whole.
Review of the entire process, from integrity analysis to implementation of a customized
preservation plan, aids in understanding approaches for managing change and planning for future
Modern districts in Los Angeles and beyond.
History
By the late 1940s, Gregory Ain had attempted several endeavors in cooperative
residential communities with communal character that aligned with his socialist political
ideology. Ain was a University of Southern California graduate and apprentice of Richard
Neutra, where he worked on the Modern urban concept Rush City Reformed (1928). In the
2
same utopian spirit, Ain continued his quest to provide good design to the masses while
challenging the racially restrictive covenants often in place in residential tracts. In addition to the
Mar Vista Tract, Ain’s unrealized Community Homes for Reseda, and the execution of twenty-
eight houses for Park Planned Homes (1948) in Altadena demonstrated this commitment. He
3
believed, “Too many modern architects in their zeal to promulgate new and frequently valid
ideas, withdraw from the common architecture problems of common people. But it ought to be
clear that the more common, that is, the more prevalent, a problem is, just so much more
important does the solution of that problem become. A preference for tomorrow’s problem over
todays is essentially an evasion of both.”
4
The Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract, originally marketed as Modernique Homes, was built
in 1948. The houses were designed by Ain during his partnership with Joseph Johnson and
Alfred Day. An integral part of the tract was the landscape design by Garrett Eckbo that united
!43
the individual dwellings in a park-like setting. Advanced Development Group, with B.M.
Edelman at the helm, championed Ain’s ideas as the developer of the project and constructed
fifty-two dwellings in 1948 along the adjacent streets of Moore, Meier, and Beethoven in a sixty-
acre subdivision in southwest Los Angeles. (Figure 3.2) The original plan for 102 houses in two
phases was never fully realized. The design faced FHA criticism, which affected funding, and its
location was not particularly desirable. Flat-roofed residences were often rejected due to the
FHA’s conservative practices, but Ain insisted a flat roof was simply more economical. He
calculated his architecture in volume, in addition to square footage, to prove that flat roofs saved
material. The developer for the Mar Vista Tract was able to secure financial support for one
5
phase, but sales in comparison to surrounding real estate doomed the second phase. Priced at
$11,000, the Mar Vista Tract sold for $1,000 more than anticipated in the original sales strategy.
!44
Figure 3.2: The site plan for the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract. Gregory Ain papers,
Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara.
In contrast, an older residence could be purchased nearby for $5,000, while a new home in
Westchester cost as little as $8,650 in 1947.
6
Several families who shared Ain’s vision for a Modern utopia were satisfied to pay the
premium for good design. They were interspersed with an eclectic mix of others who slowly
bought into the community. The occupants of the houses enjoyed efficient interiors where
7
sliding walls and retractable partitions transformed space to adapt to varied lifestyles. Ain’s
distinctive fenestration patterns included a mix of ribbon windows with half-to-full height
windows to achieve indoor/outdoor integration without compromising the needs of the
occupants’ privacy. The houses, which shared the same floor plan, were mirrored and rotated on
the small lots, with multiple garage configurations to further address privacy, provide aesthetic
variation and maximize use of outdoor space to create a more expansive feel for the 1,050 square
feet of interior space. The repetitive plan also relied on Eckbo’s thoughtful landscape for visual
diversity. Each dwelling had a customized plant plan, including a mix of fruit trees to inspire a
neighborhood exchange, but remained united as green spaces were woven together to create the
feeling of a community park. To emphasize this concept, each street was defined by a different
species of parkway tree (Figure 3.3). From the primary facade, houses appeared to be nestled in
8
a communal setting and in the original vision rear yards would have also been shared space.
(Figure 3.4) Soon after construction, fencing was erected to appease residents who maintained a
more traditional approach to suburban living.
The Mar Vista Tract demonstrated that rapid expansion of the suburban landscape in Los
Angeles did not mean that quality of life need be compromised. When the HPOZ was created in
2003, there were still some original homeowners — a testament to the satisfaction many felt for
the houses despite their compact design. Much of Los Angeles would go on to be built out with
more Traditional Ranch houses in sprawling subdivisions that reached to the northern border of
the San Fernando Valley, while the Mar Vista Tract HPOZ remains a tangible link to alternative
ideas in postwar housing and community planning.
!45
!46
Figure 3.3: Each street in the Mar Vista Tract received a different variety of tree that has
flourished. Photo by author. December 2016.
Figure 3.4: This section of Meier Street retains a strong sense of the design intent with
original plantings and a continuous lawn. Photo by author. December 2016.
The Designation Process
The initiative to designate the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract HPOZ was spurred by several
factors including mounting development pressures and the presence of a high level of
architectural integrity. Most importantly, an organized community effort was crucial in making
the initiative successful. Postwar era resources began to reach fifty years of age at the turn of the
new century and a growing appreciation of Modernism reactivated certain pockets of tract
housing associated with the Modern Movement. While Gregory Ain’s architectural contributions
may have slipped into obscurity for some time, an awareness and appreciation for the Mar Vista
Tract remained fairly constant. Among the initial owners in the tract were Max and Rita
Lawerence, founders of Architectural Pottery, and film director Joseph Strick. Rachel
9
Rosenbach and her husband had moved into the neighborhood in 1948 at the recommendation of
their friend John Entenza, publisher of Arts and Architecture Magazine. Rachel remained in her
house for more than fifty years and offered her support throughout the HPOZ process. The
neighborhood continued to draw residents who knew of Ain and/or Eckbo’s work or simply
recognized the quality of life provided through the elevated design. A core group of residents
acted as stewards and mobilized when insensitive alterations, such as a garage remodel or second
story addition, threatened the community. The appreciation of the quality of life the homes
provide reduced turnover in the neighborhood, which may have contributed to a relative lack of
alterations and sensitive remodels over the years. Few were eager to see change, but as it seemed
more and more inevitable, residents looked to preservation tools to help manage that change.
10
Throughout Los Angeles, the phenomenon of “mansionization” had led to the demolition
of single-family postwar residences in favor of much larger houses on comparable sized parcels.
Real estate prices had risen sharply, especially in the twenty-first century and development
pressures were especially intense in communities such as Mar Vista due to their proximity to the
coast. A residence recently under construction just outside the southern border of the tract
demonstrates the threat continues to be an issue for the character of adjoining neighborhoods.
(Figure 3.5) The City exhibited a slow response in addressing the impact of mansionization in
older neighborhoods. There was also potential for additions to increase square footage of the
!47
modestly sized Ain dwellings that would erode integrity. The concerns activated a group of
residents to contact the Los Angeles Conservancy for assistance and a formal survey of the tract
was initiated.
11
Integrity Analysis
The resource survey conducted by Myra L. Frank and Associates in 2002 assessed the
integrity of the subdivision based on the character-defining features in Table 3.1. Character-
defining features express the physical structure’s social or aesthetic value associated with the
period of significance defined for the survey area. The flat-roof, fenestration pattern, material
selection and lack of ornamentation are integral components that convey the association with the
Modern Movement. A single-story, based on a four-foot building module (although not identified
!48
Figure 3.5: An example of a residence currently under construction directly to the south of
the Mar Vista Tract HPOZ demonstrates trends in contemporary architecture for the area.
Photo by author. December 2016.
as a character-defining feature), defines the form, while setbacks, orientation of each dwelling in
the communal setting, and relationship with landscape elements also shape the character of the
tract. Repetitive architectural elements, such as illuminated address plate, v-shaped roof support
and garage trellis, provide aesthetic continuity. Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 provide a historical
versus contemporary view that demonstrates that the tract overall has retained a high level of
integrity. Based upon presence of these features, each residence is classified as contributor,
altered contributor, or non-contributor. Ninety-four percent, or forty-nine of the fifty-two
properties were considered contributors in the district analysis. Twelve residences were
!49
•
Landscape features such as parkway trees, shared lawns, and fruit trees, shrubs or other
plantings that contribute to the integrity of the tract
• Single-story scale
•
Setbacks
•
Flat roofs
• Zig-zag concrete walkway to primary entrance
•
Stucco cladding
•
Fenestration pattern
• Wood awning window and trim
•
Wood framed clerestory windows and trim
•
Exterior solid-core slab door for primary entrance
• Secondary door styles and placement (glass-door to rear patio)
• Illuminated street number in “aluminum” pot metal frame
•
Horizontal wood siding that extends to wood fencing
• Bedroom privacy walls
• V-shaped support for walkway canopy
•
Horizontally-scored garage door
• Recessed garage configuration with trellis for climbing plant
Table 3.1: Gregory Ain Mar Vista Character-Defining Features. Historic Resources Survey. Myra L. Frank and
Associates. 2002.
!50
Figure 3.6: Mar Vista Housing Development (Los Angeles, Calif.), 1950. Photograph by
Julius Shulman. © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10).
Figure 3.7: Similar view of houses in the Mar Vista Tract. Note the conversion of the garage
to interior space. Photo by author. December 2016.
contributors, thirty-seven were altered contributors, and three were non-contributors. The
integrity threshold is based upon reversibility, the ease with which a character-defining feature
can be restored, and the ability for a property to express the seven qualities defined in the criteria
for evaluation. (Appendix A) For example, an altered contributor may exhibit non-original
windows, but still retains sufficient integrity if the fenestration pattern remains intact. Additions
to the rear of the property that are not visible from the street are often permissible, but
subjectivity about additions to the primary facade accounts for some measure of inconsistency.
Twenty-four properties had additions (not including pergolas or other exterior design features)
that changed the footprint of the plan. Additionally, fourteen garage conversions increased
interior square footage, but were not considered additions. There are also two examples in the
tract where the pitch of the roof modified or a “pop-up” was added, which is generally not
considered an easily reversible change. Thirty-seven altered contributors, despite conversions
and additions (even to the primary facade), met the threshold for integrity due to the sensitive
nature of the modifications. Expansions often honored the original four-foot module on which
the homes were originally constructed and design features were sympathetic to the Modern style.
Only one house had been altered beyond recognition and three others did not meet the integrity
threshold. The decision was adjusted to only three non-contributors after further evaluation of
12
the property at 3515 Moore Street. (Figure 3.8) At the time of the survey, the residence featured
inappropriate cladding, window replacement (although the fenestration pattern remained intact)
and garden features such as concrete block and a fountain that detracted from its character.
Residents participating in the HPOZ process insisted these were reversible features and the house
was ultimately included as an altered contributor. The property was sold in 2011 and despite its
13
inclusion as an altered contributor, the residence was razed and replaced with entirely new
construction that mimics Ain’s design. (Figure 3.9) This issue highlights the need for
14
discussion surrounding integrity of original materials. Replica materials are advised to replace
features that deteriorate beyond repair or require restoration, but in this case, the simplicity of the
Modern form and lack of ornamentation allowed for reproduction of the entire dwelling. It is
only upon close examination, the fenestration pattern is inconsistent with any original plans for
!51
!52
Figure 3.8: The residence at 3515 Moore Street was originally surveyed as a non-
contributor, but residents argued that alterations were reversible and it was ultimately
included as an altered contributor. Photo by Myra L. Frank and Associates. 2002. Accessed
January 2017. http://zimas.lacity.org/.
Figure 3.9: The residence at 3515 Moore Street was considered an altered contributor, but
demolished and replaced with a replica property. Photo by author. December 2016.
the tract. The integrity of the tract as a whole benefits from this replica, but the dwelling itself
cannot be considered a contributor.
Preservation Plan
The creation of a customized preservation plan presented challenges, given a group of
homeowners with differing opinions about architecture and design. An outline of character-
15
defining features and guidelines for application of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation are produced by the HPOZ board and the City. While the rehabilitation guidelines
were effective in the interim, it took until September 2010 for a draft document of customized
criteria to be produced, with subsequent edits in the two months that followed before a final draft
was adopted on December 9, 2010.
The primary facade and appearance of the landscape design as viewed from the street was
given priority, a standard conservation strategy in a historic district, although extensive
discussion considered regulation of a greater range of design features that fully express the
Modern concept encompassed by Ain’s interior spatial organization and flexibility. The final
16
draft of the Preservation Plan states that inappropriate alterations include additions that protrude
from the single-story form, changes to fenestration patterns and removal of any character-
defining features. Per the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, effort should be made to repair
features, if possible, before they are replaced. If replacement is necessary, the feature should be
replaced in kind. If a feature was altered or removed before the survey work completed for the
HPOZ, the plan permits replacement that is sympathetic to the “Early Modernist design
aesthetic.” One example given in the preservation plan is for the front door. The first choice
should always be restoration before replacement. If replacement is necessary, it should be done
in-kind with a replica solid-core door preferred, but other styles may be suitable with approval by
the HPOZ board. Landscape features, particularly the greenbelt that unites the front lawns, were
heavily discussed in the plan and discourage the installation of fencing except on a case by case
basis where fencing, limited to 48-inches in height that maintains transparency, may be
appropriate to reduce street noise. Even in this case, homeowners are encouraged to choose
!53
voluminous plantings instead of fencing to retain the intent of the original landscape design. In
reference to the landscaping, the word “traditional” was edited in the final draft in favor of “open
and verdant,” underscoring the importance of the subtleties in the language used throughout the
preservation plan. (Figure 3.10) Hardscape features were also highlighted, in an effort to
conserve existing concrete or replicate in color and scoring. Installation of any non-original
concrete is considered inappropriate. Additional inclusions in the Preservation Plan must be
17
considered as the HPOZ tackles unforeseen challenges, such as the impact of the recent drought
in California. Residents have been experimenting with native grasses that honor Eckbo’s
landscape, but are heartier than some of the original specifications.
18
With creation of any Preservation Plan, there is extensive discussion about appropriate
alterations once the HPOZ is in place. Purists may insist that restoration is the only acceptable
strategy, while others are more lenient in accepting changes sympathetic to the original that are
justified in order to adapt to contemporary lifestyles. For example, the four-foot building module
the Mar Vista Tract is built upon could be used to guide sensitive additions. Residents in favor of
!54
Figure 3.10: An example from the Preservation Plan, the caption reads, “Low-water landscapes can be
lush and inviting (such as the image at right) and remain consistent with the look of the neighborhood as
a whole. The image at left is arid and would be inappropriate for the Mar Vista Tract.” Courtesy of the
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources. Gregory Ain Mar Vista HPOZ Preservation Plan.
2010.
this strategy argue that the architectural integrity would not be compromised while providing
some flexibility for those who needed to expand their property. It is worth noting, however, that
19
Gregory Ain had refused to work with homeowners when asked to return for an addition to their
properties.
20
Reflections
Effectiveness of the Preservation Plan can only truly be assessed with the passage of time
and evaluation of changes that occur. In the Mar Vista Tract, the Preservation Plan has been in
place for six years and the HPOZ for more than ten. Review of alterations that have occurred,
and whether they align with the conservation strategies, is helpful in guiding the future
conservation of postwar residential tracts. With regard to fencing in the front of the property,
some homeowners have chosen to maintain or even replace in-kind fencing that is not
appropriate for the tract. Removal of fencing in these instances is voluntary. The design
guidelines in the preservation plan require new fencing be limited to instances where excessive
street noise is addressed (an issue acknowledged along Beethoven Street). Since the preservation
plan was enacted, multiple properties have installed fencing or garden walls that compromise the
integrity of the tract. The original intent for communal space is threatened by these incremental
changes that negatively impact interaction with the landscape. (Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12) It is
not uncommon for controversial alterations to occur in any HPOZ due to inconsistencies in
interpretation of the preservation plan or work performed without a permit. With the repetitive
nature of tract housing, rapidly developed and often packaged as a unified marketing concept, the
interrelationship of properties emphasizes the need for regulation of the setbacks and landscape.
The Mar Vista Tract is an exceptional example where deterioration of the landscape plan
translates to loss of integrity of Eckbo and Ain’s work — masters in their respective professional
fields. Altering the orchestration of space betrays their ethos.
Another example of a feature that originally united the individual properties within the
community is the paint schemes designed by Ain using the Plochere color system. Twenty-three
of the fifty-two properties remained on the market in 1949 and Ain debuted new color palettes of
!55
!56
Figure 3.11: This property on Beethoven Street made changes after HPOZ status. Fencing
compromises the communal setting. Photo by author. December 2016.
Figure 3.12: A garden wall erected on the north end of a property on the corner of
Beethoven Street drastically changes a pedestrian’s interaction with the landscape. Photo by
author. December 2016.
rich earth tones. Contemporary reinterpretation of the Modern style has often led to selection of
white and gray paint by the homeowner, which contradicts these carefully selected schemes
developed by Ain. Paint can be incredibly impactful, but has proven to be a challenging aspect of
HPOZ integrity. In contrast to prewar suburbs where historical colors are often a matter of
speculation, postwar residential tracts commonly has extensive documentation available that may
include detailed specifications. Returning to historic color schemes is voluntary, but can be
encouraged by fostering a better understanding of design history and Ain’s intent. The HPOZ
website created by dedicated residents seeks to reach beyond the formality of the Preservation
Plan with a “research center” that includes house and landscape plans, as well as detail on Ain’s
color schemes. Accessibility to this information is vital to foster an understanding of
significance, communicate the depth of information available, and influence decision-making.
While integrity analysis is the primary focus of this research, the creation and long-term
management of the HPOZ hinges on community involvement. Integrity can be at a high level,
but if the majority of homeowners are not supportive, an HPOZ proposal will likely not move
forward. An examination of the social climate that proved to be essential for the Mar Vista Tract
highlights challenges common to the HPOZ process and unique aspects in the designation of
Modern residential tracts. Myths about historic preservation must be dispelled, such as property
rights and real estate value. Residents with strong views about individual property rights must be
educated, if not ultimately persuaded, to support the process. Most homeowners in the Mar Vista
Tract were members of the creative class and drawn to the neighborhood by their appreciation of
the architecture and/or the overall community character. Therefore, the majority were supportive
of the conservation effort, but there was at least one dissenting view on preservation. A resident
who had lived in the tract since 1958 implemented drastic changes to her house after the survey
work. She defended her actions by asking, “Do I have the right to dictate what your house is
going to look like, or what it's going to sell for, or your lifestyle in that house?” Property rights
21
issue are not unique to conservation of postwar residential tracts, but the vulnerability of Modern
resources — particularly the dismissive attitudes toward the significance of tract housing –
highlights the need for outreach efforts following identification of eligible historic resources.
!57
Another common myth about the HPOZ is that property values are threatened, but in
most cases inclusion in a historic district has a positive effect. Quality of design in Modern
residential tracts, the product of an era that celebrated quantity, has proven to contribute to long-
term value. While the initial investment had financial disadvantages for the developer of the Mar
Vista Tract, analysis shows that the value of these properties has risen disproportionately to the
other fifty parcels in the subdivision that were developed with Traditional Ranch houses, but
were originally intended for Ain’s design. When evaluating the cost per square foot based on
sales data from 1990 and later, houses in the Mar Vista Tract HPOZ were 19.8% more valuable.
If data is isolated to reflect only sales after the establishment of the HPOZ in 2003, houses in the
Mar Vista Tract sell on average for $94.22 per square foot more than the traditional portion of the
subdivision. Further examination of quality Modern residential tracts and the associated
22
property value may encourage sensitive rehabilitation efforts and facilitate homeowner support
for creation of more historic districts of Modern resources.
The designation of the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract acknowledged that Modernism has
historic significance beyond designation of individual high-style dwellings. The precedent allows
for identification and evaluation of other Modern residential tracts that provide a tangible link to
patterns of postwar residential development and the legacy of the Modern Movement. As the
Mar Vista Tract approaches seventy years of age and focus is divided as more resources become
eligible for designation, it is essential to consider the work that remains to be done to conserve
the postwar suburban landscape. Of more than twenty years of postwar residential tracts that
currently qualify for assessment, only a fraction of those resources have received intensive
evaluation in the City of Los Angeles. The citywide Historic Resources Survey, SurveyLA,
identified tracts that appear to retain sufficient integrity, but next steps in the process must be
taken. Historic resources will suffer from insensitive alterations and deterioration of materials
without guidance on maintenance, sensitive solutions for expansion, and education about the
benefits of the HPOZ preservation tool for the most significant tracts.
One other Modern residential tract, a Joseph Eichler development in the San Fernando
Valley, was successfully designated an HPOZ in 2009. Balboa Highlands is explored in the
23
following chapter to further understanding about integrity assessment strategy in a postwar
!58
residential district and the long-term planning issues that have surfaced in conservation of
Modern tract residences. !59
Chapter Three Endnotes Anthony Denzer, Gregory Ain: The Modern House As Social Commentary, (New York: Rizzoli, 2008),145.
1
Thomas Hines, Architecture of the Sun : Los Angeles Modernism, 1900-1970, (New York: Rizzoli, 2010), 433.
2
Ibid., 447-448.
3
Gregory Ain, "Jury Comments,” Arts & Architecture, February 1945: 29-30.
4
Denzer, 150.
5
Denzer and the Historic Resources Survey compiled by Myra L. Frank and Associates (2002) provided source
6
material for historic context.
Hines, 450.
7
Denzer, 147. The tree varieties throughout the tract: Ficus on Beethoven Street, Magnolias on Meier Street,
8
Melaleuca on Moore Street.
Hines, 450.
9
Docomomo International, “The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement,” Dirk
10
van den Heuvel, IOS Press, 2008, 77.
Ibid., 75.
11
Myra L. Frank and Associates, Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract Historic Resources Survey, 2002.
12
Amanda Seward, in conversation with the author, December 1, 2016.
13
Hans Adamson, e-mail to the author, December 6, 2016.
14
Docomomo International, “The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement,” Dirk
15
van den Heuvel, IOS Press, 2008, 77.
Amanda Seward, in conversation with the author, December 1, 2016.
16
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract HPOZ Preservation Plan, 33.
17
Amanda Seward, in conversation with the author, December 1, 2016.
18
Thirty-five of forty-one units have been expanded the original floor plan according to the Docomomo study from
19
2009.
Amanda Seward, in conversation with the author, December 1, 2016.
20
Morris Newman, “Forever Modern: Historic status for Gregory Ain homes in L.A.'s Mar Vista area may curb
21
owner changes but preserve style and values,” Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2003.
Liz Falletta, “By-Right/By-Design: Evaluating Competing Perspectives in Housing Production,” USC Price
22
School of Public Policy, 2013.
De Wit and Alexander, 121.
23
!60
Chapter Four
Balboa Highlands: The Eichler Homes of the San Fernando Valley
Balboa Highlands is a tract of 108 houses located in Granada Hills, a community at the
northern-most area of the San Fernando Valley in the City of Los Angeles. The subdivision was
1
developed between 1962 and 1964 by Joseph Eichler with houses designed by architects A.
Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, in collaboration with Claude Oakland. (Figure 4.1) The
development was less than fifty years of age when it became a Historic Preservation Overlay
Zone (HPOZ) in 2010, and only the second postwar residential tract in the City of Los Angeles to
be designated. Balboa Highlands is one of only a few examples of Eichler subdivisions in
Southern California and considered “one of the hidden postwar jewels of the San Fernando
Valley.” The district is significant for its demonstration of suburban development patterns of the
Valley, as well as its architectural pedigree. Severe alterations to a number of houses over the
2
!61
Figure 4.1: A contributor to the Balboa Highlands HPOZ. Photo by author. December 2016.
years motivated a group of homeowners who championed the creation of an HPOZ. Despite the
changes, the development proved to have a high level of integrity in the Historic Resources
Survey. This case study will examine the approach used in the integrity analysis to highlight
challenges and opportunities in maintaining the character of a Modern residential tract.
History
Joseph Eichler was a merchant builder active between 1947 and 1966. For a short time in
1943, he resided in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Bazett House in Northern California and the
experience propelled him on a completely new career path. He sought to deliver Modern design
to the masses and engaged quality architectural talent to realize his vision. Relationships with A.
Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, Anshen and Allen, and Claude Oakland endured for
decades to produce thousands of high quality Modern residences for the middle-class.
3
Throughout the 1950s, Eichler Homes were constructed solely in Northern California. Eichler
gravitated south in 1960 with a tract designed by Anshen and Allen in 1960 for Orange County.
In total, he developed five tracts in Southern California including Balboa Highlands (1962-64).
The others are Conejo Valley (1962-67) in Thousand Oaks (Ventura County) and Fairhaven
(1960), Fairmeadow (1962), and Fairhills (1963), all south of Los Angeles in the City of Orange
(Orange County). A development opportunity in partnership with Jones and Emmons for the
Case Study House Program brought Eichler to the San Fernando Valley in 1961. While the
famed program intended designs that were easily reproducible and emphasized economy, Jones
and Emmons’ Case Study House #24 was the only proposal that prepared plans for a tract of
single-family houses. The proposed 260 houses in Northridge remained unbuilt due to resistance
to Jones’ progressive ideas and zoning issues.
Attracted to other opportunities in the region, Eichler proceeded to build in Granada
Hills, a portion of the San Fernando Valley that was more slowly developed due to accessibility
issues that were resolved by the expansion of the freeway network. The development enticed
4
buyers with the rural setting, where citrus still flourished and nearby parks offered outdoor
recreation, but emphasized the convenience of the freeway. The simultaneous development of
nearby shopping centers and schools completed the suburban ideal. Six different floor plans
5
were offered with three roof types (a-frame, flat and a low-pitch gable) and interior room
!62
arrangement flowed around a central atrium, an integral component to the indoor/outdoor living
concept. A variety of facade schemes use simple materials of concrete and wood and did not rely
on an applied motif. Clerestory windows admit light to the interior, but otherwise minimal
fenestration offered privacy to the occupants. Several anomalies in facade design are the result of
customization options offered to homebuyers, but all properties are similar in materials and
massing. Visual interest was created through a color palette of earth tones with a bold accent on
the primary entrance door. Setbacks maintained placement of the residence toward the front of
6
the rectilinear lots to allow for a generous rear yard, and floor-to-ceiling glass on all secondary
facades merge the landscape with the dwelling. (Figure 4.2) Eichler relied on a core group of
architecture firms. All models were for this development were designed by two firms that worked
for Eichler on a steady basis – Jones and Emmons, and Claude Oakland. Each design reflects the
preferences of a middle-class clientele, but expectations are stretched through progressive
concepts in spatial arrangement and circulation patterns. Jones sums up the reason that all
!63
Figure 4.2: The integration of house and landscape was well captured by photographer
Ernest Braun. Courtesy of Ernest Braun Photography. Accessed January 20, 2017, http://
www.ernestbraun.com/. Permission Pending.
residential tracts of the period were not as thoroughly considered in his book, Builders Homes for
Better Living:
The stock excuse for the reluctance of builders to improve the generally accepted
standards is almost always “cost,” and in today’s competitive market this is to some
degree true. But if home buyers could really be given the opportunity to visualize the
possibilities inherent in good land planning and community development, none but a
prejudiced minority would be satisfied with existing conditions.
7
Expectations by the mid-1960s included more square footage than the tract residence of the
previous decade, and each residence offered four and five bedrooms and two or two-and-a-half
bathrooms. The smallest plan, at 2,311 square feet, tripled the size of homes offered in a
residential tract in the first decade after World War II. Most plans grouped bedrooms in one
8
wing of the house and promoted social interaction. One exception (Plan 1805) isolates the master
suite, which includes a “retreat” space, from the smaller bedrooms. (Figure 4.3) Most of the
9
plans feature an atrium, a distinctive element of Eichler Homes. Exceptions are Plan 413 that
features a flexible interior “gallery” space at the core of the house and Plan 354 with a courtyard
sheltered by a garden wall and nestled in the L-shape at the front of the property. Each
10
residence featured a two-car garage, or a single garage with a carport, attached to the house and
prominently situated on one end of the rectilinear plan. Of the proposed 250 houses in the tract,
only 108 were built due to financial commitments of the developer that required sale of the
additional land.
11
The Designation Process
Eichler achieved a profitable method for construction of Modern residential tracts that
endured for more than a decade. Guided by the expertise of top tier architectural talent, his
business acumen and commitment to superior quality, Eichler produced among the most
successful results of any merchant builder in the world. He dared to push boundaries in design
and construction, and for racial integration in areas, such as the San Fernando Valley, where it
was sorely lacking. The community is significant for its social agenda, as well as development
12
!64
patterns of the region, and its architectural significance and association with Joseph Eichler and
prominent architects, Jones and Emmons, and Claude Oakland. Residents of Balboa Highlands
recognized the significance of their neighborhood and the need to explore conservation methods
for this rare example of Eichler Homes in Southern California.
Widespread appreciation throughout California for Eichler Homes provided a gateway
for community outreach efforts. Resident enthusiasm is an influential factor in the nomination
process and more than two-thirds of the homeowners in Balboa Highlands offered support for
HPOZ designation. A tour hosted by the Los Angeles Conservancy, “How Modern Was My
13
Valley?” was a catalyst for the effort. Residents formed a bond through celebration of their
mutual appreciation for the neighborhood and welcomed admiration from tour attendees. The
14
!65
Figure 4.3: Plan 1805 includes an atrium and isolates the
master suite, including a “retreat,” from the other bedrooms.
Accessed January 20, 2017, http://
www.balboahighlands.com/history/plans-and-prices/.
decade prior to the tour proved to be a pivotal time for the subdivision, and many of those
residents who had worked to reverse poorly considered remodels decided to unite:
We know that having a good neighbor is so much more important than what color they
paint their house or how they choose to landscape. But there just seems to be a great
disparity between the potential that we see in this neighborhood and then what you
actually do see when you drive down the street.
15
An intensive seven-month study of historic resources was conducted beginning in June
2008 by Architectural Resources Group. It was the first formal survey ever conducted in the
subdivision. The Los Angeles Conservancy helped recruit student volunteers enrolled in an
architecture course at John F. Kennedy High School in Granada Hills to participate in the
process.
Integrity Analysis
The period of significance for Balboa Highlands is 1962 to 1964, the dates of subdivision
and construction of the 108 residences in the tract. The Historic Resources Survey determined
that sixty-nine percent of the resources contributed to the HPOZ. Integrity analysis was based on
an evaluation of thirteen character-defining features. (Table 4.1) A contributor retains all or most
of the character-defining features, while an altered contributor retains sufficient integrity, despite
one or more alterations or missing character-defining features. Appropriate hardscape and
landscape materials also contribute to integrity. Twenty-eight houses fell into the altered
contributor category due to noticeable changes to the primary facade that may include
replacement windows in their original openings or missing features such as original door
hardware or house numbers. Thirty-four were significantly altered and did not retain the integrity
necessary to be included in the HPOZ. Common alterations include changes to massing in the
form of additions, changes to pitch of the original roofline, infilled atriums visible from the
street, modified fenestration patterns, or a change to the original plywood cladding. Enclosure of
the carport or conversion of garage to interior space also impacted integrity. The severity of the
alteration varies depending on approach to the conversion, including replacement doors or
!66
addition of windows. In some cases, when too many character-defining features are altered, a
property shifts to the non-contributor category due to the collective impact of changes. For
example, the combination of a non-original garage door and inappropriate cladding material
account for a majority of the street appearance and the property feels disjointed from the other
properties in the tract.
16
In defining the boundary for the HPOZ, all 108 properties were included in order to retain
control of future alterations and incompatible construction. A discussion occurred surrounding
the omission of non-contributing properties on the fringe of the boundary, and while it is
common practice in historic prewar residential neighborhoods, the repetitive features that unite
the postwar residential tract promote further discussion about exclusion. Postwar subdivisions
are generally constructed in a single phase or in several phases over a relatively short period of
time, and all properties retain repetitive architectural features unique to the tract. Omitting
properties is not as easy an option as it might be in an HPOZ where the land was subdivided but
built out gradually by individual owners or over a longer period of time by a builder. In Balboa
!67
•
Roofline: either flat, slant or A-frame
•
Steel sash windows
• Entrance configuration, at times with transoms and sidelights
• Grooved wood wall cladding
•
Concrete block wall cladding
•
Atrium
• Sliding two-car or awning-style one-car garage doors
• Carport
•
Cantilevered, gabled entry hood
•
Historic “Saturn” front door hardware
• Historic house numbers (Helvetica font, white on black background)
• Historic light fixtures (white globe pendants)
•
Exposed beams at the roofline
Table 4.1: Balboa Highlands Character-Defining Features. Historic Resources Survey . Architectural Resources
Associates. 2008.
Highlands, exclusion of several houses on the perimeter that were severely altered would have
increased the percentage of contributors and proved crucial in the political process for historic
designation. Three non-contributing parcels on the southern end of the HPOZ on the west side of
Jimena Avenue are a prime example of a boundary that could have been adjusted. While the
integrity of the property at 12601 Jimena (Figure 4.4) is insufficient as an altered contributor, it
retains massing and characteristics that clearly show that it was part of the original tract. The
decision was to include all 108 houses that were built as part of the subdivision, to demonstrate
the original intent of the developer and prevent incompatible new construction to be introduced
to the tract.
Preservation Plan
An HPOZ board has yet to be appointed for Balboa Highlands. While the general social
climate is positive, there has been reluctance in formal participation in HPOZ execution. The
!68
Figure 4.4: 12601 Jimena Avenue is one of the three properties that could have been
excluded from the district. It is a non-contributor, though its association with the
subdivision is clear. Photo courtesy of Architectural Resources Group. 2007.
maintenance of the tract solely relies on the Preservation Plan as the guiding document with the
City at the helm for decision-making. The Preservation Plan for Balboa Highlands was
17
approved in December 2010, months after historic designation of the resources was finalized.
The history of the development is outlined, property descriptions are accompanied by detailed
explanation of character-defining features, and guidelines for residential rehabilitation align with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Character-defining features visible from the street
determine the integrity of the property for the initial assessment, but the Preservation Plan for
Balboa Highlands emphasizes the importance of the atrium, an internal space essential to the
Modern design. Specificity of materials is concise, with minimal opportunity for interpretation of
type, scale or installation methods. For example, the language for cladding of the primary facade
states: “Wall coverings on visible facades should be vertical grooved siding with approximately 1
1/4-inch grooves, and concrete blocks that are approximately 8-inch square. Replacement
materials should match exactly or substantially.” Guidelines that are precise to the original
development are possible due to the detailed archival documentation available for the tract, and
the Preservation Plan notes that Eichler selected the original color schemes for the tract and was
critical of homeowners who stayed from his vision, although colors palettes are only described in
general terms that include “earthtones.” While homeowners are not required to restore any
character-defining features not present at the time of the survey, the information for replication is
available and manufacturers have emerged to fulfill the needs of homeowners undergoing
rehabilitation of Modern dwellings. The following analysis examines how availability of detailed
specifications and materials may impact the future of Modern residential tracts.
Reflections
The Balboa Highlands HPOZ suggests that while integrity can fluctuate based on
property owners’ interest in architectural style and varying perceptions of significance over time,
the restoration of character-defining features can be economically viable and integrity can be
restored. When the subdivision was first rediscovered by Modern architectural enthusiasts in the
1990s, the properties had been subjected to decades of poorly considered remodels, but gradually
a group of homeowners who appreciated the mid-century Modern aesthetic were attracted to the
neighborhood and reversed many of these conditions. While the restoration of character-
18
!69
defining features can prove to be more expensive, the long-term value of sensitive rehabilitations
can be seen in the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract. Further evaluation of property values in Modern
residential tracts, as more are found to be worthy of historic designation, will likely prove that
retention of historic features translates to profit and more sensitive rehabilitations will be
encouraged.
Modern residential tracts often utilized economical materials and most are still accessible.
Only two materials are appropriate for the cladding on the primary facade of a property in the
Balboa Highlands HPOZ – vertically grooved plywood and eight-inch square concrete block.
19
In comparison of an altered contributor at 17119 Lisette Avenue to a non-contributor located at
17131 Lisette Avenue demonstrates the potential for restoration. (Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6) The
non-contributor lists inappropriate cladding (travertine) as one of the alterations that result in
insufficient integrity and the altered contributor retains its historic plywood cladding. However,
replicated cladding material is available, marketed specifically toward Eichler owners, and the
feature would not be cost prohibitive to restore. In fact, market dynamics suggest that
20
homeowners are eager to invest in restoration. The non-contributor exhibits additional
21
!70
Figure 4.5: The property at 17119 Lisette features the original wood cladding. Photo by
author. November 2016.
alterations: a steel security door (now removed), vertical mullions added at clerestory windows,
non-historic garage door, and steel gates at side yards. Therefore, integrity is impacted by a
combination of alterations. Character-defining features retained on the non-contributor that are
missing from the altered contributor are the original fenestration pattern and historic primary
entrance door. The original entrance features a custom door with a peak and contoured transom,
as well as sidelights. The contributor has infilled sidelights and an altered transom and door.
While this feature is less prominent than the inappropriate garage door of the non-contributor,
consideration of distribution of features in residential tracts is necessary in determining the
impact of alterations. The prominent placement of the attached garage in Modern residential
architecture, compared to the detached garages and rear location of prewar suburbs, means that a
garage door alteration or enclosure of a carport weighs heavily in the analysis of the property.
The proportions of the primary facade, and the simplicity of Modern residences in general,
means that even minor alterations, given their placement or prominence, can severely affect
integrity in comparison to more traditional housing. This particular comparison in Balboa
Highlands suggests that a garage door alteration is more severe than adjustments to the
!71
Figure 4.6: The property at 17131 has replaced the original cladding with travertine. Photo
by author. November 2016.
fenestration pattern, however, restoration of the plywood cladding would leave only minor
alterations with the exception of the garage door (proportionally a severe alteration) and arguably
change the property status to altered contributor. Given how common replacement garage doors
are in tract housing and their prominence, this alteration often weighs heavily in integrity
analysis for postwar residential tracts. Analysis of repetitive features in Modern residential tracts
must ensure consistency of evaluation with consideration for reversibility of alterations, in
addition to prominence of the altered feature(s) and its collective impact on the overall integrity
of both the property and the subdivision.
Examination of roofline alterations provides another example for defining the threshold
for integrity assessment of repetitive features in a Modern residential tract. While other
character-defining features may remain intact, a roofline alteration is often noticeable, not easily
reversible and generally results in non-contributing status. The gradation of changes to the four
properties in Figure 4.7 demonstrates some of the possible outcomes for the same model in
Balboa Highlands. Even moderate adjustments to the fascia or pitch of the roof can drastically
affect the proportions of the simple facade (top right). Severity and reversibility of the alteration
must be considered, as adjustment to a roofline may only be cosmetic, for example, a parapet to
hide mechanical components. A roofline alteration is not always structural, and may be
economically feasible to restore. The property could arguably be classified as an altered
contributor, if other character-defining features remain intact. Alteration of the fenestration
pattern versus replacement windows in the original openings demonstrates similar logic. The
reversibility of cosmetic changes to rooflines should be carefully considered when determining
its contribution to the HPOZ’s integrity.
Reversibility becomes less feasible with changes to massing, including second-stories,
front additions, conversion of garages, carports or internal spaces that contribute to overall
integrity. While an HPOZ generally only regulates the primary facade, the importance of the
atrium in Eichler Homes is emphasized in the Balboa Highlands HPOZ preservation plan —
“Enclosures to internal, non-visible atriums should be minimal as the atrium is a significant
feature of the house and neighborhood.” Interior features, such as the atrium and floor-to-
22
ceiling glass located on the secondary facades, are integral features to provide a tangible link to
the original design concept and the integration of indoor/outdoor space associated with
California living. These spaces are highly vulnerable to enclosure to create additional interior
!72
square footage, challenging to regulate, and leading to challenges for surveyors who typically
only have access to the primary facade during evaluation. Consideration for internal atriums and
wall-to-glass ratio for secondary facades is essential to maintain a strong link to Modernism that
was finally offered to the masses, through successful developments such as those by Eichler,
after decades of experimentation. (Figure 4.8) The Preservation Plan for Balboa Highlands
attempts to exert this influence on conservation of the atrium, although it is an internal space that
would not typically regulated by the HPOZ.
The Balboa Highlands Preservation Plan may have set a precent for future conservation
approaches for the HPOZ, but the Mills Act continues to be the most effective for conservation
of interiors. The Mills Act offers a compelling financial incentive to rehabilitate an HPOZ
property by reduction of tax liability by up to eighty percent. Homeowners must adhere to the
!73
Figure 4.7: These four properties are the same model with a varying degree of severity in alteration to the roofline
and infill of carport and atrium. Photos by author. November 2016.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for both interior and exterior. In turn, a
tax reduction aids in availability of funds to complete the work. Participation in the program
23
strongly benefits those homeowners who purchased their property as recently as 2005, while a
property purchased before 1978 has less incentive due to the structure of the program. For a
24
homeowner in Balboa Highlands who has purchased their home within the last decade, this
translates to roughly $6,000 annually, and over the course of the 10-year contract, approximately
sixty percent of a rehabilitation project can be covered by the program. In 2015, there were 654
25
properties in City of Los Angeles with Mills Act contracts. Fifty-nine percent of those properties
were residences located in an HPOZ. Only four properties, or 8.2% of contributing properties
26
in the Gregory Ain Mar Vista HPOZ are under a Mills Act contract. The number was even lower
in Balboa Highlands for 2015, where only 6.7% (five properties) participate in the program
(although this number has rapidly increased to nine properties as of this year). The Mills Act is
27
the most useful tool in homeowner compliance and Modern residential tracts, in particular,
would benefit from regulation of the interiors, atriums, and secondary facades. Development of
!74
Figure 4.8: The internal spaces, such as the atrium, and the walls of glass provide a tangible
link to the lifestyle offered by the Modern residential tract. Photo by author. January 2017.
the rehabilitation plan, required under the Mills Act contract, details the work to be performed on
the property. This process tends to slow down the rate of change, encourages appreciation for
historic features and even reveals features lost in prior remodels through sensitive removal of
inappropriate finishes or additions.
While inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of
Historical Resources are an honor, the HPOZ and Mills Act are the strongest conservation tools
available for the suburban landscape of the San Fernando Valley. To assist in the effort required
in the HPOZ process, new approaches to streamline integrity assessment, reduce bias and
produce a framework to involve the community to tackle evaluation of large-scale postwar
residential tracts. The “Historic Quest Committee,” a group of volunteers that worked on the
National Register designation of two Eichler Homes subdivisions in Northern California – Green
Gables and Greenmeadow in Palo Alto – introduced a methodology that provided the framework
for my research on other tracts. The weighted points-based methodology assigned points based
28
on the severity of alterations. The more points received, the lower the overall integrity. If a
residence received more than twelve points, the property was considered a non-contributor. The
documentation of the methodology gave the following examples to demonstrate its application:
Example 1: A house had shingles applied to half of the front elevation (not original siding
material) but not including the garage, and the garage door has been converted to a metal
rollup door (original doors were faced with the same siding as the house). This justified a
penalty of 8 points for the siding change and 8 points for the garage door change for a
total of 16, which made it “non-contributing.”
Example 2: A house had a small section of brick applied to the front elevation (4 points),
a small window added on the front (4 points) and a traditional-style carriage lamp by the
front door (2 points) for a total of 10. The house was classified as “contributing.”
Example 3: A house had a six foot high atrium cover added that was clearly visible from
the street (8 points) and the front door had been changed to a traditional style with
!75
applied molding and inset glass (4 points) for a total of 12 points, making it “non-
contributing.”
29
My first exposure to this method was assisting with integrity analysis of the three Eichler
tracts in Orange, California. The framework was useful in providing a framework to process a
large group of properties where integrity relies on repetition of character-defining features. The
approach can help ensure consistent treatment of each model throughout the tract and fair
evaluation of the tract as a whole. In the third case study, Living-Conditioned homes, further
exploration of a points-based methodology combined with mapping technology aims to isolate
various character-defining features to further understand integrity analysis of Modern residential
tracts.
!76
Chapter Four Endnotes The boundaries of the Balboa Highlands HPOZ are Lisette Street, Nanette Street, Jimena Avenue and a portion of
1
Darla Avenue. Balboa Highlands is in the Granada Hills-Knollwood Community Plan Area.
Richard Fausset, “Owners Seeking Preservation Zone for Eichler Homes,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2001, B3.
2
Balboa Highlands, “Claude Oakland,” Accessed January 20, 2017, http://www.balboahighlands.com/team/claude-
3
oakland/. Oakland had previously been employed by Anshen and Allen, another firm associated with Eichler, in the
1950s.
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, Balboa Highlands HPOZ Preservation Plan, 17. Population in
4
Balboa Highlands grew fivefold between 1950-56.
Eichler Homes, Balboa Highlands Brochure, 1962.
5
Balboa Highlands HPOZ Preservation Plan, 51.
6
A. Quincy Jones, Builders Homes for Better Living, (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp, 1957),215.
7
Balboa Highlands, “Model Information,” Accessed December 12, 2016, http://www.balboahighlands.com/history/
8
plans-and-prices/.
Similar to Krisel’s concept of the “introvert” plan. See Winship, 194.
9
Balboa Highlands, “Model Information,” Accessed December 12, 2016, http://www.balboahighlands.com/history/
10
plans-and-prices/.
Dave Weinstein, “The Eichlers of Balboa Highlands.” CA Modern: Eichler Network, Accessed December 12,
11
2018, http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/eichlers-balboa-highlands-granada-hills.
Roderick, 140. With few exceptions minorities were limited to home ownership in San Fernando and Pacoima in
12
the San Fernando Valley.
Todd Longwell, "The history toys: historic Los Angeles houses are out there for the buying, but preserving them is
13
a two-edged sword,” Hollywood Reporter, February 19, 2010: 24.
Dave Weinstein, “Modern Preservation: Streetscape Smarts,”CA Modern: Eichler Network, Accessed December
14
19, 2016, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/modern-preservation-streetscape-smarts.
Karrie Jacobs, “Saving the Tract House," New York Times Magazine, May 15, 2005, 6.70.
15
Architectural Resources Group, Balboa Highlands Historic Resources Survey, 2008.
16
Adriene Biondo, in conversation with the author, January 10, 2017.
17
Dave Weinstein, “The Eichlers of Balboa Highlands.” CA Modern: Eichler Network, Accessed December 12,
18
2018, http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/eichlers-balboa-highlands-granada-hills.
Balboa Highlands HPOZ Preservation Plan, 51.
19
Jeff Nichols, “Eichler Siding,”Accessed December 16, 2016. http://www.eichlersiding.com/.
20
Dave Weinstein, “The Free-Sprited Eichlers of Fairhaven - Orange,” CA Modern: Eichler Network, Accessed
21
December 17, 2016, http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/free-sprited-eichlers-fairhaven-orange.
Balboa Highlands HPOZ Preservation Plan, 49.
22
!77
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Frequently Asked Questions About Mills Act Program,”
23
Accessed December 12, 2016, http://preservation.lacity.org/news/frequently-asked-questions-about-mill-act-
program.
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Mills Act Application Guide,” Accessed December 12, 2016,
24
http://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/01%20Mills%20Act%20Application%20Guide%202017_0.pdf.
Mills Act contract recipient in Balboa Highlands, in conversation with the author, January 10, 2017.
25
Karolin Maria Gorska, “Different Shades of Change: Historic Districts in Los Angeles and their impact on
26
Gentrification and Neighborhood Trends,” University of California Los Angeles, Dissertation 2015, 96.
“Different Shades of Change,” 98.The highest percentage of contributing properties participating in the Mills Act,
27
Melrose Hill (22.7%). The average is 17% across all HPOZs.
Dave Weinstein, “Historic Quest: Eichlers in the National Register,” CA Modern: Eichler Network, Accessed
28
December 16, 2016, http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/historic-quest-eichlers-national-register. The two tracts
are also placed on the California Register of Historical Resources due to their placement on the National Register of
Historic Places.
“Historic Quest Committee Methodology” provided by Kelly Sutherlin McCleod Architecture.
29
!78
Chapter Five
Integrity Analysis of Living-Conditioned Homes
SurveyLA has identified many potential Historic Preservation Overlay Zones for postwar
residential tracts throughout the San Fernando Valley. (Appendix C) One of the most distinctive
tracts, Living-Conditioned Homes, was designed by Palmer and Krisel in the community of
Northridge. This case study is a closer examination of an in-depth integrity assessment of the
Living-Conditioned subdivision, conducted in spring of 2016. Issues with analysis of repetitive
features, materials integrity, and spatial adaptation are highlighted, while a points-based analysis
methodology is explored as an alternative approach to determination of property status.
History
The Case Study House Program by Arts and Architecture magazine is the platform most
cited for promotion of the postwar single-family house. However, countless other building
1
campaigns from mid-twentieth century shelter publications, some newly established after the war
due to soaring demand, circulated in the United States and proved to offer more attainable
designs that appealed to a broader audience. The publishing industry and merchant builders, in
2
cooperation with vendors of building materials and contemporary home fashions, refined
merchandising and marketing methods that stretched the public’s vision for better living through
design and technology. At the height of these efforts, with the Contemporary Ranch house as the
focal point, the magazine Living for Young Homemakers launched its successful Living-
Conditioned building campaign.
Living For Young Homemakers was a women’s monthly publication with a target
demographic aligned with magazines such as House Beautiful, Sunset Magazine, and Better
Homes and Gardens. It was geared toward the middle-class suburban household with a focus on
informal living. Published by Street and Smith beginning in 1947, it was a sister publication of
3
Mademoiselle and was originally titled Mademoiselle’ s Living. Edith Brazwell Evans joined the
4
Mademoiselle team in 1945 and four years later assumed the post of Editor-In Chief for Living
!79
for Young Homemakers. Evans was a champion of residential architecture and interior design
5
and became an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects for her contributions.
6
While at the helm of Living for Young Homemakers, the National Association of Home Builders
created an award for “Distinguished Reporting of Housing Achievements” and Evans was the
first to accept the honor in 1953. Despite the publication’s success, it was folded into Better
7
Homes and Gardens after Condé Nast acquired Street and Smith in 1959.
8
Living for Young Homemakers introduced the concept of Living-Conditioned Homes in
1954. A partnership with Hotpoint the following year allowed the editors to realize four concept
houses, built in various regions of the United States, to be given as prizes in celebration of the
appliance manufacturer’s 50th anniversary. (Figure 5.1) Locations and architects for the prize
9
homes were Knoxville, Tennessee (Bruce McCarty); San Francisco, California (Don Emmons);
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Norman Nagle); New York City (Stanley Reese). Additionally, a
10
model of “a full-size Hotpoint Dream Home” could be seen by visiting one of 125 locations in
forty states. Plans could also be purchased for ten dollars to be independently built. Builders
11
!80
Figure 5.1: An advertisement for the four Living-Conditioned Homes to be awarded in
celebration of Hotpoint’s anniversary. LIFE Magazine, May 2, 1955. https://books.google.com/
books?id=dlYEAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=1.
across the country tapped architectural talent from their region to contribute a house design for
promotion in the magazine. Unique material was produced for the publisher, which also
advertised for electrical utility services and provided exposure to innovative building products
and technology, in addition to home fashion. The campaign embraced a progressive agenda and
aesthetic. Editor-in-Chief Evans proclaimed, “A Living-Conditioned home designates a home
that in plan and design and preparation has incorporated something more than the services of an
architect and a builder. It is a fusion of engineering and artistry, employing the skill of design and
construction experts, the art of landscape architect, the craft of the interior decorator.” The
12
program emphasized space, light, sound, color, climate and safety as the cornerstones for a
Modern home. The initiative was called a “crusade for an entirely new approach to home-
building” and the editor proclaimed, “It was our purpose to prove that — despite rising costs —
intelligent and imaginative planning could produce more genuine livability than was currently
being offered the prospective homeowner.” Each of the six facets of the program received
13
attention, collectively achieving a total living concept. The components were individually
defined as:
Space – the relationship of interior and exterior plan elements, room-to-room and room to-
site, for the purpose of exacting total livable space from house and plot
Climate – the orientation of site and structure combined with the engineering of building
materials and mechanical equipment to control physical comfort
Light – the control of natural and artificial illumination for visual comfort
Sound – the maintenance of a level of sound through interior planning and the use of
materials for acoustical control
Color – the co-ordination of interior and exterior decoration planning to make the small
home visually and psychologically more pleasing (Figure 5.2)
Safety – the elimination of common causes of physical and emotional hazards in normal
family living through planning and choice of materials and mechanical equipment
14
!81
The allocation of space and the relationship between spaces, both interior and exterior,
was an integral component of the program. Every function of the family home was carefully
evaluated, including circulation patterns, flexibility, privacy, and adaptability. Next, climate and
light were evaluated. Technological developments driven by adoption of electricity, in most
American residences by the 1950s, produced carefully orchestrated natural and artificial lighting
for a balanced experience throughout the day and night. Similarly, climate control was
approached as an integration of natural and electric components. Landscape features and
prevailing winds were calculated. Electric heating and cooling technology permitted humidity
control, while an outdoor “anticipator” ensured consistent temperatures. Vapor barriers,
insulation and proper ventilation ensured optimal system results. Filters protected the interior
from pollutants and materials considerations, such as insulated glass and window treatments,
assisted with a controlled environment. Radiant heat in bathroom floors was promoted for
optimal comfort. New technology, such as remote air conditioning compressors, challenged
traditional placement of the various components needed for electric heating, cooling and
ventilation. The electric living concept encompassed in this technology paralleled programs such
as Westinghouse’s Total Electric Homes and the Gold Medallion Home program. However, the
15
program stretched expectations further by championing additional facets that editors felt
!82
Figure 5.2: A rendering by William Krisel shows details of each model were carefully
orchestrated and color was an essential component in the Living-Conditioned initiative. The
rendering even suggests a coordination of the automobile parked in the carport. Gift of William
Krisel to Gem Noland.
contributed to optimal livability. This included acoustical planning, safety considerations, and
color curation. With the orchestration of space came the acknowledgement that equipment
required for the electric home had an adverse effect on sound. Mechanical components were
placed for limited intrusion, while social and quiet areas were well defined for a family to live
harmoniously with one another and in close proximity to neighbors. The latest technology in fire
and burglar alarm systems, as well as non-flammable, non-combustible materials, ensured the
family’s safety. An extensive list of further recommendations by the magazine detailed glass
thickness to deter burglars and window size for emergency evacuation. Circuit breaker
technology enabled ample security lighting and ensured even illumination in all task areas.
Handles on cabinetry were designed not to snag clothes and door swings were calculated to
prevent accidents. Many child-friendly features, such as specially designed outlets, as well as hot
water that was “thermostatically” controlled to avoid scalding, provided peace of mind to
parents. The final component of the programming was the selection of color schemes for the
interior that assured continuity and visually maximized space. Occupants gazed upon gardens
that related to the interior, while the exterior palette was designed to integrate with the landscape.
Even the choice of automobile to be parked in the driveway or carport was to be considered.
Developer Sanford D. Adler leveraged the campaign extensively for promotion of his
tract in Northridge and the magazine featured an extensive spread on one of the model homes
along Reseda Boulevard. An interior photograph of the living room graced the cover of the
January 1958 issue with the headline “A Report on 10 Trendsetting Houses.” The high praise
16
for the tract could be directly attributed to an association with acclaimed Modern architects
Palmer and Krisel. The firm completed more than 10,000 tract homes for various builders
between 1952 and 1956, drawing the attention of architecture critic Esther McCoy who claimed
the pair helped “give distinction to the tract house.” Their success relied on Krisel’s belief that
“the good tract house is not assembly line living, it improves both physical shelter and the way of
life of the people.” Adler was a seasoned developer who had worked with Palmer and Krisel
17
previously on the San Fernando Valley development of Storybook Village (1956). He likely
recognized the pair’s extensive experience and unwavering standards, which aligned perfectly
with the Living-Conditioned premise, and made them an ideal choice to participate in the
!83
campaign. The project was described as “a collaboration of many minds: architect, engineer,
builder, color coordinator and utility company who joined efforts to create the most house for the
money.” The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was a co-sponsor of the
18
development, while the engineering firm of V oorheis-Trindle Co. provided the street
improvements. Four model houses were erected along Reseda Boulevard in anticipation of
19
National Home Week. Albert Parvin designed the interiors, while Krisel contributed the
landscape design. (Figure 5.3) Doris Palmer (architect Dan Palmer’s wife) specified custom
color schemes to distinguish the various models and collectively unify the tract.
20
The sales brochure emphasized “ the greatest degree of comfort, livability and
convenience.” Fifty-four houses were eventually erected, with five floor plans offering a total of
twenty various combinations with a selection of façade designs. Each one-story residence was
21
carefully sited to buffer street noise and ensure safety, both considerations emphasized by the
publication’s campaign, while lots were gradually graded to eliminate any drastic level changes.
The linear arrangement of rooms and limited fenestration on the façade adhered to the program
by providing privacy for the occupants. The contemporary nature of the dwellings is accentuated
with clerestory windows, which also compensate for natural light lost from the absence of large
expanses of glass on the primary facade. Flat roofs alternate with Palmer and Krisel’s signature
butterfly roof to provide variation throughout the tract. Overhangs and trellises project from the
22
houses to provide shade and assist climate control. The use of stone, pre-cast masonry panels,
and concrete block cladding also provide variety. The architects were adept at manipulating
standard building materials to maximize visual interest, as demonstrated in the concrete block
cladding, entry partitions and chimney that penetrates the interior of the home with material
exposed. While the tract is Modern in appearance, the architects designed some houses to be
23
more progressive than others. Carports are one example, where the more traditional models
received a wood garage door. The open carport, in contrast, not only offered a more Modern
look, but increased the builder’s profit by reducing materials required. Inside the houses, the
arrangement of social and private zones enhanced the total well-being of the occupants by
addressing each of the Living-Conditioned criteria. The unity of the program’s ideals with the
work of Palmer and Krisel is evident in the architects’ adaptation of the “introvert” and
!84
!85
Figure 5.4: Floor plan for Model A; Note the free-flowing spatial arrangement for social
spaces, while the bedrooms benefit from the use of closets as acoustic buffers. Living For
Young Homemakers. January 1958. Courtesy of USC Library Collections.
Figure 5.3: A model for the house shows Krisel’s landscape design. While the integrity of
this property is unknown, aerial views show the pool is extant. Living For Young
Homemakers. January 1958. Courtesy of USC Library Collections.
“extrovert” floor plans used for previous tracts to meet the Living-Conditioned requirements.
24
Of the various features of each plan, circulation patterns are tailored to the family that values
solitude versus one that enjoys entertaining. Strategic placement of private spaces, using closets
as acoustic buffers for sound management, provide separation from active zones. (Figure 5.4)
Each room has a strong visual and/or physical connection to the outdoors, but all large expanses
of glass were designed to be shaded and patios were to be covered. The “countryside” site
selected for the development, now completely engulfed in development, featured groves of
orange trees nearby to support the idea that climate and air quality were a benefit in suburban
living. The brochure claimed the location was “protected by topography and direction of air
drifts from smog, fog and dampness.”
25
Offered from $24,850 with a $2000 down payment, the tract was marketed to a middle-
class family no longer satisfied with their minimal postwar house. A trade-in program was
specially designed for those seeking to upgrade from an older home or Palmer and Krisel’s plans
could also be purchased and Adler would erect a house on a lot anywhere in the Los Angeles area
for $21,000 with no down payment. While the Northridge tract was not part of a planned
26
community, the development advertised amenities in Northridge, such as schools, churches,
shopping centers and community recreation facilities. Knollwood Country Club and Northridge
Park were nearby. The proximity of San Fernando Valley State College (now California State
University Northridge) was also an incentive for faculty.
27
Significance
Shelter publications played an influential role in the demonstration of nationwide
building trends and consumer preferences in the maturation of the single-family house in
America. Living For Young Homemakers was a nationwide publication that exerted considerable
influence on building trends and home fashion, The Living-Conditioned Homes in Northridge
are a significant example of residences executed under the auspices of a prominent campaign
championed by the magazine to demonstrate rapidly evolving technology, particularly the
adaptation to electricity as a primary means of household services. Of the four individual Living-
!86
Conditioned homes awarded through the Hotpoint anniversary promotion in 1955, the Knoxville,
Tennessee location has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Living-
28
Conditioned Homes in Northridge were illustrative of the culmination of the building campaign,
claiming the publication’s top prize in 1958 and advertisements dubbed the award-winning
development “the west’s most honored homes.” The praise for the project delivered in the
29
January issue of that year was accompanied by an introduction that applauded the progress made
through the Living-Conditioned initiative in the four years since its inception. Recognition for
30
the tract was also given by the trade publication American Builder, as the design was submitted
to the Top Model Home Contest associated with the National Home Building Association’s
National Home Week for 1957.
31
The accolades received by this development are in large part due to the association with
acclaimed architects Dan Saxon Palmer and William Krisel. The firm was dedicated to working
with builders to break barriers between Modernism and suburban living for middle-class
America following World War II. After years of experimentation to discover a viable model for
delivering Modernism to the masses, the firm of Palmer and Krisel emerged as a leader. In their
interpretation of the Living-Conditioned campaign’s directives, the houses they designed
exemplified the best in contemporary living and satiated buyers looking to graduate to a more
refined postwar home. Exterior features such as the butterfly roof and repetitive decorative
masonry walls demonstrate the architecturally progressive nature of this development in
comparison to most of the more traditional tract housing of the era. (Figure 5.5) Palmer and
!87
Figure 5.5: There is an immediate distinction between the Living-Conditioned subdivision and the neighboring
parcels that feature Traditional Ranch houses. Courtesy of Google Street View. Accessed April 2016.
Krisel completed thousands of single-family houses in the San Fernando Valley, as the
population demanded rapid expansion to the northern-most borders of the City of Los Angeles.
Living-Conditioned Homes are among the most distinctive work by the firm in the Los Angeles
region and the tract appears to retain the highest level of integrity of their developments in the
Valley.
Lastly, Living-Conditioned Homes serve as an effective example of residential
development patterns and architectural trends in mid-20th century America. The neighborhood is
an asset in understanding an explosive period of growth in local and regional history, as well as
the nationwide influence of California’s cultural appeal, affinity with the Ranch house and its
architectural variants rooted in Modernism.
Integrity Analysis
The fifty-four parcels of the subdivision that contain the Living-Conditioned Homes are
situated to the northeast of the intersection of Reseda Boulevard and Devonshire Street, south of
San Jose Street and west of Etiwanda Avenue in the San Fernando Valley community of
Northridge in the City of Los Angeles. The single-family residences are single-story and each
situated on a rectangular lot. The residences are distributed across two tracts subdivided and
developed by Sanford D. Alder’s Investment and Building Corporation beginning with Tract
#21188 in July 1957, followed five months later by Tract #23812. The area studied has an
irregular eastern boundary due to exclusion of specific properties within Tract #23812 that were
not part of the Living-Conditioned development, which includes fourteen houses planned for
phase two of Living-Conditioned, but never realized. Those parcels and the remainder of Tract
#23812 were built out after Living-Conditioned Homes and contained houses designed in more
traditional Ranch styles.
In-depth integrity analysis completed in a University of Southern California School of
Architecture graduate level course for advanced historic site documentation revealed sixty
percent of the properties retain sufficient integrity. Twelve properties were contributors, while
32
nineteen were altered contributors with varying degrees in severity of alterations. Twenty-four
!88
properties were considered non-contributors, with two of those altered beyond recognition and
excluded from the district. (Figure 5.6) Further discussion about this boundary justification is
discussed in the following section. The integrity analysis was based upon the character-defining
features of the primary facade outlined in Table 5.1. The most common alterations to properties
are the enclosure of carports, breezeways and patios for interior space. If additional square
footage is added sensitively, without altering the carport roofline or pitch of the main roof with a
side addition, the property maintains a fairly high level of integrity. Most commonly for this
tract, enclosure of the breezeway is not visible from the primary facade because of an original
patio wall that links garage and house. Any roofline alterations, including those that serve to
shelter additions that protrude from the primary elevation, are often less sensitive and substantial
cost is involved in restoration. The second-most challenging issue with regard to reversibility is
alteration of the fenestration pattern. The addition of window or replacement doors or windows
that alter the size of the openings generally have a significant impact on integrity. If the windows
!89
•
Post-and-beam construction
• Single-story
• Site location that allows for generous rear yard
•
Flat or “butterfly” roofs with wide eaves and sun flaps (w/ scored stucco finish)
• Textured concrete block or stone masonry cladding, garden or entry partitions and chimneys
• Vertically grooved wood cladding and patio walls connecting garage or carport
•
Front patio enclosures made of wood panels with thin, vertical battens
•
Clerestory windows
• Jalousie windows with an aluminum sash
• Floor-to-ceiling fixed glass panels paired with Jalousie windows (aluminum sash)
•
Limited fenestration on the primary facade
•
Solid-core slab door (single or paired) with transom and sidelight(s)
• Carport or garage with single board-and-batten door
Table 5.1: Living-Conditioned Character-Defining Features. University of Southern California School of
Architecture. Advanced Site Documentation. 2016.
or doors have been replaced, but the original fenestration pattern is intact, it is often categorized
as a reversible alteration. Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 compare fenestration with the original glass
and replacement windows that are set within thicker casings. Properties exhibit frequent removal
of jalousie windows and the infill of sidelights surrounding the primary entrance. The addition of
garden windows, even if within an unaltered opening, are generally inappropriate and have a
more intense visual impact. Non-original garage doors or installation of garage doors in existing
carport openings are treated similarly. As long as the opening is not altered, it is considered
reversible and the property is categorized as an altered contributor. Lastly, insensitive cladding
often negatively affects the appearance of the primary facade, but in most cases, reversal is
economically viable. Many houses have had stucco applied where original wood siding once
existed. Much of the original masonry features, stone and concrete block, are intact. The
cumulative impact of changes, even if considered reversible, can lead to non-contributing status.
For example, if a carport is enclosed for interior space, the entrance door is replaced, and a
!90
´
District
Outside District
Non-Contributor
Altered Contributor
C
Unbuilt
Excluded
ontributor
´
District
Outside District
Non-Contributor
Altered Contributor
Contributor
18431
18419
10436
10424
10412
10448
18401 18347 18409 18335
18425
18438
18418
18349
18419
10417
10400
18400
18401
18417
18409
18408
18357
18334 18342 18350 18358 18410 18400
10408
18359 18413 18351 18335 18343 18401
18409 18401
18414 18404 18430 18422
10427
18416
10418
18424
10409
18406 18400 18350 18342 18334
Hiawatha
San Jose
Etiwanda
Devonshire
Blackhawk
Minnehaha
Canby
Reseda Reseda
10400
18332
18333
18348 18340 18356
18341 18357 18349 18333
18334 18360 18350 18342
18341
10401
18431
18419
10436
10424
10412
10448
18401 18347 18409 18335
18425
18438
18418
18349
18419
10417
10400
18400
18401
18417
18409
18408
18357
18334 18342 18350 18358 18410 18400
10408
18359 18413 18351 18335 18343 18401
18409 18401
18414 18404 18430 18422
10427
18416
10418
18424
10409
18406 18400 18350 18342 18334
Hiawatha
San Jose
Etiwanda
Devonshire
Blackhawk
Minnehaha
Canby
Reseda Reseda
Figure 5.6: A proposed district boundary for a Living-Conditioned HPOZ includes two property exclusions,
fourteen parcels never built in phase two and shows property contributor status. Map created by author.
!91
Figure 5.7: Model A residence featured in the January 1958 issue of Living For Young
Homemakers. January 1958. Courtesy of University of Southern California Library Collections.
Figure 5.8: Primary facade of Model A located on Devonshire Boulevard. This is an altered
contributor due to window replacement. Photo by author. March 2016.
portion of the original cladding material on the primary facade is removed, the property may no
longer contribute to the overall feeling of the unified appearance of the tract.
Reflections
The conditions outlined in the above integrity analysis is consistent with the approach
commonly used for evaluation of historic residential neighborhoods. Specific integrity
assessment and conservation issues pertaining to postwar residential tracts deserve further study
and there are several useful examples in analysis of the Living-Conditioned tract. First, the
district boundary creation for Living-Conditioned Homes examines the distinction between
Modern residential tracts from surrounding residential neighborhoods. Secondly, assessment of
the Living-Conditioned Homes highlights the importance of differentiating between tract house
variants to better understand the results of short-term strategies used to rapidly fulfill the housing
shortage versus pockets of residential tracts that offered Modernism to the masses. Thirdly,
understanding the motivations behind common alterations aids in assessing the vulnerability of
features, in addition to providing valuable information for homeowner outreach. Lastly,
exploring a points-based integrity model, introduced in the Balboa Highlands chapter, aims to
attenuate subjectivity when assessing repetitive resources that comprise a residential tract.
33
Pre-war subdivisions consisted of lots individually developed or constructed by a builder
only capable of producing a few units a year. Postwar residential tracts were often developed in a
short period of time by a single developer or development team and included dozens, if not
hundreds, of single-family dwellings. The repetitive housing within the tract is unified by
character-defining features and can be associated with a lifestyle marketing campaign, such as
for the Living-Conditioned subdivision. Therefore, an issue arises in determining district
boundaries and whether or not to always include all the parcels that were originally developed as
part of the tract, even those properties that may be altered beyond recognition and no longer
represent the unified concept of the development. In the Living-Conditioned Homes, there were
two properties that were unrecognizable (although the permit records indicate that the residences
have not been replaced with new construction). Given the placement within the tract,
!92
consideration for whether these properties should be removed from the district in order to
improve the percentage of contributors to the potential HPOZ. By removing two of the fifty-four
parcels from the equation, sixty percent of the properties are contributors compared to fifty-seven
percent with their inclusion. Those three percent points could be crucial to designation as an
HPOZ due to the contributor minimum of sixty percent generally used by the City. This type of
strategy, while it benefits the case for conservation of this potential district, raises questions
about the precedent it sets in creation of future districts of Modern residential housing that was
designed and marketed using a holistic approach. As seen with the Balboa Highlands district
boundary, exclusion results in loss of control over future development and abandons the
developer’s original vision. It is a common strategy assessment of historic residential districts to
exclude properties in prewar suburbs and the determination is warranted in the case of Living-
Conditioned because the properties have been altered to the point that they can no longer be
associated with the tract and insensitive development has already occurred on the parcels.
(Figure 5.9)
Differentiation between postwar residential tract house types becomes necessary with the
introduction of a prominent architect in order to provide fair integrity analysis. The examples of
Modern tract developments are more rare than the Traditional Ranch or Minimum House. The
design is often well-considered, with less emphasis on adaptability, and showcases progressive
concepts in space planning, technology, and innovative application of materials and finishes. The
!93
Figure 5.9: Two properties from the original tract have been altered beyond recognition. Location of these two
properties allow for exclusion from the proposed HPOZ. Photos by Christy Kim. March 2016.
Living-Conditioned Homes are not custom residences, nor are they minimum houses subject to
the same adaptation of houses in such places as Levittown or Lakewood. They are a hybrid of
high-design and tract house associated with an architect, yet homeowners generally did not seek
guidance of a design professional for alterations. Homeowners fulfill their needs with limited
consultation from a residential contractor or opt for a “do-it-yourself” approach. Further
understanding of the variants of residential tracts and the motivators behind alterations can aid
researchers in developing realistic goals to create a consistent approach to integrity analysis of
Modern residential tracts. It remains unclear, due to the limited designation of Modern residential
districts to date, the severity of change that is acceptable to qualify for application of
conservation tools in potential historic districts. The answer lies somewhere between treatment of
Modern tracts solely as a cultural landscape versus analysis as an individual Modern residential
resource.
34
Understanding motivators behind alterations can assist in analysis of the repetitive
features that contribute to integrity in a Modern residential tract. Defining these motivators helps
determine the vulnerability of character-defining features, distribute significance accordingly,
and identify opportunities to manage change. Motivators can generally be divided into three
categories for residential properties: privacy/security, spatial adaptation, and consumer decision-
making. Privacy and security typically result in reversible alterations such as security bars on
windows or exterior doors, in addition to erection of fencing to shield the primary facade. This is
more frequent along traffic-congested corridors and for properties adjacent to commercial
development. While these features can detract from the overall integrity of the neighborhood, the
building integrity remains unchanged. Irreversible alterations are more common with spatial
adaptation, such as the infill of exterior patio and breezeway spaces or the enclosure of carports
and garages. This is a consistent change seen in the Living-Conditioned tract, where the majority
of properties have either replaced an existing garage door, added a garage door to a carport or
converted the carport/garage to increase square footage. Of the properties that feature carports
visible from the street at the time of this study, seventy-eight percent opted to enclose or add a
door to the carport. (Figure 5.10) Additionally, patio and breezeway conversions for interior
space is common. The residence featured in the January 1958 issue of Living for Young
!94
Homemakers, includes a plan view (Model A) that labels the garage as a family room and a
dining area is designated in the typical location of the family room in the brochure plan for
Model A. (See Figure 5.4) This was perhaps a merchandising design to showcase flexibility of
the plan, but Krisel never intended for the carports or garage conversions. Nonetheless, this
35
alteration has been frequent and few homeowners are likely to reverse it. The overall impact on
the integrity of the tract must be assessed while recognizing that spatial adaptation is a need that
arose in the living requirements of the tract house in the latter half of the twentieth century. The
outstanding question remains as to the effect this prevalent, but detrimental, alteration has on the
overall integrity of the Modern residential tract. Though it is unlikely that an owner would
reverse this, the data from existing historic resource surveys the properties are consistently
categorized as contributors.
36
The impact of consumer decision-making on Modern residential tracts is more complex
and requires two subcategories to aid in understanding homeowner motivations. Degradation of
materials, including accessibility to vendors and information about materials conservation,
!95
Figure 5.10: Example of a carport conversion (Model C2) at 18424 Blackhawk Street.
Photo by author. March 2016.
certainly threatens integrity for homeowners wishing to maintain their property and deserves
continued study to provide answers for postwar resources. Perceived value, rather than
maintenance, poses a more immediate threat to the integrity of Modern tract housing. Character-
defining features, such as the primary entrance door, are commonly threatened by the desire to
“upgrade” a property. This aesthetic motivator has resulted in forty-three percent of residences in
the Living-Conditioned tract having an altered opening to accommodate a replacement for the
primary entrance door. An additional fifteen percent have replaced the front door in the original
opening, resulting in more than half of the residences having succumbed to this alteration. The
majority of inappropriate replacements reflect an attempt to achieve a more traditional aesthetic
or may have been the result of limited product availability, but generally indicate a limited
understanding about the pedigree of the property. In contrast, misguided reinvestment can also be
attributed to a revival of the mid-century Modern aesthetic that has been cultivated over the last
two decades by the architecture and design community and perpetuated through popular culture
in recent years. Dwell Magazine and Atomic Ranch are both recent nationwide shelter
publications that have contributed to renewed interest in Modernism and the Ranch house,
respectively. The style has also been filtered through film and television, most notably the AMC
television series Mad Men. Availability of Modern furnishings through the retailer Design
37
Within Reach, founded in 1998, successfully revived mid-twentieth century design icons, and
countless other manufacturers and retailers followed suit. This reinterpretation has produced a
38
homogenized version of Modernism, where young families or upwardly mobile professionals
gravitate toward attainable housing in suburban areas such as the San Fernando Valley and
execute inappropriate alterations to conform to trends. They also often have the financial
resources available to quickly enact change in comparison to the residents they replace. While
the intent that inspired this reinvestment is respectable, without proper guidance these
homeowners will quickly erode the integrity of the tract. Figures 5.11 and 5.12 show an example
of a recently remodeled property in the Living-Conditioned tract. The collective impact of the
alterations conforms to a mid-century Modern aesthetic, but are not honest to the original design
concept and threaten the property’s contributor status. Changes include replacement of stone
masonry and wood cladding on the primary facade in favor of a white brick veneer. The pitch of
!96
!97
Figure 5.11: In 2012, the residence at 18357 Hiawatha Street would have likely been a
contributor to a historic resources survey. A remodel compromised the integrity of the property.
Image courtesy of Google Maps Street View. Accessed 2016.
Figure 5.12: Recent alterations to a Model B2 (reversed) residence at 18357 Hiawatha Street
include replacement cladding and the addition of a glass entry and carport. Photo by Sean
Morales. March 2016.
the roof is maintained, but is extended forward with the addition of a carport. The original front
entrance is enclosed by glass privacy panels, and the integrity of the fenestration pattern is no
longer visible.These alterations significantly change the character of the primary facade. This
remodel likely reflects a combination of motivators, privacy and spatial alteration included, but
is mostly driven by consumer decision-making in an attempt to achieve a synthesized version of
Modernism aligned with current design trends. These properties often challenge surveyors
because the alterations, while obvious with close examination, are highly considered and
generally not offensive.
Points-Based Methodology
Challenges with the analysis of repetitive features in a large number of resources, such as
Modern residential tracts, present an opportunity to explore alternate methodologies that help
limit subjectivity. I created a points-based model inspired by the methodology for the creation of
historic districts of Eichler’s northern California developments, introduced in the last chapter, to
evaluate the Living-Conditioned tract and further explore this analytic method. In this model,
each character-defining feature used for evaluation criteria received a numerical value. The value
of each feature was weighted based on prominence of the feature on the primary facade and
accounted for reversibility of non-historic alterations and additions. If all character-defining
features were present, a property received a total of 100 points. Above seventy points, a property
was considered a contributor. Properties between forty and seventy points were categorized as an
altered contributor. If a property received fewer than forty points, it was considered a non-
contributor. The systematic approach to analyzing field data intends to increase consistency in
rating the impact of alterations and reduce bias. In this model, seven properties shifted categories
from non-contributor to altered contributor. Additionally, two properties that were considered
altered contributors, were recategorized as non-contributors. With these status changes, the
contributor percentage for the district increased to sixty-nine percent. Property status maps using
the points-based model compared to the results manually determined by the group coursework
completed in Advanced Site Documentation are included in Appendix D, along with the Excel
!98
spreadsheet that was used for calculations. Each of the properties had diverse reasons for the
property status category shift, but an example is given in Figure 5.13 to better understand the
change. Although many of the character-defining features of the residence are present, the
carport addition on the primary facade negatively affected the research’s opinion of integrity.
However, the points-based model found the alteration less severe in comparison to other
additions in the tract. While the carport is a significant alteration, further evaluation indicates that
enough integrity is present to consider this status change. A points-based model provides a way
to identify properties on the cusp of a particular category, which allows for comparison to aid the
researcher in a final determination of property status.
The map was created using ArcGIS software, which has proven to be a valuable tool for
managing the built environment. In a creation of a historic district, it is often utilized for maps to
visualize boundaries and color-code property status. I recognized an opportunity to further
explore an objective model, like the points-based methodology outlined above, to provide
visualization of the field data to assist in the evaluation process. Benefits include the ability to
isolate individual character-defining that produces data sets to aid in evaluation. Severity and
frequency of alterations and rarity of particular features can be determined. Visualization of the
data shows the location of alterations throughout the tract and provides an overall snapshot of
conditions for each character-defining feature. For example, isolating roofline alterations shows
!99
Figure 5.13: This property was considered a non-contributor, but changed to the altered contributor category
in the points-based model. Photo by Christy Kim. March 2016.
that forty-one percent of properties have rendered the original profile unrecognizable. Eleven
percent have significantly altered the original pitch or extended the roofline to accommodate a
front addition.
Closer examination of materials, such as historic masonry, using the points-based
methodology and visualization tool, allow for severity of alterations and reversibility to be
objectively factored into the evaluation. Points can be weighted to account for rarity of a feature
and differentiate between cladding materials that are easier to restore, such as stucco or plywood.
Location visualization also allows for the researcher to effectively measure the presence of
materials that contribute to the overall integrity of a particular street and/or the tract as a whole.
This methodology is particularly effective because of the repetitive character-defining
features of the Modern residential tract and quantity of resources. In working with larger data
sets, the approach provides an objective way to process dozens or hundreds of properties. Further
exploration of a points-based methodology combined with ArcGIS technology could provide a
viable model for integrity analysis of other postwar residential tracts and produce data to aid in
long-term management of historic districts. !100
Chapter Five Endnotes Esther McCoy, Modern California Houses: Case Study Houses 1945-62, (New York: Reinhold, 1962), 5.
1
Leo Bogart, “Magazines Since the Rise of Television," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 1956;
2
33, 2, 153.
Ibid., 165.
3
Kathleen L. Endres and Therese L. Lueck, Women’ s Periodicals in the United States, (Greenwood Publishing
4
Group, 1995), 198.
“Literati: S&S Ups Blackwell," Variety, March 2, 1949, 61.
5
“Mrs. Evans, Home Design Expert, at 51," Boston Globe, June 20, 1964, 14.
6
“NAHB plaque awarded homemakers’ magazine,” American Builder, March 1, 1954, 247.
7
“Conde Nast to Fashion a Fresh Operating Gain," Barron’ s National Business and Financial Weekly, April
8
29,1963, 24.
“Hotpoint to Give Four Regional Houses," American Builder, May 1, 1955, 13.
9
“Living-Conditioned Homes” advertisement. Life Magazine, May 2, 1955.
10
“America’s Leading Builder’s Invite You To Inspect Hotpoint Homes”. Life Magazine, May 2, 1955, 48.
11
“What Living-Conditioned Really Means," Jewish Advocate, May 26, 1955, 14.
12
“Living Conditioning Creates New Trends in America’s Houses," Living for Young Homemakers, January 26,
13
1958, 34.
Ibid., 66-67; 94-96.
14
Joseph Kaselow, “Total Electric Home Mecca of Westinghouse Campaign," New York Herald Tribune, August 9,
15
1959, A9.
“Four Awards Won by Firm," Los Angeles Times, January 1958, F6.
16
Esther McCoy, “What I Believe: A Statement of Palmer and Krisel," Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1956, Q4.
17
“A Message From the Builder,” Living-Conditioned Homes Sales Brochure, 1957.
18
Investment and Building Corporation, Living-Conditioned Homes Sales Brochure, 1957. Worked extensively in
19
Los Angeles and Orange County. Designed the master plan for the City of Norwalk (1961) and the Porter Ranch
Master Plan (1966).
“A Message From the Builder,” Living-Conditioned Homes Sales Brochure, 1957. Parvin was a well-known
20
interior designer would had worked with Adler previously on the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas, as well as other
hotels on “The Strip.”
“Home Features Prove Popular," Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1958, G13.
21
William Krisel AIA, In conversation with the author, October 3, 2016. Adler visited Palm Springs to view Palmer
22
and Krisel’s butterfly roofs implemented for Alexander Homes (built the same year) before deciding that the style
was a good fit for the San Fernando Valley.
“Training Your Men: Better Detail of the Month," American Builder, May 1, 1958. 216.
23
!101
Sian Winship, “Quality and Quanity: Architects Working for Developers in Southern California," (University of
24
Southern California, 2011), 194-196.
Investment and Building Corporation, Living-Conditioned Homes Sales Brochure, 1957.
25
“Home Features Prove Popular,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1958, G13.
26
Investment and Building Corporation, Living-Conditioned Homes Sales Brochure, 1957.
27
Annette Anderson and Claudette Stager, “Hotpoint Living-Conditioned Home,” National Park Service nomination
28
form, Tennessee Historic Commission, October 2012.
“Four Awards Won by Firm," Los Angeles Times, January 1958, F6.
29
“Living Conditioning Creates New Trends in America’s Houses," Living for Young Homemakers, January 26,
30
1958, 34.
“A Quick Look at 28 Award-of-Merit Winners," American Builder, December 1, 1957, 68.
31
Generally, the City of Los Angeles requires a minimum of sixty percent for creation of a Historic Preservation
32
Overlay Zone (HPOZ).
The strategy used by the Historic Quest Committee in evaluation of Eichler Homes is outlined in the Balboa
33
Highlands chapter.
Richard Longstreth, Looking Beyond the Icons, (Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2015), 55.
34
William Krisel, in conversation with the author, October 4, 2016.
35
See Balboa Highlands chapter for more detailed analysis of garage doors and garage and carport conversions.
36
Andrew Romano, “The Legacy of Mad Men,” The Washington Post, April 3, 2015.
37
“About,” Design Within Reach, Accessed December 19, 2016, http://www.dwr.com/about-us.html.
38
!102
Conclusion
The postwar suburban landscape of the San Fernando Valley reflects an unprecedented
period of growth in America. Significance is evident in its demonstration of patterns of
residential development and association with notable architects searching for approaches to
effectively house the nation. SurveyLA has made great strides in identification of residential
tracts eligible for designation, but more extensive outreach and analysis are needed to activate
communities and apply the HPOZ tool. It is essential to move forward with recognition that an
established case for significance is only part of a successful conservation strategy. This study
explored approaches to intensive-level survey work to assist with HPOZ designation of the
postwar residential tract. Integrity issues and district boundary justification were examined, a
points-based methodology was introduced, and long-term planning challenges following HPOZ
designation were exposed. The strategies suggested in this research aim to contribute to
development of a nationwide model for integrity analysis and promote conservation of the
postwar residential tract, particularly those composed of Modern residences, in the San Fernando
Valley and nationwide.
As the primary area of focus on this study, a summary of past and present demographic
data for the San Fernando Valley highlights the potential for conservation tools to guide change
for the mature suburban landscape. Development of the master-planned community of Porter
Ranch, beginning in 1962, represented the final frontier for large-scale residential construction in
the San Fernando Valley. (Figure 6.1) By the end of the 1960s, the San Fernando Valley was
1
saturated with suburban development:
Most of the homes in the Valley are relatively new and attractive. More than half have
been built in the past ten years. They tend to be larger and higher in value than the
County average. Many have outdoor barbecues and patios. And private swimming pools
are far more prevalent than in other sections of the Los Angeles area.
2
While there has been stability in the half-century that followed, demographic indicators suggest a
need for guidance as the housing stock continues to age. In 1967, two-thirds of the population
3
!103
owned their house and the median value was higher than the county average. Less than four
percent of homes were valued at less than $10,000, while the countywide percentage was more
than double, demonstrating that new construction had a positive effect on property value. In
4
1967, the total population was 850,591 and the majority of residents were members of white,
nuclear families. Thirty-six percent of the population was under the age of eighteen and there
5
were few senior residents.
6
The demographics have changed significantly since the mid-twentieth century. The
population has grown to nearly 1.5 million and racial distribution consists of 41.1% white, 42.6%
Latino, 8.7% Asian, and 4% black. Nearly half of all residents currently rent their residential
property. Catalysts are in place for these demographics and the economic climate to impact the
7
built environment. Development pressures will likely intensify as Los Angeles struggles with
housing costs and seeks to attain higher density. Threats such as mansionization will continue to
press northward, as more affordable housing alternatives are sought. Property values climb and
the desire for more land for less money shifts attention outward. As the potential for a fresh cycle
of re-investment begins in postwar suburbs, heritage conservation tools can be used to guide
!104
Figure 6.1: A recent aerial view of the San Fernando Valley looking south to the Pacific
Ocean from the master-planned community of Porter Ranch. Courtesy of Toll Brothers
Luxury Homes. Accessed January 7, 2017. https-//www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-
sale/California/Bella-Vista-at-Porter-Ranch-Bluffs-Collection.
change in Modern residential tracts of the San Fernando Valley, support a diverse population, and
secure the stability of this important region within the City of Los Angeles and Southern
California megalopolis.
8
The scale of the San Fernando Valley and sheer quantity of resources represent a
monumental task in the collection and evaluation of field data regarding alterations of individual
property parcels and the cumulative impact to the whole. SurveyLA is a powerful tool that
provides the context needed to develop a holistic approach for conservation of the Valley’s
suburban landscape. Balboa Highlands should not be the only postwar residential tract
designated, and while the Historic-Cultural Monument designation of a single house in Corbin
Palms had good intent, the strategy should not be a model for the conservation of residential
tracts. “As in any historic district, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but here the
9
whole is a landscape, broadly defined, that includes much more than a collection of buildings,”
Longstreth writes. The totality of residences within a tract demonstrate their significance, and
10
in most cases, the relationship of educational, religious, recreational, and commercial
components should also be considered in an effective conservation model.
Integrity Assessment Considerations
The primary goal of this research was to present integrity analysis considerations that
guide future HPOZ creation. Each case study presented highlighted issues associated with
analysis of repetitive features of the postwar residential tract and the unified design concept.
Determining a threshold for integrity for individual resources can present challenges, particularly
for the spatial and aesthetic characteristics of the Modern tract. The differentiation of tract house
types should inform this tolerance for adaptability. While the Minimum House of the immediate
postwar period, and later the Minimal Ranch, is seen as customizable, the Modern residential
tract is not as flexible. Assessment of non-historic alterations and additions will improve with a
11
continued effort to understand modularity of construction methods and materials leveraged by
architects searching for a profitable model for builders. Material specification, such as sizes of
pre-finished panels, may have informed construction, room size and spatial arrangements and
!105
special consideration should be given for the effect these selections have on the primary facade.
As seen with the four-foot module of the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract, this knowledge can assist
with integrity assessment of existing additions and development of guidelines for proposed
additions.
Inexpensive materials were often used, such as concrete block, plywood, and board-and-
batten paneling, to create visually interesting facades and interior finishes. (Figure 6.2) Honoring
the simplicity of the original materials is essential, but there is much to reflect upon about
materiality in the Modern tract house. Examples in this research have shown conservation
approaches may benefit from evaluation that emphasizes the significance of spatial arrangement
over authenticity of materials. The presence of original interior features, such as atriums and
secondary facades of floor-to-ceiling glass, are critical to integrity in the Modern tract and
alterations are often difficult to reverse. Restoration of inexpensive materials, such as the
!106
Figure 6.2: Extensive use of glass and concrete block in Living-Conditioned Homes created
visually interesting facades and interiors from inexpensive materials. Sales Brochure for Q
Block. Ca.1960. William Krisel Papers, 1935-2014, The Getty Research Institute, Los
Angeles, Accession no. 2009.M.23. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/cifa2009m23.
plywood cladding in the Balboa Highlands example, are economically viable to restore. More
examples of this balance between materials and spatial integrity should be explored in future
integrity analysis models.
Tolerance for adaptability of the individual property will always inform the overall
integrity of a district, but the importance of the collective presentation of residences in a Modern
postwar tract are particularly pronounced. Archival research often reveals detailed specifications
by the architect who viewed the development as a whole product and adhered to not just a style,
but a rather strict design language that determined spatial relationships and aesthetic. The lack of
ornamentation amplifies the importance of subtle details such as proportions and color and finish
of materials. These details can play a critical role in integrity assessment and rehabilitation
strategies for this reason, as they were a significant part of the total design concept. The
limitations of the HPOZ are evident in that only the primary facade can be accessed for
evaluation and regulated in the Preservation Plan, yet researchers should be informed of these
detailed specifications that defined every aspect of the property.
The emergence of “homogenized Modern,” which muddles these original design
concepts, also needs to be addressed in integrity assessment. This reinterpretation of the period,
collectively dubbed “mid-century Modern,” celebrates the essence of Modernism with little
acknowledgement of the varied philosophies of the period or historical reference for the
progression of single-family housing throughout the second half of the twentieth century. For
example, horizontal bands of redwood are introduced as cladding or fencing and original
materials, such as rock masonry, are often sacrificed in the process. The residences featured in
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 in Palmer and Krisel’s Marlborough Palms tract are an example of this
impact. Residents also attempt to “restore” features by installing stainless steel exterior lighting
or house numbers, or adding powder-coated mailboxes in a variety of colors. Original wood
garage doors are replaced with glass versions as owners seek to differentiate their Modern house
by rejecting more traditional offerings found at local home improvement stores when adding an
electric opener. These types of alterations will inevitably weaken the case for significance of
historic residential tracts if investment is not guided and integrity continues to erode through
removal of original materials.
!107
!108
Figure 6.3: Homogenized Modern often includes slats of horizontal wood for fencing and
cladding. Marlborough Palms by Palmer and Krisel. Photo by author. November 2016.
Figure 6.4: Original materials intact on the same model in Marlborough Palms as Figure 7.3
Photo by author. November 2016.
These types of alterations to historic resources are not exclusive to the San Fernando
Valley. In the Modern residential tract of Cliff May Homes Rancho Estates (1953-54) in Long
Beach, a recent sale resulted in significant change to the dwelling’s street presence. (Figure 6.5
and Figure 6.6) The same type of wood fencing seen in Marlborough Palms is accompanied by a
brightly colored metal and glass gate. A stainless steel exterior light and numbers complete the
owner’s desired upgrades, but the alterations show little sensitivity for the ethos of Cliff May’s
casual lifestyle concept. The homogenized Modern aesthetic poses a challenge to integrity
assessment, as seen with these examples and the renovated example in Living-Conditioned
Homes, and the precedent set in initial integrity analysis will also influence long-term planning
of the HPOZ. (see Figure 5.12) If houses with a homogenized Modern aesthetic are considered
contributors, property owners seeking alterations may argue that continued use of incompatible
materials is permissible. This muddled aesthetic will only undermine the unique characteristics
!109
Figure 6.5: A Modern tract house in the Cliff May Ranchos of Long Beach exhibits the
majority of character-defining features that contribute to its integrity. Photo by author.
March 2015.
of the Modern residential tracts, such as Living-Conditioned tract, unless a consistent approach is
implemented for integrity analysis and conservation goals.
Summary of the Points-Based Methodology
Further examination of the points-based methodology and ArcGIS data management used
for analysis of the Living-Conditioned tract can produce a refined model to manage field data
and address challenging integrity issues. As shown in the results of this study, the percentage of
contributors improved using the analytical method. This was likely due to the reaction of
researcher bias and equitable treatment when evaluating a large number of resources with
repetitive features. This methodology could be particularly effective in evaluation of a property
that exhibits alterations of a homogenized Modern aesthetic, which are especially vulnerable to
subjectivity. As the data is concatenated to reveal conditions in a tract, visual representation of
!110
Figure 6.6: The same Modern tract house as above, two years later, features a
reinterpretation of the mid-century style with horizontal fencing and a steel and glass gate,
representing common alterations in the tract. Photo by author. January 2017.
field data can isolate features for detailed examination. This approach can be useful for not only
unbiased integrity assessment, but assist with development of conservation strategies that
contribute to the execution of the HPOZ Preservation Plan.
Long-term planning
There are indicators that some of the challenges for conservation of residential tracts may
begin to subside. Appreciation wains for resources between thirty-five to fifty years of age and
postwar resources have suffered as they long existed in that age frame, but respect for the mid-
century Modern aesthetic has grown exponentially in recent years and will likely continue. As
original owners leave behind properties that need a steward, the likelihood is higher that new
owners seeking out a house with a mid-century pedigree will at least have a general
understanding of its significance, but guidance for the homeowner will be crucial. The trend of
“bigger is better” is finally reversing, following decades of the size of the American house
increasing 138 percent since the 1950s. The modest square footage of the mid-twentieth century
house, which averaged 1,000 square feet, may experience fewer insensitive additions than in
previous decades. There is an opportunity to guide re-investment and spur additional interest in
12
Modern residential tracts, as seen with the recovery efforts in Balboa Highlands, but educational
forums such as the Eichler Network and the research center for the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract
are needed. As with any historic property, residents need resources for restoration methods and
access to replacement materials as properties age. Differentiation between postwar residential
tract styles is essential and accessibility to original specifications can guide consumer decision-
making to minimize the long-term impact to integrity. Opportunities to learn from the application
of the HPOZ tool in Los Angeles’ initial attempts at regulation of a Modern residential tract can
help guide creation of future postwar residential HPOZs.
!111
Final Recommendations
The case studies presented in this research aimed to strengthen conservation efforts in the
San Fernando Valley and contribute to a nationwide model for integrity assessment of the
postwar residential tract. This snapshot of conditions in the San Fernando Valley, integrity issue
considerations for the postwar residential tract and presentation of a points-based methodology
will hopefully ignite further study and conservation efforts. As demonstrated in the Living-
Conditioned tract, many of the historic resources in eligible districts and the cultural landscape of
postwar suburbia are at a critical point for conservation.
There are aspects of the suburban landscape that were only briefly touched upon or
excluded and further research would be beneficial to conservation efforts. Among these issues
are the impact of alterations that attempt to address environmental concerns, such as solar panels
and drought-tolerant landscape. As seen in the Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract, proactive solutions
for landscape issues will strengthen long-term integrity. The demographic data presented in this
conclusion can also help guide change to a landscape that will demand cultural flexibility as
diversity increases in suburban America.
13
There is no shortage of challenges ahead for conservation of the postwar suburban
landscape. Particularly, the finite number of resources that represent Modern residential tracts are
at risk. In recent years, a continually growing body of scholarship has contributed to a solid case
for significance, while planning and design initiatives are simultaneously identifying
opportunities for growth and change in suburbia. The field of heritage conservation must work to
reconcile the desire for progress with a strong integrity assessment model and implementation of
the HPOZ tool based on SurveyLA results available for the San Fernando Valley to ensure a
tangible link to the rich legacy of twentieth-century suburban development. !112
Conclusion Endnotes Roderick, 121; Porter Ranch was the final frontier in residential development in the early 1960s. Compared to land
1
value of $53/acre in Van Nuys in 1909, land in Porter Ranch was purchased for $4,819/acre; “Mapping Los Angeles:
San Fernando Valley,” Los Angeles Times, Accessed October 14, 2016, http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/
region/san-fernando-valley/. Porter Ranch is still the wealthiest area of the San Fernando Valley, while Van Nuys is
the least.
Security First National Bank, The Growth and Economic Stature of the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles:
2
Security First National Bank, 1960.
Ibid.
3
City of Los Angeles, Planning Background for the San Fernando Valley (1967), 13. This data reflects only the City
4
of Los Angeles and excludes the City of Burbank. Median home value was $18,000, $2,200 more than the county
average. Twenty-one percent of residences were worth more than $25,000 (compared to 15.4% countywide).
Mexican (6%) and 1% black (22% of Pacoima population), 51% Asian in Pacoima in 1960 census. Ibid., 13.
5
Ibid., 11.
6
“Mapping Los Angeles: San Fernando Valley,” Los Angeles Times, Accessed October 14, 2016, http://
7
maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/region/san-fernando-valley/.
Longstreth, 57.
8
Ibid., 51.
9
Ibid., 55.
10
Ibid., 55.
11
Los Angeles Conservancy, “Not Another Top Ten List: Top 13 Challenges for Saving Modernism and the Recent
12
Past.” Accessed January 4, 2017, https://www.laconservancy.org/explore-la/curating-city/modern-architecture-la/
saving-modern-places/13-challenges.
Denise Lawrence-Zuniga, Protecting Suburban America: Gentrification, Advocacy and the Historic Imaginary,
13
(New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), 163.
!113
Bibliography
American Builder. “A Quick Look at 28 Award-of-Merit Winners.” December 1, 1957. 68.
American Builder. “Hotpoint to Give Four Regional Houses.” May 1, 1955. 13.
American Builder. “NAHB Plaque Awarded Homemakers’ Magazine.” March 1, 1954. 247.
American Builder. “Training Your Men: Better Detail of the Month.” May 1, 1958. 216.
Ames, David L., and Linda Flint McClelland. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for
Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. (National Park
Service: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002).
Ammon, Francesca Russello. Bulldozer: Demolition and Clearance of the Postwar Landscape.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.
Anderson, Annette, and Claudette Stager. “Hotpoint Living-Conditioned Home.” National Park
Service nomination form. Tennessee Historic Commission. October 2012.
Architectural Resources Group. Balboa Highlands Historic Resources Survey. 2008.
Balboa Highlands. “Model Information.” Accessed December 12, 2016. http://
www.balboahighlands.com/history/plans-and-prices/.
Barron’ s National Business and Financial Weekly. “Conde Nast to Fashion a Fresh Operating
Gain.” April 29,1963. 24.
Bogart, Leo. “Magazines Since the Rise of Television.” Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly. June 1956; 33, 2, 153.
Boston Globe. “Mrs. Evans. Home Design Expert, at 51.” June 20, 1964. 14.
Caltrans. Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation.
Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Transportation. 2011.
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning. Planning for the San Fernando Valley. 1945.
City of Los Angeles. Department of City Planning. San Fernando Valley Planning Area:
Background For Planning. January 1967.
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. Citywide Preservation Ordinance. March 3,
2004.
!114
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. Balboa Highlands HPOZ Preservation Plan.
December 9, 2010.
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. SurveyLA: Historic Resources Survey.
2006-2017.
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. “Frequently Asked Questions About Mills Act
Program.” Accessed December 12, 2016. http://preservation.lacity.org/news/frequently-asked-
questions-about-mill-act-program.
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. “Mills Act Application Guide.” Accessed
December 12, 2016.
Cliff May Homes. “It's Fun to Live in a Magazine Cover Home Designed by Cliff May.” Sales
Brochure. 1953.
Denzer, Anthony. “Gregory Ain: The Modern House As Social Commentary.” (New York:
Rizzoli, 2008).
Design Within Reach. “About.” Accessed December 19, 2016. http://www.dwr.com/about-
us.html.
De Wit, Wim, and Christopher Alexander, editors. Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future,
1940-1990. Los Angeles: The Getty Research Institute, 2013.
Docomomo US. “How to evaluate.” Accessed January 12, 2017. http://www.docomomo-us.org/
register/how_to_evaluate.
Docomomo International. “The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern
Movement.” Dirk van den Heuvel. IOS Press, 2008.
Endres, Kathleen L., and Therese L. Lueck. Women’ s Periodicals in the United States.
Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995.
Entenza, John. “Introduction to the Case Study House Program.” Arts and Architecture
Magazine. January 1945.
Falletta, Liz. By-Right/By-Design: Evaluating Competing Perspectives in Housing Production.
USC Price School of Public Policy. 2013.
Fausset, Richard. “Owners Seeking Preservation Zone for Eichler Homes.” Los Angeles Times.
July 2, 2001. B3.
!115
The Getty Research Institute. “Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Assessment
Project.”Accessed January 2, 2017. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/
pdf_publications/lahrs_summary_report.html.
Gorska, Karolin Maria. “Different Shades of Change: Historic Districts in Los Angeles and their
impact on Gentrification and Neighborhood Trends.” University of California Los Angeles.
Dissertation 2015.
Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New York:
Pantheon Books, 2004.
Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Hess, Alan. The Ranch House. New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004.
Hines, Thomas S. Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism, 1900-1970. (New York:
Rizzoli, 2010).
Hise, Gregory. Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth-Century Metropolis. Baltimore :
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Investment and Building Corporation. Living-Conditioned Homes. Sales Brochure. 1957.
Jacobs, Karrie. “Saving the Tract House.” New York Times Magazine. May 15, 2005. 6.70.
Jewish Advocate. “What Living-Conditioned Really Means.” May 26, 1955. 14.
Jones, A. Quincy. Builders Homes for Better Living. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp, 1957.
Kaselow, Joseph. “Total Electric Home Mecca of Westinghouse Campaign.” New York Herald
Tribune. August 9, 1959. A9.
Keane, James Thomas. Fritz B. Burns and the Development of Los Angeles: the Biography of a
Community Developer and Philanthropist. Los Angeles: Historical Society of Southern
California, 2001.
Lane, Barbara Miller. Houses for a New World: Builders and Buyers in American Suburbs,
1945-1965. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Lawrence-Zuniga, Denise. Protecting Suburban America : Gentrification, Advocacy and the
Historic Imaginary. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016.
!116
Life Magazine. “America’s Leading Builder’s Invite You To Inspect Hotpoint Homes.” May 2,
1955. 48.
Living for Young Homemakers. “Living Conditioning Creates New Trends in America’s Houses.”
January 26, 1958.
Longstreth, Richard. Looking Beyond the Icons: Midcentury Architecture, Landscape, and
Urbanism. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2015.
Longwell, Todd. "The history toys: historic Los Angeles houses are out there for the buying, but
preserving them is a two-edged sword.” Hollywood Reporter. 19 Feb. 2010: 24.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Home on the Ranch.” Accessed April 2015. https://
www.laconservancy.org/collections/home-ranch.
Los Angeles Metro. “Past Visions of L.A.'s Transportation Future.”Accessed December 4, 2016.
https://www.metro.net/about/library/archives/visions-studies/mass-rapid-transit-concept-maps/.
Los Angeles Times. “Four Awards Won by Firm.” January 1958. F6.
Los Angeles Times. “Home Features Prove Popular.” March 2, 1958. G13.
Los Angeles Times. “Home Show Model for Suburban Living: Traditional Exterior, Modern
Floor Plan.” June 16, 1957. K12.
Margolius, Sidney. “The Race To Build houses.” The Baltimore Sun, Feb 13, 1949. WM5.
Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980. Houston: Gulf Publishing
Company, 1982.
McCoy, Esther. Modern California Houses: Case Study Houses 1945-62. New York: Reinhold,
1962.
McCoy, Esther. “What I Believe: A Statement of Palmer and Krisel.” Los Angeles Times. May
20, 1956. Q4.
Myra L. Frank and Associates. Gregory Ain Mar Vista Tract Historic Resources Survey. 2002.
Newman, Morris. “Forever Modern: Historic status for Gregory Ain homes in L.A.'s Mar Vista
area may curb owner changes but preserve style and values.” Los Angeles Times. March 30,
2003.
!117
Roderick, Kevin. The San Fernando Valley: America's Suburb, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times
Books, 2001. 126.
Romano, Andrew. “The Legacy of Mad Men.” The Washington Post. April 3, 2015.
Security First National Bank. The Growth and Economic Stature of the San Fernando Valley. Los
Angeles: Security First National Bank. 1960. 3.
Starr, Kevin. Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance 1950-1963. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
United State Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Construction in the War Years 1942-45: Employment,
Expenditures and Building V olume: Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. No.
915.” 1948.
Variety. “Literati: S&S Ups Blackwell.” March 2, 1949. 61.
Watts, Jennifer A., editor. Maynard L. Parker: Modern Photography and the American Dream.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
Weingarten, David, and Lucia Howard. Ranch Houses: Living the California Dream. NewYork:
Rizzoli, 2009.
Weinstein, Dave. “Modern Preservation: Streetscape Smarts.”CA Modern: Eichler Network.
Accessed December 19, 2016. https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/modern-preservation-
streetscape-smarts.
Weinstein, Dave. “Swiss Misses”. CA Modern: Eichler Network. Accessed December 3, 2016.
http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/swiss-misses.
Weinstein, Dave. “The Free-Sprited Eichlers of Fairhaven - Orange.” CA Modern: Eichler
Network. Accessed December 17, 2016. http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/free-sprited-
eichlers-fairhaven-orange.
Weinstein, Dave. “Historic Quest: Eichlers in the National Register.” CA Modern: Eichler
Network. Accessed December 16, 2016. http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/historic-quest-
eichlers-national-register.
Winship, Sian. “Quantity and Quality: Architects Working for Developers in Southern California,
1960-1973.” Graduate thesis: University of Southern California, 2011. !118
Appendix A:
How Residential Suburbs Meet the National Register Criteria For Evaluation
David L. Ames and Linda Flint McClelland. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and
Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. (National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
2002).
Criterion A
• Neighborhood reflects an important historic trend in the development and growth of a locality
or metropolitan area.
•
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.
• Suburb introduced conventions of community planning important in the history of
suburbanization, such as zoning, deed restrictions, or subdivision regulations.
•
Neighborhood is associated with the heritage of social, economic, racial, or ethnic groups
important in the history of a locality or metropolitan area.
• Suburb is associated with a group of individuals, including merchants, industrialists, educators,
and community leaders, important in the history and development of a locality or metropolitan
area.
Criterion B
•
Neighborhood is directly associated with the life and career of an individual who made
important contributions to the history of a locality or metropolitan area.
Criterion C
•
Collection of residential architecture is an important example of distinctive period of
construction, method of construction, or the work of one or more notable architects.
• Suburb reflects principles of design important in the history of community planning and
landscape architecture, or is the work of a master landscape architect, site planner, or design
firm.
!119
• Subdivision embodies high artistic values through its overall plan or the design of entrance
ways, streets, homes, and community spaces.
Criterion D
• Neighborhoods likely to yield important information about vernacular house types, yard
design, gardening practices, and patterns of domestic life. In certain cases, a single home or a
small group of houses in a residential subdivision may be eligible for National Register listing
because of outstanding design characteristics (Criterion C) or association with a highly
important individual or event (Criterion A or B). !120
Appendix B:
Seven Aspects of Integrity
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. “Section VIII: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property. Accessed January 25,
2017.” https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm.
Location
Location is the place where the historic property or district was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred.
Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property or district.
Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property or district, constituting topographic
features, vegetation, manmade features, and relationships between buildings or open space.
Materials
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of
time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property or district.
Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling
Feeling is a property’s or district’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular
period of time.
!121
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a property or
district.
!122
Appendix C:
Eligible Historic Districts in the San Fernando Valley (1945-1970)
City of Los Angeles. Office of Historic Resources. SurveyLA: Historic Resources Survey.
2006-2017.
!123
Name Area # of Resources Integrity Subdivision Date Construction Date
(s)
Neighborhood
Type
Architectural Style
Joe Louis Homes Residential Planning
District
Arleta-Pacoima 93 n/a 1950 1950 Tract Minimal Traditional
Melba Avenue Residential Historic
District
Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
11 0.73 1926 1955-56 n/a Traditional Ranch
Redwing-Henshaw Residential
Historic District Extension
Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
37 0.76 1955 1954-57 n/a Traditional Ranch
East Woodland Hills Estates Historic
District
Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
152 0.7 1950 1954-59 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Calenda Ostronic Residential Historic
District
Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
32 0.88 1949 and 1955 1949-59 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Eastwood Estates/Fieldstone Series
Historic District
Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
36 0.55 1953-54 1955 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Corbin Palms Planning District Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
300 n/a 1953-54 1953-55 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Westridge Park Historic District Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
386 0.82 n/a 1957-58 Tract Traditional and
Contemporary
Woodside Historic District Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
164 0.84 n/a 1959 Tract Contemporary Ranch
Kingswood Historic District Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland
Hills-West Hills
66 0.82 1961 1963-65 Tract Contemporary Ranch
Devonshire Country Estates
Residential Historic District
Chatsworth 157 0.8 1956-57 1956-1964 Neighborhood Traditional and
Contemporary Ranch
Devonshire Highlands Residential
Historic District
Chatsworth 111 0.81 1955-56 1955-64 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Northridge West Residential Planning
District
Chatsworth 106 n/a 1955 1955-56 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Encino Woods Residential Historic
District
Encino-Tarzana 109 0.77 1947 1947-52 n/a Traditional and Minimal
Ranch
Hayvenhurst Drive Residential
Historic District
Encino-Tarzana 56 0.64 1952 1953-57 n/a Traditional Ranch
Melody Acres Residential Planning
District
Encino-Tarzana 313 n/a 1924 n/a Neighborhood n/a
Redwing-Henshaw Residential
Historic District
Encino-Tarzana 37 0.76 1955 1954-57 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
(Cinderella)
Sherman Oaks Circle Historic District Encino-Tarzana 130 0.68 1928 1928-60 Neighborhood Varies
Valley Wood Road Residential
Historic District
Encino-Tarzana 29 0.86 1955 1955-68 Neighborhood Traditional and
Contemporary Ranch
(some split-level)
Shirley - Winifred Residential
Historic District
Encino-Tarzana 15 0.85 1955 1955 Tract Traditional Ranch
Encino Village Planning District Encino-Tarzana 438 n/a 1954 1955 Tract Traditional Ranch
Caballero Hills Residential Historic
District
Encino-Tarzana 32 0.81 1958 1958-62 Tract Traditional and
Contemporary (including
Oriental)
Azalia Drive Residential Historic
District
Encino-Tarzana 15 0.73 1962 1963-64 Tract Contemporary
Escalon Drive Residential Historic
District
Encino-Tarzana 98 0.8 1964 1966 Tract Mid-Century Modern (2-
story and split-level)
Chardon Circle Residential Historic
District
Encino-Tarzana 28 0.7 1962 1963-72 Tract Contemporary
(Hollywood Regency)
Granada Orange Estates Residential
Planning District
Granada Hills 404 n/a 1950 1954-63 Neighborhood Varies
!124
Name Area # of Resources Integrity Subdivision Date Construction Date
(s)
Neighborhood
Type
Architectural Style
Marlborough Palms Residential
Historic District
Granada Hills 149 0.69 1956-57 1957-58 Tract Traditional and
Contemporary, Cinderella
Van Nuys Gardens Street Trees Mission Hills 700 n/a 1949-50 1949-50 Tract Minimal Traditional
Panorama City Historic District Mission Hills 1700 n/a 1947 1947-52 Tract Minimal Ranch
Storybook Village Residential
Planning District
Mission Hills 143 n/a 1956 1956 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Addison Street Early Residences North Hollywood - Valley Village 3 parcels (multiples
buildings)
n/a 1924 1924 or later Individual
Resources
Craftsman, Traditional
Ranch (1960s)
Denny-Cartwright Residential
Historic District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 57 0.74 1923 1925-45 Neighborhood Classical Revival;
Minimal; Traditional
Ranch
Ben Avenue Residential Historic
District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 41 0.8 1928 1928-48 Neighborhood Revival; Minimal
Traditional
Carpenter-Morella-Simpson
Residential Historic District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 96 0.79 1939-42 1940-49 Neighborhood Minimal Traditional
Kling Street Residential Historic
District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 20 0.85 1934 and later 1937-51 Neighborhood American Colonial;
Traditional Ranch
Otsego Residential Historic District North Hollywood - Valley Village 61 0.64 1934-37 1937-53 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Traditional
Goodland Alcove Residential Historic
District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 62 0.82 1953-56 1953-67 Neighborhood Traditional, Cinderella,
Contemporary
South Lankershim Gardens
Residential Historic District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 204 0.62 1921-22 1921-48 (more than
half by 1927)
Tract Revival; Minimal
Traditional
Marlborough Park Residential
Historic District
North Hollywood - Valley Village 63 0.83 1952-53 1952-53 Tract Traditional Ranch
Walnutwood Estates Residential
Historic District
Northridge 71 0.85 1953 1953-58 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Chateau Highlands Residential
Historic District
Northridge 131 0.92 1956-59 1956-63 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Northridge Downs Residential
Historic District
Northridge 61 0.82 1956 1956-65 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Blackhawk-Wystone Residential
Historic District
Northridge 52 0.85 1958-62 1959-66 Neighborhood Minimal Ranch,
Traditional Ranch,
Contemporary
Oak Park-Paso Robles Residential
Historic District
Northridge 47 0.85 1955 1956-70s and later Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Blue Ribbon Tract Housing
Residential Historic District
Northridge 16 0.63 1952 1953 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Calahan-McLennan Residential
Historic District
Northridge 181 0.91 1954-55 1954-56 Tract Traditional Ranchn
Living-Conditioned Homes
Residential Historic District
Northridge 53 0.72 1957 1957-58 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Northridge College Estates
Residential Planning District
Northridge 188 1956 1957-60 Tract Contemporary Ranch
Meadowlark Park Residential
Planning District
Reseda-W Van Nuys n/a n/a n/a 1953-54 Tract Minimal Ranch and Mid-
Century Modern (?)
Tampa Country Estates Residential
Planning District
Reseda-W Van Nuys n/a n/a 1955 1955-56 Tract n/a
Louise Park Estates Residential
Historic District
Reseda-W Van Nuys 61 0.89 1956 1956-57 Tract Traditional and
Contemporary Ranch
Agnes Avenue Residential Historic
District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 5 n/a 1927 1937-38 Neighborhood American Colonial
Revival
!125
Name Area # of Resources Integrity Subdivision Date Construction Date
(s)
Neighborhood
Type
Architectural Style
Toluca Lake Park Residential
Planning District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 220 n/a 1923-28 1920s-40s Neighborhood Revival, Minimal
Traditional, Ranch,
Streamline, Mid-Century
Modern
Valley Spring/Riverton Residential
Historic District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 53 0.62 1923-25 1919-50 Neighborhood Revival, Minimal
Traditional, Traditional
Ranch
Stansbury Avenue Residential
Historic District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 33 0.58 1937 1935-51 Neighborhood Revival, Minimal
Traditional, Traditional
Ranch, Streamline
Laurel Terrace Residential Historic
District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 328 0.56 1923-24 1923-53 Neighborhood Minimal Traditional,
Traditional Ranch
Briarcliff Manor Residential Historic
District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 42 0.64 1939-45 1939-62 Neighborhood Classical revival,
Traditional Ranch,
Contemporary Ranch,
Mid-Century Modern
Nagle/Varna/Sarah Residential
Historic District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 114 0.73 1946-49 1946-54 Tract Minimal Traditional,
Traditional Ranch
Bridge House Historic District Sherman Oaks-Studio City 6 n/a 1911 1960 Tract Mid-century modern
Eureka Summit Residential Historic
District
Sherman Oaks-Studio City 14 0.64 1959 1961-63 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Platform House Historic District Sherman Oaks-Studio City 17 0.82 1927 1962-66 Tract Mid-Century Modern
Haines Canyon/Mistletoe Road
Residential Historic District
Sunland-Tujunga-La Tuna
Canyon
16 0.63 1954 1955-57 Neighborhood Mid-Century Modern
Creemore Drive/Creemore Place
Residential Historic District
Sunland-Tujunga-La Tuna
Canyon
56 0.79 1953-57 1953-64 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch,
Cinderella Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Marnice Avenue Residential Historic
District
Sunland-Tujunga-La Tuna
Canyon
49 0.82 1957 1957-58 Tract Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Amanita Avenue Residential Historic
District
Sunland-Tujunga-La Tuna
Canyon
48 0.71 1955 1959 Tract Cinderella Ranch,
Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Langdon Avenue Residential Historic
District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 24 0.92 1940-43 1941-51 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch,
Colonial Ranch, Minimal
Ranch, Contemporary
Ranch
Firmament Avenue-Chisholm Avenue
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 58 0.97 1947-48 1947-54 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch,
American Colonial Ranch
Hidden Woods Residential Historic
District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 131 0.88 1951-56; 1964 1951-65 Neighborhood Traditional Ranch
Walnut Haven Residential Historic
District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 65 0.97 1951 1933-62 (most
between 1951-54 as
single development)
Neighborhoods with
tract
Minimal Ranch,
Cinderella Ranch
Colonial Village Residential Planning
District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks n/a n/a 1940-43 1941-45 and later Tract Minimal Traditional and
Minimal Ranch
Longridge Avenue-Atoll Avenue
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 34 0.94 1951 1951 Tract Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Cameron Woods Estates Residential
Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 30 0.87 n/a 1947-51 Tract Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch,
American Colonial Ranch
Burnet Avenue-Norwich Avenue
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 57 0.84 1951-53 1951-55 Tract Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Wortser Avenue-Ethel Avenue
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 31 0.84 1951-55 1952-55 Tract Traditional Ranch
Ethel Avenue-Otsego Street
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 99 0.85 1950-53 1950-57 Tract Mainly Traditional Ranch
with Minimal Ranch and
American Colonial Ranch
Sunnyslope Avenue Residential
Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 32 0.97 1956-57 1947 and 1956-60 Tract Traditional Ranch
Lemona Avenue-Saloma Avenue
Residential Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 66 0.92 1952-56 1952-61 Tract Traditional Ranch,
Minimal Ranch
Hillview Park Estates Residential
Historic District
Van Nuys-N Sherman Oaks 111 0.77 1946 1947-55 Minimal Ranch,
American Colonial
Ranch, Contemporary
Ranch, Hacienda Ranch
Appendix D:
Points-Based Integrity Analysis of Living-Conditioned Homes !126
´
District
Outside District
Non-Contributor
Altered Contributor
C
Unbuilt
Excluded
ontributor
´
District
Outside District
Non-Contributor
Altered Contributor
Contributor
18431
18419
10436
10424
10412
10448
18401 18347 18409 18335
18425
18438
18418
18349
18419
10417
10400
18400
18401
18417
18409
18408
18357
18334 18342 18350 18358 18410 18400
10408
18359 18413 18351 18335 18343 18401
18409 18401
18414 18404 18430 18422
10427
18416
10418
18424
10409
18406 18400 18350 18342 18334
Hiawatha
San Jose
Etiwanda
Devonshire
Blackhawk
Minnehaha
Canby
Reseda Reseda
10400
18332
18333
18348 18340 18356
18341 18357 18349 18333
18334 18360 18350 18342
18341
10401
18431
18419
10436
10424
10412
10448
18401 18347 18409 18335
18425
18438
18418
18349
18419
10417
10400
18400
18401
18417
18409
18408
18357
18334 18342 18350 18358 18410 18400
10408
18359 18413 18351 18335 18343 18401
18409 18401
18414 18404 18430 18422
10427
18416
10418
18424
10409
18406 18400 18350 18342 18334
Hiawatha
San Jose
Etiwanda
Devonshire
Blackhawk
Minnehaha
Canby
Reseda Reseda
!127
NO.
STREET
NAME
PL
AN
CD
F1
CD
F2
CD
F3
CD
F4
CD
F5
CD
F6
CD
F7
CD
F8
CD
F9
CD
F10
CD
F11
CD
F12
AL
T1
Poin
ts OBJ SUB
18334 Blackhawk B4R 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 20 NC NC
18335 Blackhawk E 5 12 6 6 5 2 2 4 3 3 15 10 0 73 C AC
18342 Blackhawk A2R 5 8 3 6 0 0 0 4 3 3 6 15 0 53 AC NC
18343 Blackhawk A3R 5 0 6 6 5 0 0 0 3 6 6 0 0 37 NC NC
18350 Blackhawk ER 5 0 0 6 5 0 0 4 3 0 15 0 0 38 NC AC
18351 Blackhawk D4 5 12 0 6 5 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 0 46 AC NC
18359 Blackhawk C3R 5 12 3 6 5 0 0 4 3 6 15 10 0 69 AC AC
18400 Blackhawk B2R 5 12 3 6 2 2 2 6 3 6 15 15 0 77 C C
18401 Blackhawk C2R 5 12 6 6 5 0 2 2 3 6 15 15 0 77 C C
18406 Blackhawk B4R 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 0 0 26 NC NC
18413 Blackhawk A3R 5 12 6 6 5 2 0 4 3 6 15 15 0 79 C C
18416 Blackhawk D3R 5 10 6 6 2 0 2 4 0 3 12 15 0 65 AC AC
18419 Blackhawk C4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 6 0 0 19 NC NC
18424 Blackhawk C2 5 8 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 6 15 10 0 63 AC AC
10400 Canby E 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 NC NC
10401 Canby A3R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC NC
10408 Canby D2 5 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 24 NC NC
10409 Canby D4R 5 12 3 6 5 0 0 0 3 6 15 15 0 70 AC AC
10417 Canby C3 5 12 3 6 5 0 0 0 3 6 15 6 0 61 AC C
10418 Canby B2 5 8 3 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 0 40 AC NC
10427 Canby A4R 5 12 3 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 76 C C
18335 Devonshire D5R 5 12 6 6 3 2 2 4 3 0 15 15 0 73 C AC
18347 Devonshire B1R 5 6 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 6 9 6 10 42 AC AC
18401 Devonshire C1R 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 6 6 0 0 27 NC NC
18409 Devonshire D1 5 12 6 6 2 2 2 4 0 6 15 15 0 75 C C
18419 Devonshire A1 5 12 6 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 10 0 74 C C
18334 Hiawatha C2 5 12 0 6 6 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 74 C AC
!128
NO.
STREET
NAME
PL
AN
CD
F1
CD
F2
CD
F3
CD
F4
CD
F5
CD
F6
CD
F7
CD
F8
CD
F9
CD
F10
CD
F11
CD
F12
AL
T1
Poin
ts OBJ SUB
18342 Hiawatha D4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 15 0 0 26 NC NC
18349 Hiawatha E 5 8 0 6 6 0 2 4 3 3 6 0 0 43 AC NC
18350 Hiawatha B3R 5 12 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 15 6 0 47 AC AC
18357 Hiawatha B2R 5 8 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 6 10 15 0 53 AC AC
18358 Hiawatha A4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 15 0 0 29 NC NC
18400 Hiawatha D3 5 12 6 6 6 0 0 4 3 6 15 15 0 78 C C
18401 Hiawatha A4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 NC NC
18409 Hiawatha A2R 5 4 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 6 15 0 0 40 AC NC
18410 Hiawatha B2 5 12 6 6 6 0 4 4 3 6 15 15 0 82 C C
18418 Hiawatha C2R 5 8 3 6 3 0 0 4 3 0 15 0 0 47 AC NC
18400 Minnehaha D3 5 12 3 6 0 0 2 4 3 3 15 15 0 68 AC AC
18401 Minnehaha A4 5 12 3 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 76 C NC
18408 Minnehaha A2 5 8 0 6 0 0 2 4 0 6 6 0 0 37 NC C
18409 Minnehaha D4R 5 8 3 6 5 0 0 4 3 6 15 15 5 65 AC NC
18417 Minnehaha C2 5 12 6 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 79 C AC
18425 Minnehaha D2 5 12 6 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 5 74 C AC
18431 Minnehaha A3R 5 4 0 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 65 AC AC
10400 Reseda D4R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC NC
10412 Reseda B1R 5 12 3 0 0 2 2 4 3 6 15 6 0 58 AC AC
10424 Reseda C1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 15 0 0 29 NC NC
10436 Reseda A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC NC
10448 Reseda C1 5 12 6 6 3 2 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 79 C C
18404 San Jose D2R 5 8 3 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 15 6 0 47 AC AC
18414 San Jose C4 0 8 0 6 5 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 28 NC NC
18422 San Jose C3 5 12 6 6 5 2 2 4 3 6 15 15 0 81 C C
18430 San Jose B2R 5 12 0 6 0 2 0 0 3 6 15 4 0 53 AC AC
18438 San Jose B3 5 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 6 15 15 0 58 AC C
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb
PDF
Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood
PDF
Beyond Chinatown: identifying significant Chinese cultural landmarks in the San Gabriel Valley
PDF
Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley
PDF
The Schindler Terrace, an early modern garden: a case for conservation
PDF
Seeing beyond the fog: preserving San Francisco's cultural heritage in the Clement Street Corridor
PDF
Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community
PDF
The lasting significance of the Naval Defense Station in World War II San Pedro
PDF
An odyssey in B-flat: rediscovering the life and times of master architect Robert A. Kennard
Asset Metadata
Creator
Locke, Sarah
(author)
Core Title
Beyond significance: integrity analysis considerations for modern residential tracts of the San Fernando Valley
School
School of Architecture
Degree
Master of Heritage Conservation
Degree Program
Heritage Conservation
Publication Date
02/15/2017
Defense Date
01/26/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
A. Quincy Jones,Architecture,Balboa Highlands,Builder,Charles Dubois,Claude Oakland,Cliff May,conservation,Eichler Homes,Fritz Burns,Garrett Eckbo,Granada Hills,Gregory Ain,heritage,historic,House,HPOZ,Integrity,Jones and Emmons,Joseph Eichler,living-conditioned,Los Angeles,Mar Vista,merchant builder,mid-century,Modern,modernism,Northridge,OAI-PMH Harvest,Palmer and Krisel,postwar,preservation,ranch,ranch house,Residential,San Fernando Valley,Sanford Adler,suburban,survey,SurveyLA,tract,William Krisel
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sandmeier, Trudi (
committee chair
), Horak, Katie (
committee member
), Platt, Jay (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sarah@ideabomb.com,slocke@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-339370
Unique identifier
UC11255946
Identifier
etd-LockeSarah-5066.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-339370 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LockeSarah-5066.pdf
Dmrecord
339370
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Locke, Sarah
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
A. Quincy Jones
Balboa Highlands
Charles Dubois
Claude Oakland
Cliff May
conservation
Eichler Homes
Fritz Burns
Garrett Eckbo
Gregory Ain
historic
HPOZ
Jones and Emmons
Joseph Eichler
living-conditioned
merchant builder
mid-century
modernism
Palmer and Krisel
preservation
ranch house
Sanford Adler
suburban
SurveyLA
tract
William Krisel