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
/
Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue's military commissions: identity, process, importance and stewardship of these cultural resources
(USC Thesis Other)
Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue's military commissions: identity, process, importance and stewardship of these cultural resources
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BERTRAM GROSVENOR GOODHUE’S MILITARY COMMISSIONS:
IDENTITY, PROCESS, IMPORTANCE
AND
STEWARDSHIP OF THESE CULTURAL RESOURCES
by
Sharon Lynn Smith
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
December 2008
Copyright 2008 Sharon Lynn Smith
ii
Acknowledgements
Thanks to many people – foremost to my husband Steve Bovee – I have been able to
pursue this Master’s Degree in Historic Preservation. He supported my many fact-finding
trips, became immersed in my studies and my thesis topic. He has read many of the books
I have brought home, supported me through my technological challenges and proofread my
works. I also had the benefit of advice from many fine people from the Boston and
Columbia libraries and within the Department of Defense (DoD) who were able to open
doors and point me to sources that I did not know existed. Special thanks to:
Travis Beckwith, Cultural Resource Manager at West Point Military Academy
Elaine McConnell at West Point Military Academy Special Collections
Janet Parks at Columbia University, Avery Library
Kimberly M. Tenney at the Boston Public Library, Fine Arts Department
Ellen Guillemette at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Archives
Barbara McCurtis, Director, Marine Corps Recruit Depot Museum
Alisa Whitley at Quantico History Division (Pendleton Papers)
Gina Nichols at the Naval History Center, Port Hueneme
I am extremely grateful to the University of Southern California, specifically Ken
Breisch, for rekindling the world of academia to me and fueling a quest to learn. Thank
you also to David Moore for providing the insight of a consultant who works with DoD.
In addition to Ken Breisch, a special thank you to my other two committee members who
challenged me during this thesis process. Thank you to my committee:
Kenneth Breisch, PhD, Director of Historic Preservation Program, University of Southern
California
Greg Hise, PhD, Professor of History, University of Nevada, Los Vegas
Joseph B. Thomas, Jr. PhD, Deputy Federal Preservation Officer for the Navy
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures v
Abstract ix
Prologue x
Why Goodhue? x
Stewardship Issues & the Challenges xii
Research Sources xiii
Introduction 1
Introduction Endnotes 7
Chapter 1: The Military Installations and Their Identity 9
West Point 10
The San Diego Commissions 19
The Courtship of the Military by San Diego 23
Master Planning & Consistency in Style 26
Organizational Identity 31
The Military as part of a National Identity 33
Significance of Identity 33
Chapter 1 Endnotes 35
Chapter 2: Process for Siting, Design and Construction 38
of these Military Installations
Importance of Strategic Location 38
Community and Political Involvement 40
The Role of the Military Engineers 44
The Role of the Consulting Architect 49
The Role of the Patron 53
Process as it Relates to Today 55
Chapter 2 Endnotes 57
Chapter 3: Importance of Military Installation Architecture 62
The Mandate to Consider Importance 63
The Nominations for Significance 64
Discussion of Significance and Consistency of Nominations 72
Military Cultural Heritage: Architectural vs Military History 76
Local and State Importance of Military Installations 79
What Military Installation is Nationally Important? 80
Stewardship and Mission in the Military 83
iv
Historic District Boundaries - What does this Mean? 84
Small Changes that Cumulatively Impact 88
The Caretakers: Assuming the Patron’s Role 90
Record Management for the Military 93
Ownership: the People of the United States 95
Chapter 3 Endnotes 98
Epilogue & Recommendations 101
Recommendations 103
References 105
Correspondence 105
National Register Nomination Forms 105
Bibliography 106
v
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue ca 1923, source: Richard 4
Oliver, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, (New York: the
Architectural History Foundation, and Cambridge,
Massachusetts: the MIT Press, 1983), Cover page.
Fig. 2: View of Taylor Hall, U. S. Military Academy at West Point, 10
circa 1910, source: Courtesy of the Boston Public Library,
Fine Arts Department, Ralph Adams Cram Collection.
Fig.3: Richard Delafield, source: Theodore J. Crackle, The 11
Illustrated History of West Point, (New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., Publishers, in association with The United
States Military Academy Class of 1940, 1991), 128.
Crackle’s source: oil on canvas, 34 x 27”, by Charles C.
Curran c. 1910, National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian
Institute, Gift of Mr. Albert Delafield.
Fig. 4: Photograph of Ordinance Complex at the United States 12
Military Academy at West Point (West Point), taken by
Sharon Smith, Oct 2007.
Fig. 5: The old Library and Observatory built in 1841. Plan by 13
Delafield, source: U. S. Department of the Interior, Historic
Structures Inventory, United States Military Academy,
West Point, New York, Volume II, (Washington DC: Historic
American Building Survey, National Park Service).
http://www.usma.edu/archives/archives.asp.
(accessed: July 7, 2008).
Fig. 6: Lyndhurst, Helen Gould’s home, Tarrytown, New York, 14
(between 1910 and 1915), source: Flicker Commons project,
2008, forms part of George Grantham Bain Collection,
Library of Congress,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library ofcongress/2535977177/
(accessed: September 13, 2008).
Fig. 7: Photograph of Cullum Memorial Hall at West Point, 15
Sharon Smith, Oct 2007.
Fig. 8: Photograph of Washington Hall at West Point with Cadet 16
Chapel in background, Sharon Smith, Oct 2007.
vi
Fig. 9: View of West Point from River Level, from Photographs 17
of the U.S. Military Academy, dated and inscribed by
Goodhue to Colonel Carson, Officer in Charge of
Construction, August 17, 1915, source: West Point
library Special Collections.
Fig. 10:John Nolen Plan, 1908, source: John Nolen, San Diego, 20
A Comprehensive Plan for It’s Improvement, (Boston:
Geo. H. Ellis, Printers, 1908), 6.
Fig. 11:John Nolen Plan, 1926, source: John Nolen, A 22
Comprehensive City Plan for San Diego, California,
(prepared for the City Planning Commission, the Harbor
Commission, the Park Commission of San Diego,
Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass.: Hale J. Walker – Justin
R. Hartzog, Associates, 1926).
Fig. 12:Brochure cover, Panama-California Exposition, 1915-1916, 25
source: Museum of San Diego History, San Diego Historical
Society Archives (greeting card cover).
Fig. 13:North Island Aerial, circa 1928 with Goodhue’s design 27
highlighted, #79 SDHS-554, source: San Diego Historical
Society, Photo Collection.
Fig. 14:MCRD under construction, undated. Photo shows buildings 28
in background with low lying site close to the San Diego Bay,
#90: 17877, source San Diego Historical Society, Photo
Collection.
Fig. 15:Goodhue’s vision for the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, 28
1920, 79(?)(sic) 7A SDHS-556, source San Diego Historical
Society, Photo Collection.
Fig. 16:Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) arcade with palm 30
trees, Sharon Smith, June 2008.
Fig. 17:MCRD arcade under construction, circa 1920’s, (A-27-42), 31
source: MCRD archives.
Fig. 18:North Island Aerial circa 1920, #17983, source San Diego 32
Historical Society, Photo Collection.
vii
Fig. 19:Marine Base, just completed, circa 1921, (6892-1, 42
source: San Diego Historical Society photo archives.
Fig. 20:Naval Training Center (now Liberty Station), San Diego, 47
2008, Sharon Smith, September 2008.
Fig. 21:Colonel Joseph Pendleton, source: Meredith R. Vizena 54
and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Museum Historical
Society, The History of Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
San Diego, (MCRD Museum Historical Society and
Escondido, California: Heritage Press and Productions,
1997), 3.
Fig. 22:Map of the Landmark District, U.S. Military Academy, 65
source: West Point Environmental Office.
Fig. 23:MCRD circa 2006, source: MCRD Facilities Division. 67
Fig. 24:Goodhue’s Plan of the MCRD, source: MCRD Facilities 67
Division.
Fig. 25:Building 27, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Sharon Smith, 68
September 2008.
Fig. 26:North Island Naval Air Station (North Island), Historic 69
District Boundaries, source: National Register of Historic
Places Registration Form, Naval Air Station, San Diego,
Historic District, prepared by Andrew Yatsko, III,
Archeologist, Natural Resources Office, NAS North Island,
San Diego, dated April 30, 1990.
Fig. 27:North Island, Goodhue administrative buildings with 70
aircraft overhead, circa 1929, (80:1705), source: San
Diego Historical Society, Photo Collection.
Fig. 28:North Island Naval Air Station, Administrative Building 70
and arcade buildings, 2008, Sharon Smith, September 2008.
Fig. 29:North Island Naval Air Station, Administrative Building, 70
undated, #UT-796, source: San Diego Historical Society,
Photo Collection.
Fig. 30:Arcade at North Island Naval Air Station, Sharon Smith, 71
May 2008.
viii
Fig. 31:Arcade at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Sharon Smith, 71
June 2008.
Fig. 32:Buffalo Soldier Field building group, circa 1910, source: 74
West Point Special Collections.
Fig. 33:Buffalo Soldier Field building group, 2007, Sharon Smith, 74
October 2007. Training field is now used for athletics
versus the historical use as an equestrian training field.
Fig. 34:Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Gate 3, late 1920’s, source: 75
MCRD Archives.
Fig. 35:Gate House in 2008 (moved and unused), Sharon Smith, 75
September 2008.
Fig. 36:Aerial, North Island Naval Air Station at low altitude 76
showing admin building and hangers 1 and 2, circa 1930’s,
#90:18138550, source: San Diego Historical Society,
Photo Collection.
Fig. 37:North Island Naval Air Station, Hangars, 2008, Sharon 76
Smith, September 2008.
Fig. 38:North Island, view w/parking lot, Sharon Smith, May 2008. 82
Fig. 39:Bird’s eye view of West Point depicting Cram, Goodhue 84
and Ferguson’s construction, image labeled copyright 1909,
W.T. Litteg & Co., New York, source: West Point library,
Special Collections.
Fig. 40:Olmsted’s Plan West Point ca 1911, source: West Point 85
Environmental Office.
Fig. 41:Existing Library, source: West Point website, 86
http://www.usma.edu/screens/new_library.asp,
(accessed July 7, 2008).
Fig. 42:Artist rendition of new Library (under construction), source: 86
West Point website,
http://www.usma.edu/screens/new_library.asp,
(accessed July 7, 2008).
ix
Abstract
The military commissions of master architect, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, are used to
examine three issues: identity, process and importance, as they relate to stewardship of
military architecture. The commissions are the United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York; and Naval Air Station, North Island and Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
San Diego, California. The period of these commissions was 1903 to 1919. With
Goodhue’s military work as the basis and stewardship as the theme, this thesis looks at
challenges of cultural resource management within the federal government. It builds
upon historical data to present a case for the importance of a team approach to proper
management and a suggestion that a new category for designation of potentially historic
property be considered. Policies such as record management, concerns such as historic
district boundaries and degradation of intent through small changes are explored. The
thesis culminates with observations and recommendations.
x
Prologue
This thesis started as a review of a prominent architect, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, and
what I felt was an overlooked portion of his work: his military commissions. It
transformed into an examination of architectural identity in those commissions and their
historic grounds and structures, and a study of the design and construction process as a
way of understanding past decisions. In turn, that led to a critical reflection on what is
important and must be preserved, and a discussion of the challenges associated with their
stewardship. With Goodhue’s military work as the basis and stewardship as the theme,
this thesis looks at the challenges of cultural resource management within the federal
government.
Why Goodhue?
I was introduced to the work of Goodhue during my years of work at the Marine Corps
Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, California. During my eighteen-year tenure at
MCRD, I was involved with planning and project management of the military
construction program. My job included interface with the tradesmen who were
responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and repair of the buildings. It also included
involvement in many actions that threatened the existence of MCRD. Events such as
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and proposed expansion of the adjacent airport
would have either closed the base or significantly impacted the property. Working in a
military environment where key personnel change frequently and where the focus is on
recruiting and training Marine recruits was a challenge. I felt the perceived conflict with
stewardship of the architectural cultural heritage at MCRD, the military heritage and the
xi
forward push of the military mission. Through my work, I became intimately familiar
with the buildings and grounds. I also became a passionate believer in the architectural
importance of MCRD.
In 1991 when the 110-acre Historic District was nominated for inclusion in the National
Register, my job did not include Section 106 responsibilities. That changed in 1993
when in addition to planning and engineering, I became responsible for the supervision of
the environmental section. Thus, by default I became the Cultural Resource Manager
(CRM). This new responsibility challenged and scared me. To be responsible for
decisions affecting a National Register property was intimidating. It triggered a desire to
learn more about the history and significance of the installation. The buildings and
grounds became more than just attractive architecture. I began to understand why the
aura of the place was important and to appreciate all the history behind what made
MCRD special. Through the assistance of contracted studies, interface with the
consultants that prepared the studies, and my research in the National Archives, I began
to build upon my knowledge of Goodhue. I also started to learn more about what being a
CRM entailed and came to embrace, although sometimes struggle, with the challenges of
that duty.
After leaving MCRD for a new job, I was able to look back at the data I had collected and
it was clear to me that Goodhue and MCRD would be part of my thesis. That initial
focus was broadened to look at the other two military commissions he was involved with,
North Island Naval Air Station (North Island) in San Diego and the United States
xii
Military Academy at West Point (West Point). Being in San Diego, I had access to North
Island and the regional CRM staff involved with its stewardship. I was fortunate to be
able to walk the grounds at West Point with their CRM, Travis Beckwith, and discuss
stewardship issues with him. As this thesis evolved, I went back to MCRD and shared
ideas with the Museum Director and Archivist. When I was involved in the day-to-day
duties at MCRD, I had not had the time to fully appreciate what these two individuals
could offer in forming a stewardship team.
Stewardship Issues & the Challenges
The firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson was well established during the West Point
commissions. For the San Diego commissions, Goodhue, had made his debut as the
designer of record for the 1915 Panama-California Exhibition and was established as a
well known New York architect. Because the installations were designed by a prominent
architectural firm/architect, they facilitate a discussion of the importance of architecture
and landscape to military identity and mission, as well as to the history of our nation.
They highlight the role of the community and political will. The relationship between the
military and the community is complex and deserving of attention. In the past, the
military was a much stronger partner in the community as an economic driver. For
example, BRAC and a desire for a different image has driven San Diego to diversify and
no longer be as dependent on the military for their economic health. National events such
as recent wars have caused people in the community to support the individual warrior,
but not necessarily to embrace the local military installations. Processes such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have dictated that the military analyze their
xiii
impact on the community, but this has resulted in a different partnership than what
existed when the three installations being discussed here were under construction. Of the
three installations, West Point’s relationship with the community is the least changed. In
general, the military installation fences are permanent symbols of the non-physical wall
between the two entities in today’s environment. When necessary, each acknowledges
the others existence; but they operate on two different planes. As a result, the general
public has little knowledge of the military’s architectural cultural assets and the sense of
importance they once played in their community.
The thesis also uses the three installations to examine the numerous, but non-related
branches of each service that either directly or indirectly contributes to the stewardship
process. These branches continue the lineage of players who affect the architectural
heritage at the installations. The military has long struggled with the notion of
architectural stewardship. Along with looking at the people and organizations, this
thesis takes a critical look at existing policy within the Federal government. Based upon
my own first hand experience and research, I offer recommendations on how
improvements can be made.
Research Sources
Research for this paper was accomplished at MCRD, West Point, Navy Region
Southwest CRM office, the National Archives, the Avery Library at Columbia
University, Boston Public library, the California Room in the San Diego Public library,
and by retrieval of archival information through the University of Southern California’s
xiv
interlibrary loan program. It included discussions with other CRM’s, archivists and
museum directors, consultants who work with the military, and it involved reading many
scholarly works.
1
Introduction
Three military installations – the United States Military Academy at West Point, New
York, and North Island Naval Air Station and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San
Diego, California are used to look at issues of identity, process and importance as they
relate to stewardship. They were all large commissions and endeavors, prominent for the
services they served - Army, Navy and Marine Corps. They are unique in their own way
and are tied together by consulting architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue. This paper
looks to the future and examines the current management challenges the military has in
its stewardship of these cultural resources.
1
The three case studies capture a point in time in our society. They are reflective of our
national identity and the evolution of the military. Military bases are mini-towns. They
are self contained and closely aligned with a campus atmosphere. Both types of
institutions, military installation and campus, have similar external and internal
influences. Goodhue was also involved in large campus design and planning efforts. The
politics of the era were very important to this evolution as well as the role of the military.
The military policies and procedures sometimes contradicted what actually occurred and
were usually a result of a very strong community input and political pressure.
Today, military installation master planning is done by civil service (Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Air Force) civilian professionals. Typically, this is supplemented by the
assistance of consultants on an as needed basis. There are service specific manuals that
2
assist in this effort. Designs are contracted out to professional architecture and
engineering organizations. Today, the role of the construction contractor is more
important as design-build has become the vehicle used to gain new buildings and
building complexes. Prior to the 1880’s, master planning and large design commissions
were accomplished exclusively by the military. Guidance was minimal. Army
installations were predominantly inland forts built to defend the frontier. The Navy was
sited to guard waterfronts and harbors. Early Navy Yards were sited strategically to be
close to ports, labor and materials required for shipbuilding. Army forts were built as
economically as possible and/or built at the whim of the commander in charge. Certain
installations received greater scrutiny early on – namely West Point. However, most
installations were not subjected to design oversight or guidance.
2
The national acknowledgement of the need for a military caused a significant shift in
military planning and construction.
3
The scope of responsibility of the Army and Navy
Quartermaster Corps was increased, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers.
4
The
Bureau of Yards and Docks was established in 1842 and in 1911 Congress placed the
design and construction of all naval shore facilities under the Bureau’s control. It was a
time of technological advancement – the United States was a leading force in world
politics. The frontier was declared conquered in 1890 and the west was open for rapid
development.
5
The timing of the three commissions is important. The West Point commission was won
in 1903 and was substantially completed in 1910. During this era, the nation was
3
establishing professional engineering and architectural standards, and design
commissions were in vogue. As design professionals became more established and their
associations more proactive, they started impacting work in the United States. Men such
as Daniel Burnham started championing professional standards at the same time the
nation was viewing the 1893 Chicago Exhibition. American engineering and
architectural schools were being established. For architecture, the classical Ecole de
Beaux Arts was still the school of preference. The two California commissions were
started in 1918 and were substantially completed in 1925. The San Diego commissions
were a product of the desire for San Diego to establish its architectural identity during a
formative period of time in their history.
The influence of the 1893 Chicago Exhibition was felt by the military as well as city
planners. This was reflected in a stronger use of name designers and a preference for a
more cohesive planning organization. The City Beautiful movement had a significant
impact on the military. It actually reflects an ordered planning intrinsic to the military.
The Tarsney Act of 1893 was meant to wrest open the door for significant Federal design
commissions from the Supervising Architect’s Office. Although it did not explicitly
address the work being done on military installations, it stimulated discussion between
the federal government and civilian design professionals. For years after its passage and
eventual repeal, issues such as architectural style, regionalism, use of design competitions
and the role of federal employees were debated. Both the City Beautiful movement and
the Tarsney Act certainly led to a move to professionalism and military planners were
part of this movement. However, military installations were (and are today) still very
4
much controlled by a very strong presence of uniformed officers to the point that they
dominate the architectural firms commissioned to accomplish a design.
6
To further lay the background for this paper,
it is necessary to fully identify the
architect that precipitated this
thesis – Goodhue. (fig.1) He was born
in Pomfret, Connecticut in 1869 to a
family rich in talent, values and history,
but not finances. Goodhue’s education
was similar to other young talented men
of their era. He was apprenticed to the
firm of James Renwick, Jr., as opposed
to attending a formalized school of
instruction. Goodhue was a dreamer.
He was extremely creative and
versatile – he was entertaining and engaging and worked his way into commissions
through his talent, enthusiasm and connections. He was not above marketing himself for
a commission. In 1891, Goodhue won a commission for a Gothic Revival Church, the
Cathedral of St. Matthew to be built in Dallas, Texas. This caused him to leave his
position as an apprentice with Renwick to pursue a partnership with Ralph Adams Cram.
That relationship would prove to be prolific and tense. Both men were strong willed and
talented. It eventually led to Goodhue dissolving his relationship with the firm in 1914.
7
Fig. 1 Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue,
ca. 1923
5
Correspondence in both the Boston and Columbia archives shows that the two creative
geniuses actually fed upon each other to produce an incredible wealth of designs. When
they officially dissolved the partnership in 1914, Goodhue was pursuing a more
progressive interpretation of design than Cram. Reading between the lines, despite
Goodhue’s concern that Cram was receiving most of the attention for their joint works,
there appears to have been a mutual respect for each other. Cram was more reverent than
Goodhue, the agnostic. Goodhue was transitioning from Gothic to a more regional
architecture. In California, he did not originate, but he surely popularized the Spanish
Colonial Revival style of architecture. Just prior to his death, he was exploring a more
modernist approach to design. Through this late work, his impact on civic architecture
was immense. Goodhue was a strong willed individual. With these military
commissions, he found a strong willed client. His military commissions were large scale
planning exercises that reflect a national style and a regionalism at the same time.
8
The thesis starts with a chapter on identity and image. Understanding the identity of the
resource helps define context and character defining features. These are the tools that
assist decision makers charged with stewardship. It is followed with a chapter on the
process by which the installation’s building and grounds were obtained, and the key
people involved in the process. The research in process and players offers insight into
why certain actions were taken. It is part of the continuum that makes a “place” and it
does not stop when construction is complete. These two chapters are used as the
foundations for a discussion on the importance of these architectural resources. All three
6
chapters form the basis for my observations and recommendations for continued
stewardship of the three military commissions.
The use of Goodhue’s commissions is not intended as a generalization of military
installation cultural resources. Many installations were not designed by a prominent
architectural firm or master planned. The three military installations I looked at are all
different. West Point is an Academy that is not unlike a university campus. The
Goodhue work was done while he was with the firm of Cram, Goodhue & Ferguson. In
the other two commissions, Goodhue was operating as an independent architect. MCRD
has some similarities to a college campus, but serves as a military boot camp. North
Island Naval Air Station is an operational aviation base.
Recently, Goodhue, the architect, is being rediscovered and his work is becoming more
well known. In the three case studies - West Point, North Island Naval Air Station and
the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, we have a means to explore through the works of an
important architect, identity, process, architectural importance, and what that means for
Cultural Resource Management.
7
Introduction Endnotes
1. Goodhue was involved as a consulting architect for the design of a total of three
military commissions: The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (West
Point), The Navy Air Station at North Island (North Island) in Coronado, California,
and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, California. Although I
will refer to Goodhue as the consulting architect for West Point, he was a partner in
the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson at the time. Since the terms of the West
Point commission required a consulting architect, Goodhue performed those duties as
a partner out of the New York branch office. The fact that Goodhue also performed
work on other commissions and that lines of authority between West Point officials
and the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson were sufficiently blurred became the
crux of a lawsuit over the payment for services of the West Point commission. This
was the start of the dissolution of Goodhue’s partnership with Cram. A more detailed
history of West Point can be found in the two books by Theodore J. Crackel. The
first, West Point, A Bicentennial History included some inaccuracies that were
amended in the second edition by the same author, titled The Illustrated History of
West Point. Crackel’s books are not specifically architectural in nature, however they
do chronicle the history of building at West Point. For the history of North Island,
see Elretta Sudsbury, Jackrabbits to Jets, the History of North Island, San Diego,
California. The history of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot is found in a book by that
same title, 75
th
Anniversary edition by the Marine Corps Recruit Historical Society
and Meredith R. Vezina, and a thesis on the History of the Marine Corps Recruit
Depot by John Edward Fahey. Again, architecture was not the theme. In 1914,
Goodhue was the architect of record for three faculty residences at The Virginia
Military Institute (VMI). Since this institute is not a Department of Defense asset, it
is not included in this paper. His work at VMI is part of a Historic District.
2. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installation, 1790-1940, Volume I of IV, 45. Also see Alison
Hoagland’s, Army Architecture in the West: Forts Laramie, Bridger, and D.A.
Russell, 1849-1912 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). Hoagland’s
book reinforces a lack of guidance for early design of army forts. William D. Walters,
Jr., “ American Shipbuilding, 1890-1989”, Geographic Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 , (Jul
2000), 418-431, outlines the history of Navy ship yards.
3. Theodore J. Crackel, West Point, A Bicentennial History (Kansas: University Press of
Kansas, 2002), 98. The General Survey Bill of 1823 turned the tide of what was then
a notion to dissolve the armed forces. It was the catalyst for future building
programs. Lois Craig & the staff of the Federal Architecture Project, The Federal
Presence, Architecture, Politics, and Symbols in United States Government Building
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The MIT Press, 1978), also
outlines the evolution of the changing nation and the military presence.
8
4. During the three case study commissions, the Department of War (Army), and
Department of Navy (Navy and Marine Corps) were two of the executive
Departments within the federal government. The Department of War was created by
Act of Congress on August 7, 1789 (source: Frank Hall Lawton, Colonel, Field
Quartermaster’s handbook, [New York City: George U. Harvey, Harvey Military
Series], 1917). The Department of War was administered through twelve
departments – the two key ones for this thesis are the Quartermaster Corps and the
Corps of Engineers. The Bureau of Yards and Docks was created along with other
Navy Bureaus of the Navy Department by authority of Congress in August 31, 1842.
(source: United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, Manual of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks, Navy Department, [Washington: Government Printing Office], 1923).
5. Lois Craig, The Federal Presence, 210.
6. The Tarsney Act of 1893 was repealed in 1912 as a rider to an Appropriation Bill. In
a New York Times article dated October 3, 1912 states that the American Institute of
Architects had lobbied for this bill: “Our best public buildings, architecturally
considered, and in all their other aspects, including the economy in the cost of
construction, were secured to us under the Tarsney Act, which empowered the
Secretary of the Treasury to institute an open competition for designs and to select the
best.” For an excellent discussion on the Tarsney Act, see Antoinette J. Lee,
Architects to the Nation.
7. For books written about Goodhue, see Richard Oliver, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue,
Charles Harris Whitaker, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue – Architect and Master of
Many Arts, and Romy Wyllie, Bertram Goodhue, His Life and Residential
Architecture. Goodhue died on April 23, 1924 without seeing the completed set of his
San Diego commissions.
8. The Boston Public Library, Fine Arts Department, has papers from Ralph Adams
Cram. Library staff indicated that his old firm might retain some correspondence
from the West Point commission. This has not been confirmed. The Avery Library
in Columbia University contains much of the Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue papers.
For further research, Remi Wyllie, in Bertram Goodhue, His Life and Residential
Architecture, states that she also had access to papers held by Goodhue’s relatives. It
has not been confirmed if these paper would be beneficial to the three case studies.
9
” We have no typical climate in America, no typical landscape, or for that matter, typical
civilization…In the West we find in our architecture the Spanish influence, which is
eminently suited to the landscape and climate, in the East we are still dominated by the
classical Renaissance, which in turn owes its tradition to Greece.”
Goodhue, 1916
1
Chapter 1: The Military Installations and Their Identity
In the late 1800’s, the nation was evolving and the military, like it or not, had to evolve
also. The United States was growing and it needed to establish its place in the world.
Prior to the 1890’s military installations took the form of forts or shipyards. They were
predominantly concerned with protecting boundaries and frontier, and enabling westward
expansion. By necessity, Army forts were utilitarian in nature. The few buildings were
grouped around a parade ground. The inhabitants included single men and a few
families, making them a small village. By virtue of the distance from civilization and an
economizing government, there was no prescribed form or identity. The lack of available
materials lead to an improvised, temporary construction. Identity varied according to the
whim of the Commanding Officer and the materials at hand.
2
Expeditionary forts were
austere, taking their form from the Quartermaster’s manual of planning.
3
The Navy’s
coastal defense installations contained a mix of temporary and permanent construction.
However, they too, had no real identity. Much of this temporary nature and appearance
was due to the nation not being at ease with even having a military. It was only when a
major commitment to establish a standing military was made, and a determination that
the nation needed an armed force, that the character of military installations started to
transform.
4
With the move away from coastal and frontier forts to more established
military installations, identity and image started to become important to the services in
their planning of these installations. Of the three case studies, the U.S. Military Academy
10
at West Point (West Point) and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) were
considered major institutions – either by their service or a patron.
West Point
The earliest of the case studies, West Point, evolved from a temporary fort into a gray
bastion - the Military Academy - overlooking the Hudson River. It was strategically
sited. It was imposing and grew out of the rock outcropping it was built on. In fact, the
stone was quarried from the site. The color and severity of it convey an image the Army
cultivates to this day, (fig. 2
and 9)). The establishment of a
Military academy was born in 1802
as part of a master plan by
Thomas Jefferson to structure the
federal government. Jefferson was
an unlikely proponent of this
endeavor, being largely against a
professional military. He was, however, a proponent of higher education – in particular
of sciences and engineering. It was with this impetus, that on March 16, 1802, an Act of
Congress officially established the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. From the
period of 1801 to 1833, West Point was a collection of buildings without an architectural
theme. When the nation started to acknowledge the need for a strong military and the
skills of the officers trained at the Academy, serious attention began to be focused on the
condition and needs of the Academy’s buildings and grounds. Even then, nothing was
Fig. 2 Taylor Hall, U. S. Military Academy
at West Point circa 1910
11
seriously undertaken until 1838 – and then it was in the form of a survey to develop a
general plan for construction.
5
The current image of West Point is
credited to Major Richard Delafield,
Superintendent of the Academy in
three non consecutive terms from
1820 to 1845. (fig. 3) Charged with
developing a major building program,
Delafield established a task force in
November 1838 of three professors
and engaged the services of Isaiah
Rogers, a New York City architect.
Rogers’ first design was in the Greek Revival style, then a popular mode for civic
architecture. Delafield disliked Roger’s designs, saying: “They are in no manner suited
to our wants, or the discipline of the corps – and would cost ½ a million. I cannot think
of submitting them, being in principle worse than the existing buildings although very
elegant.”
6
Disappointed with Rogers, Delafield hired a second architect in 1839, Frederick Diaper
who was also noted for his Greek Revival commercial architecture. Diaper’s first plan
for the barracks, was in the Tudor-Gothic style. Delafield was so impressed that
subsequently no other style of architecture received serious consideration at West Point
Fig. 3 Richard Delafield
12
during his tenure. Although Delafield liked the style, he did not like Diaper’s details and
submitted his own design, which he recommended for approval to the Chief of Engineers
at the War Department. Delafield’s proposal was for a Tudor-Gothic scheme that clearly
reflected Diaper’s influence. His plan met with the immediate favor of both Joseph G.
Totten, Chief of Engineers, and Joel Poinsett, President of the Board of Visitors, in
Washington DC. After some minor modifications by federal architect Captain Robert
Mills of the Engineer Department, his plan was formally approved.
The Ordinance
Compound, (fig. 4), has been credited to Delafield. It shows the strong influence of the
Gothic style of architecture and the use of locally quarried stone that prevailed in
subsequent commissions. Other building designs credited to Delafield include the old
Library and Observatory, (fig. 5), and the old Central Barracks, completed in 1851.
7
Figure 2. Delafield Building
Figure 2. Delafield Building
Fig. 4 Ordinance Complex, U.S. Military Academy at West Point , Richard Delafield, 1840
13
Why Delafield chose the Tudor-Gothic over the Greek or Classical Revival styles which
were then the accepted style in federal buildings is not known. It may have resulted from
the combined dynamics of the architectural style, the fact that this was a military
academy, and from West Point’s imposing and scenic location. Theodore Crackel’s book
hints as much when he says that Delafield states Diaper’s Tudor-Gothic design as “a style
not only pleasing to the eye, but suited to the scenery.”
8
The National Landmark
designation form states that Delafield “was much attracted by the architecture of
medieval England, with its militaristic overtones, and saw the appropriateness of
transplanting this style to the Military Academy”.
9
Delafield may have observed the style
in the residential construction occurring in the Hudson River Valley starting in the
1830’s. Lyndhurst in nearby Tarrytown, New York, (fig. 6), was designed by Alexander
Jackson Davis in 1838 in the Gothic Revival style with castellations at the parapets.
10
Fig. 5 Illustration of the old Library and Observatory, U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
Richard Delafield, 1841 (demolished)
14
Alexander Jackson Davis also designed a hotel for Constitution Island on the Hudson
River opposite West Point in 1837 in the Gothic style.
11
Although the hotel was never
constructed, Delafield would have surely had knowledge of the design. Subsequent
construction at West Point during the century following Delafield’s example was eclectic
and followed a variety of styles.
12
By the end of the nineteenth century, with the next new construction program looming,
architectural style and image were very important. Charles Larned, Professor of Drawing
at West Point, who was part of the rebuilding committee tasked with writing the program
that eventually became the design competition document, wrote in 1901:
It is not desirable, that any scheme should attempt to sweep the field clean
and destroy architectural associations made honourable by generations of
great men. It is of the highest importance to preserve intact the structural
sentiment which gives character and individuality to the Academy.
13
Fig. 6 Lyndhurst, Tarrytown,
New York, Alexander
Jackson Davis, 1838
15
It was with this architectural mandate, that the Army sponsored a competition for a
massive construction program. They limited the competition to ten firms. One of which
was the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson – noted for their design of Gothic and
Gothic Revival architecture.
Also asked to bid was the firm of McKim, Meade and White who had designed two
buildings in the classical tradition of the Ecole de Beaux Arts, Cullum Memorial Hall,
(fig. 7), and the Officer’s Club. Construction of Cullum Memorial Hall was completed in
1898. It was the result of a donation by General George W. Cullum. The adjacent
officer’s club was completed in 1903. The architecture of these buildings was consistent
with the popular architectural style of the era and did not make any pretense of tying into
an existing institutional identity.
Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson won the design competition in 1903 largely because they
were sympathetic to retention of many of the existing buildings and because their
proposal was in the Gothic style of architecture. Their proposal was also unique in that it
Fig. 7 Cullum Memorial Hall, U.S.
Military Academy at West
Point, McKim, Meade &
White, 1895-1898
16
did not strictly adhere to City Beautiful planning principles, very popular at the time.
Instead they took full advantage of the imposing site. The following quote paints an
eloquent and concise picture of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson’s work:
Cram and Goodhue’s design for West Point took full advantage of the
Academy’s spectacular mountainside site along the Hudson River by
creating a complex of rugged structures that in places clung to the cliffs,
and over which the looming chapel looked down from above – the whole
ensemble evoking images of medieval fortresses or monastic
strongholds.
14
The location of the chapel brings up a very key point about identity for the military. This
is the one building for which Cram gave total design credit to Goodhue. Its position is
one of prominence – looking down upon the drill field and academic buildings, (fig. 8).
It was mandatory for all cadets to attend church and there was a very
strong connection with service to God and country that continues forward today. In a
letter from Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to General Mills, Superintendent at West Point,
Fig. 8 Washington Hall
(Arnold W. Brunner &
Assoc., 1929) with
Cadet Chapel (Cram,
Goodhue & Ferguson,
1906-10) in
background, West Point
17
dated October 5, 1905, when the siting for the chapel was being discussed, they wrote “
“We feel very strongly that the Chapel is not a mere convenience of necessity, but a
visible acknowledgement of the supreme part religion plays in all education.”
15
The prominent position of the chapel in the much later design for the Air Force
Academy is typical of this belief. It is curious that this connection does not exist in the
San Diego commissions. The link in the military between God and country has always
been very strong. Two other San Diego installations being designed by the Bureau of
Yards and Docks at the same time as the Goodhue commissions, Balboa Naval Hospital
and the Naval Training Center, do incorporate an independent Chapel into the plan. It is
possible that the Marine Corps Recruit Depot would have had a more prominent Chapel
incorporated if it had been designed as a recruit boot camp versus an expeditionary base.
The Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson buildings cemented the current identity of the
Academy. As shown in figure 9,
their buildings grow from the
landscape whereas the McKim,
Meade and White buildings sit
on the landscape.
Fig. 9 View of U.S. Military
Academy from river
level, Cram, Goodhue
& Ferguson, circa 1910
18
The Olmsted Brothers, through their landscape design, ensured dramatic vistas of West
Point. Building positions were used to frame dramatic views in all types of approach.
This was not unintentional – it was clearly something both firms strove to accomplish.
In correspondence from Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to General Mills, Superintendent
of the Academy, on May 18, 1904 they reinforce their understanding of the importance
of the West Point commission by insisting that design critiques by the military should not
compromise the “dignity of the structure” and the “style in which the buildings are being
designed”.
16
West Point was a very large commission for the era. It was so important that it was
exhibited at the Saint Louis World’s Fair of 1904 in a series of architectural renderings.
It was also written about in all the major magazines. Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson’s
designs for West Point were controversial within the architectural community.
Architect’s of the era viewed the Gothic style as “out of fashion” and the commission as
having “set back architecture in the United States a quarter of a century”. The popular
classical design would have been their preference. For the general public and the
military, however, this undertaking was surely a source of pride.
17
This debate over identity would continue to reappear for West Point because continuing
the Gothic tradition and legacy of monumental architecture is very costly. The
Department of Defense is notorious for its efforts to economize on its built infrastructure
and to stretch the available dollars as much as possible. The fact that West Point is not
close to an urban area, as compared to the Naval Academy with its proximity to
19
Washington DC, makes campaigning for a consistency of style more difficult. An article
which appeared in the Washington DC newspaper, The Sun, in 1931 speaks to the fact
that West Point is not as visible to the American public and therefore, open for criticism
in their request for construction dollars. The article titled “Army Projects to be Pushed”,
contains a commentary made by Representative Hamilton Fish which speaks to identity
and image in the context of pushing the authorization bill forward:
If West Point was located in California instead of fifty miles from New
York City it would be so well advertised that it would attract several
million people annually, including many from New York State who have
never visited this national shrine, recognized as the foremost military
academy in the world.
18
The San Diego Commissions
Where West Point is iconic, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) and North Island
Naval Air Station (North Island) are impressive in their regional architectural style. West
Point, by virtue of its strategic location and its long history, has become a national image
– itself important to the history of our nation. The two San Diego commissions, while
important to our national history, are more important to the history of San Diego’s
development and identity. San Diego had made itself a strategic location by courting the
military and convincing the services of its desirability. Their architectural image is what
San Diego wanted. It was a continuation of the theme of the 1915/1916 Panama –
California Exhibition.
In establishing an identity, San Diego has long been interested in developing an economic
purpose, one of which was to be a Navy town, and an image. They took the unusual step
20
for such a small town in 1907 by hiring the services of John Nolen to develop a
comprehensive plan for development.
19
He saw San Diego as a clean slate. Nolen’s
plan was finalized in 1908 and published in the January 1, 1909 edition of the San Diego
Union Tribune. This was a period of time that the city was divided in their intentions.
20
It was the start of a campaign of “Geraniums” lead by John Marston, the individual who
brought Nolen to San Diego and was a champion of the Nolen plan, to “Smokestacks”
lead by Charles F. O’Neall and Louis J. Wilde, champions of a city full of factories and
docks. The 1908 Nolen plan envisioned a waterfront full of public spaces and civic
structures with absolutely no written mention of a military presence for San Diego. The
presence of the military is indicated on a map at the tip of Point Loma, (fig. 10), but the
Fig. 10 John Nolen Plan, 1908
21
Army/Navy presence on North Island and the Marine Base had not yet been conceived.
Had Nolen’s plan been followed and the military not courted, it would have resulted in a
different San Diego than what is visible today. The same year the Nolen plan was
published, San Diego’s Chamber of Commerce put their priority and resources toward
hosting the Panama-California Exhibition and pursuing the Navy.
San Diego’s quest for identity and the 1908 Nolen plan were both complementary and at
odds with each other. The O’Neall and Wilde camp was more interested in economic
growth. Paseos and civic plazas were not seen as part of the goal. The railroad had
passed San Diego by and its harbor, although protected, was too shallow for sizeable
ships to enter. The Geranium faction of the city boosters focused on a Beaux-Arts
planned image and wanted a City Beautiful plan. They were more interested in
capitalizing on the notion of beauty and San Diego’s natural landscape. While no
documentation has been uncovered to negate or support this assertation, it is probable that
due to the personalities involved a compromise solution to growth involved the Navy
providing the economic engine without the dirtier trappings of industrialization. It was a
compromise between the Geraniums and the Smokestacks. The disconnect between the
Nolen image of San Diego which was aligned with Geraniums and the business vision,
Smokestacks, was addressed when Nolen was brought back to update the plan in 1926,
(fig. 11). Nolen’s update included the military sites on the plans, but again had little to
say about them in the text. His predominate design interest remained in creating a strong
22
Fig.11 John Nolen Plan 1926
23
civic oriented waterfront with a boulevard and pedestrian paseo that would not be
compromised by a Navy or Marine Corps presence.
21
In the revised plan, MCRD is in place and is depicted with a city recreation and parade
grounds backing up on the military site. North Island is indicated as a joint Army/Navy
reservation for aviation. The waterfront southeast of the city center is shown with orderly
rows of docks for Navy ships. Again, John Marston was the champion of this
1926 Nolen plan. In time, some of the recommendations in that plan were followed –
others were not.
The Courtship of the Military by San Diego
As early as 1900, business and civic leaders in San Diego began a highly focused “Naval
Strategy” and an aggressive campaign of drawing the Department of the Navy’s attention
away from the northern west coast and the San Francisco area to San Diego. This
campaign is discussed in more depth in the chapter on process. Their activities were
largely driven by the Chamber of Commerce. The first opportunity to showcase San
Diego presented itself in 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt sent a force of
battleships – the Great White Fleet – around the world to show how powerful the United
States had become. The Chamber of Commerce seized this event as a prime
opportunity to publicize San Diego. Their lobbying paid off and San Diego became a
stop on the journey. San Diego’s reception of the officers and sailors, in addition to the
invited dignitaries, was extensive. The entire town decked itself out in red, white and
blue and opened the doors to the Navy. For the boosters, the showing was a tremendous
24
success. San Diego took this momentum and continued their push for a strong military
presence in the city.
22
In 1912, San Diego elected William Kettner to Congress. Throughout his four terms in
Congress, Kettner remained a Director of the Chamber of Commerce. In both positions,
he became the leading force to bring the Navy to San Diego. The next significant event
was the 1915 Panama-California Exhibition, which was extended into 1916. Although
meant to showcase San Diego to the nation, it was also used as a vehicle to show San
Diego to the Navy. The crowning moment came when the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, Franklin Roosevelt, came to view the exhibition. The city’s courting of Congress
and the military was accelerated. Prominently involved in this boosterism effort was
Colonel Joseph Pendleton, who at the time was Commander of the 4
th
Regiment, U.S.
Marine Corps. He was enamored with San Diego and eventually became the Mayor of
Coronado after his retirement. Pendleton never missed an opportunity to champion for a
place for his Marines in San Diego. In a dinner event held in September 1914 in honor of
the Navy, Pendleton said:
We have learned to love you and your city, and….wherever the units of
the 4
th
Regiment may be scattered, from its Colonel to its youngest
member, wherever one of us be found, there will be found a SAN DIEGO
BOOSTER.
23
Knowing that San Diego wanted to showcase themselves, it is not surprising at all that
they ended up with a well known designer as the consulting architect for the Panama-
California Exhibition. Bertram Goodhue actually promoted himself to San Diego for the
25
commission through the Olmsted Brothers. Irving Gill, a local architect, had been under
consideration, but because of the decision to use the more elaborate Spanish Colonial
Revival style for the buildings, Goodhue was given the commission. New York
architectural historian David Garrard Lowe was quoted in a lecture sponsored by the San
Diego Historical Society as saying “Goodhue was just what San Diego needed ‘He was
between the past and the present. He understood the modern, understood how to build
modern buildings that were filled with nostalgia’.”
24
The Spanish Colonial Revival
architecture was just the image that
San Diego desired. It was an image that drew
from its Mexican heritage, reflected a sense of
worldliness, and showcased the climate, (fig. 12)
It helped project an identity for the city not unlike
the way architecture was used to create an
identity for Sante Fe, New Mexico and
Santa Barbara, California.
When San Diego eventually won the Department of the Navy over, the Chamber
of Commerce was there with land to accommodate its needs. In exchange, it has
been suggested by Abraham J. Shragge, Jr., that they specifically requested that the Navy
use Goodhue for their first two installations.
25
William Kettner writes that:
Fig. 12 Brochure cover from
Panama-California Exposition,
1915-1916
26
I must add to the credit of Admiral Harris, that when he learned that the
Naval Committee was in earnest he not only pushed the project, but
permitted us to name Architect B. G. Goodhue of New York to lay out the
general plans.
26
They wanted a continuation of the Spanish Colonial Architecture style that had been
showcased at the 1915/1916 Exposition. This is a direct result of San Diego’s desire to
be a beautiful city – not to be confused with the City Beautiful movement. For the
Marine Corps this was a marriage made in heaven. Use of a well-known architect would
not have been typical in the design of these San Diego installations. Instead, the military
installations would have been designed by engineers within the Bureau of Yards and
Docks and therefore may have been designed without a formal master plan.
27
Master planning & Consistency in Style
All three installations being studied were master planned, either by the firm of Cram,
Goodhue and Ferguson or Bertram Goodhue. West Point’s master plan solidified an
architectural style and overall plan for future endeavors. The well-known views of West
Point, the imposing views from the water looking upward and the installation looking
outward, are currently overgrown by vegetation and are undergoing review through a
commissioned study. By contrast North Island Naval Air Station (North Island) and the
Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) started with no established style or plan.
Aviation came to San Diego in 1909 but it was still new to the nation in 1918 when
Goodhue designed buildings for North Island, his first military commission in that city.
This installation started as a dual, Army/Navy base, (fiq. 13). The existing airfield and
27
supporting structures were strictly utilitarian. Of the three case studies this one was not
master planned in the same sense as the other installations. Because of the dual services
and the evolution of the property from an experimental airfield into a major military base,
it went through a series of construction evolutions, many with little to no comprehensive
planning effort. Compared to the other case studies, North Island is not as open to the
public. West Point and MCRD attract large crowds during visitation days and graduation
events. They also both have a museum that is open to the public and West Point offers
guided tours to visitors. North Island is an operational base. Thus, the different periods
of construction at North Island have been a result of mission requirement versus a desire
for a consistent architectural style and identity.
Fig. 13 North Island Aerial, circa 1928
Goodhue’s design,
Navy Air Station
28
In contrast to North Island, MCRD was truly master planned. Unlike West Point and
North Island, the site presented a clean slate to Goodhue when he began his work here in
1918. The location, Dutch Flats, was chosen by Congressman Kettner who had a home
overlooking what was then swamp land, (fig. 14). MCRD was designed to be a showcase
base from the beginning with strong Beaux-Arts axial planning. Previously, the Marine
Corps had no established architectural identity – being a can-do, we’ll make it work
service. The Marine Corps, prior to this installation, had occupied former Navy or Army
bases and expanded or remodeled them. On the west coast, they were tenants on navy
installations. MCRD was to be their first purpose built installation and Colonel Joseph
Pendleton, its patron, intended that it became a showcase of the Marine Corps’ new
identity – a service important in its own right, (fig 15).
28
Fig. 14 MCRD under construction,
Undated. (left)
Fig. 15 Goodhue’s vision for the
Marine Corps Recruit Depot
(below)
29
This was also the first installation that was to be purposely built for the Marines which
also contributes to its architectural identity. They did have a growing military cultural
identity, but in reading the Pendleton papers, it is clear that the Marine Corps saw
themselves as a poor relative of the Navy. Whether it was true or a perception, it was a
recurring theme. The following quote from a letter by Pendleton to Colonel David Porter,
USMC, of August 16, 1921 is typical of the numerous correspondence he sent in an effort
to protect “his baby”:
I was very sorry to realize from your first letter that the visit of the
Secretary to the West Coast is so uncertain. Of course he will come out
sometime, soon, particularly before the Yards and Docks succeed in their
nefarious scheme in ruining and botching the beautiful Marine Advanced
Post which has been planned for this place. No one, until they come here,
has any idea of the beauty of the post we are building, and hope to build as
planned….It is really necessary to visit the place and actually see it before
one can begin to understand and comprehend. The pictures give you
absolutely no idea of what it really is.
29
The continuing emphasis of Pendleton’s letters also confirms the image he was striving
for as “beautiful”. Goodhue and Pendleton were interested in the dignities of approach,
vistas, siting of buildings, etc. The same issues of the consulting architect’s plea for the
license to design apply here that were discussed in the West Point commission, but in this
case, they were discussed more in the context of “beauty” than identity.
The economy of the mid 1920’s impacted the current appearance of MCRD and may
have impacted North Island. In Colonel Pendleton’s correspondence to Captain Stephen
Drew on August 4, 1921 we know he was concerned about this: “I fear this craze for
economy has struck in so deep that they are going to ruin our beautiful post here instead
30
of finishing it as planned. However, we are hoping for the best though we fear the
worst.”
30
Through the years, MCRD has embellished its image – Spanish Colonial architecture
mixed with the proto-typical image of California, the palm tree. Palm trees along the
main arcade are a relatively new addition to MCRD, (fig. 16). Since Goodhue was not
commissioned to submit a landscape plan, it is unknown what he may have designed.
With his respect for Persian architecture and landscape, the result would probably not
have included palm trees. Now synonymous with the Depot, the palm tree image has
become part of MCRD’s identity. Also changed from the Goodhue design are the vigas,
(fig. 17) removed due to deterioration. Their removal and the bold yellow color scheme
has caused a more formal appearance to the arcade than originally envisioned by
Goodhue.
Fig. 16 MCRD Arcade
w/palm trees
31
Organizational Identity
As its own community, a military base is somewhat reflective of the society around it.
As the military grew, the size of coastal and frontier forts grew to accommodate families.
This shift to include families resulted from the desire of the military to retain their
married career military men. As a result installations became more campus-like. Paul
Venable Turner describes a campus as “a uniquely American place…a kind of city in
microcosm ..a vehicle for expressing the utopian vision of the American
imagination…..the embodiment of an institution’s character” The same can be said of a
military installation.
31
Organizationally, they had a public area – the parade or drill field,
dormitories or barracks, chapel, academic buildings, administrative buildings; and
supporting structures – stables, power plants, messhalls and dining facilities. They also
had a private area where homes for families were sited.
Fig 17 MCRD arcade under
construction, circa
1920’s
32
Topography clearly plays a strong role in sitting at West Point. The ground was for all
intensive purposes flat for MCRD and North Island. So for the San Diego commissions, a
strong Beaux-Arts tradition of axial organization made sense. Vistas and lines of sight
are important in all the three case studies. In North Island, the aviation component of the
plan is not subjected to this axial organization, fig 18. The Olmsted brothers worked
with Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson at West Point. The organizational structure in San
Diego can be totally credited to Goodhue. This public/private space and planning of the
military social structure is parallel to its civilian counterpart – particularly in campus
planning.
All three of these bases were reflective of the military’s coming of age and of
permanence. They reflected the use of local materials and a style of architecture that
Fig. 18 North Island Naval Air Station, circa 1920
33
perpetuated the identity of either the place - West Point, or the town - San Diego. The
result is a created image. One, that for West Point and MCRD, is seen by the public
during graduation ceremonies. It is an image of permanence and worldliness. West
Point’s Gothic architecture has become synonymous with the Army identity. MCRD
and North Island reflect an era when San Diego built upon a manufactured Spanish
heritage and cohesive style to be part of their city’s identity.
The Military as part of a National Identity
At some point, the eyes of the nation shifted their idea of what constituted a national
identity. Just as the frontier was being closed, the build-up of military installations began
to be eclipsed as part of a national identity by the growth of cities and an urban and
industrial identity. Military installations were closed to the public, visually and by
military engineers retaining design authority. Cities were developing their civic
architecture and embracing an urban core. There have been very few major military
commissions since the 1920’s that reflect the pride, design and grandeur of the past
installations. Cost and expedience started taking over as the primary concerns. These
case studies reflect a special era and an eloquence of design.
Significance of Identity
Understanding and appreciating the institutional identity of the military and the
architectural identity of all three of these case studies is essential to being a good steward
of these historic properties. It is key in understanding what makes each place special. As
discussed in the prologue, it is one of the foundations. The following chapter continues
34
to build on this foundation by looking back at the process by which the Goodhue military
commissions were acquired. It also involves understanding not only the history of that
process, but the era within which it occurred. Key players left their imprint on the
buildings and grounds. Each role was supportive of the other and the decisions they
made have had lasting impacts. Some roles carry forward to today and play prominently
in the stewardship of the historic resources.
35
Chapter 1 Endnotes
1. Romy Wyllie, Bertram Goodhue, His Life and Residential Architecture (New York
and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 74. Her footnoted source was from
the first of a series of articles in the Craftsman, Goodhue “The Home of the Future: A
Study of America in Relation to the Architect, Craftsman, 29, no. 5, February 1916.
2. Alison Hoagland, Army Architecture in the West, Forts Laramie, Bridger, and D.A.
Russell, 1849-1912 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). Hoagland’s
book has an excellent description of early military frontier planning and architecture.
3. United States Army Quartermaster Corps, Manual for the Quartermaster Corps
(U.S. Army, 1916) is typical of planning guidance given to Quartermaster’s in
establishing temporary forts. It goes as far as dictating space allowances, buildings
required and standard designs for key structures.
4. Commencing on page 5, R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National
Historic Context for Department of Defense, Installations, 1790-1940, (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Volume I of IV, August 1995), gives a very
concise description of the views of the people of the United States toward the military
in the early years of the nation. The report states that the military forces were
virtually dismembered following the revolution and that the nation was largely
ambivalent towards the military. This reluctance carried over to their reluctance to
spend any money on expansion of infrastructure.
http:aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html (accessed Jul 7, 2008).
5. Robie S. Lange, West Point, An Overview of the History and Development of the
United States Military Academy, Historic American Building Survey, (United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York: Historic Structures Inventory, Volume 2,
National Park Service, 1984), 3. http://www.usma.edu/archives/archives.asp
(accessed 7 July 2008), and Goodwin, National Historic Context, chapter 1 contains a
chronology of events that eventually lead to the establishment of the Military
Academy at West Point.
6. Theodore Crackel, Illustrated History, of West Point, (New York: Henry N. Abrams,
Inc. Publishers, 1991), 132. Crackel’s source is the National Archives, record group
94, “Correspondence Relating to the Military Academy 1819-1866”.
7. Robie S. Lange, West Point, An Overview of the History and Development of the
United States Military Academy, 13-15.
8. Theodore Crackel. West Point, A Bicentennial History, (Kansas, University Press of
Kansas, 2002), 110.
36
9. Richard Greenwood, Historian, Landmark Review Task Force, National Register of
Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, United States Military Academy,
1975, 2.
10. Virginia & Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2002), 208.
11. Amelia Peck, Alexander Jackson Davis, American Architect 1803-1892, (New York:
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rizzoli, 1992), 11.
12. Lange, West Point, An Overview, 18.
13. Crackel, Illustrated History, 135. Crackel’s source is the National Archives.
14. Paul Venable Turner, Campus, An American Planning Tradition (New York: The
Architectural History Foundation, and Cambridge, Massachusetts and London
England: The MIT Press, 1984), 230.
15. Letter from Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to General Mills, Superintendent at West
Point, dated October 5, 1905, source: U.S. Military Academy Special Collections.
16. Letter from Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to General Mills, Superintendent at West
Point, dated May 18, 1904, source: courtesy of Boston Public Library, Fine Arts
Department.
17. Montgomery Schuyler, “The Works of Cram Goodhue and Ferguson, 1892 – 1910,
Part ‘D’ ”, Architectural Record, article undated (possibly 1908 based upon a letter
from Goodhue to Colonel Larned, Feb 24, 1908).
18. Author unknown, “Army Projects at West Point to be Pushed”, The Sun, Washington
D.C., April 4, 1931.
19. Melanie Macchio,” John Nolen and San Diego’s Early Residential Planning in the
Mission Hills Area”, The Journal of San Diego History (2004): 133. Ms. Macchio’s
paper in the Journal of San Diego History discusses the roles John Nolen and John
Marston played in early San Diego’s early planning efforts. The population of the
town rose and fell according to various real estate busts. In 1907 when San Diego
hired John Nolen, San Diego’s population was less than 40,000.
20. Roger M. Showley, “Forgotten Visionary”, The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 7,
2007.
21. Roger M. Showley, San Diego, Perfecting Paradise, (Carlsbad, California: Heritage
Press, 2000), 99. George Marston ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 1913 and 1917. It
was during the second campaign that the slogan “Smokestacks versus Geraniums”
37
took hold. Showley states that it was “a phrase that neatly summarized competing
forces throughout San Diego’s modern history.” The slogan was tied to the question
of whether San Diego was to be a traditional city tied to heavy, (polluting), industry
or one that was more environmentally minded. The smokestack moniker depicts
industry. The term Geranium came when Marston’s opponent in the mayoral race,
Louis Wilde, labeled George Marston as “Geranium George” because he favored
planning and civic beauty.
22. Steve Liewer, “Great White Fleet Visit put City on Navy’s Map”, The San Diego
Union-Tribune, April 13, 2008.
23. Abraham J. Shragge II, “I Like the Cut of Your Jib”: Cultures of Accommodation
Between the U.S. Navy and Citizens of San Diego California, 1900-1951”. The
Journal of San Diego History, Volume 48, No. 3 (Summer 2002), 6 His source the
US Marine Corps Historical Center, Pendleton Papers.
24. Roger Showley, “Paying tribute to city’s building legacy”, The San Diego Union-
Tribune, November 24, 1996.
25. Shragge, I Like the Cut of Your Jib, Shragge’s piece states the City requested the use
of Goodhue , but provides no reference.
26. William Kettner, Why It was Done and How, (San Diego, California: Frye and Smith,
1923) 54. Admiral Harris was the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks at the
time of this correspondence.
27. This sentiment is reflected in R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National
Historic Context for Department of Defense, Installations, 1790-1940, (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Volume I of IV, August 1995) as well as the
United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, Manual of the Bureau of Yards and Docks,
Navy Department, (Washington: Government Printing Office,1923).
28. Kettner, Why It was Done and How, 52.
29. Letter from Joseph Pendleton to Colonel David Porter, USMC dated August 16,
1921, source Pendleton Papers (Joseph Henry Pendleton 1860-1942, Register of his
Personal Papers, compiled by Martin K. Gorden, [Washington DC: History and
Museum Division, Hqtrs, U. S. Marine Corps, 1975], folder 35). To order: address a
letter to Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code HD), Headquarters, US Marine
Corps, Washington DC 20380.
30. Letter from Colonel Joseph Pendleton to Captain Stephen Drew dated August 4,
1921, source Pendleton Papers.
31. Turner, Campus 304.
38
“We were warned that, intentionally or not, the relations of the Government with
architects had usually resulted either in breaking their hearts or their bank accounts. We
discounted this, however – for were we not dealing with the War Department, rather than
with the Treasury or with congress directly? Besides we were young and this was our
first Government job. We became more wise in later years.”
Cram, undated
1
Chapter 2: Process for Siting, Design and Construction of these Military
Installations
Construction and major investment in improvements for military installations takes
money and commitment from the local constituency, the military service, and the
political arena. Once this is secured, the process of design and construction entails many
people working through what some would deem an overly bureaucratic process. The
process is not without its frustrations and occasional litigation. Understanding this
process and roles of the key players helps to facilitate our ability to interpret and make
informed decisions in the stewardship of these historic resources.
Importance of Strategic Location
Locations of new military installations after 1890 were driven by world events as
opposed to the previous era of almost purely national concerns. There had been little
new construction of frontier and coastline forts, certainly not permanent ones, prior to
this time. With the close of the Revolution and the Civil War the American public had
questioned the need for a military. It was a period of ambivalence where the necessity of
an Army and Navy were acknowledged, but there was a reluctance to spend money on
buildings and infrastructure. The nation had incurred a tremendous debt during the Civil
War and it was not until the 1880’s that the debt was paid off. It took a modernization
39
effort, synonymous with the industrialization of our nation, to eventually lead to the
establishment of new installations.
2
West Point was initially established in 1778 as a crude fort. Its location in the 1770’s was
critical in its strategic position at a bend in the Hudson River. The bluffs allowed for
good vantage points and the bend caused ships to slow which allowed for attack from
above if necessary. In 1802, West Point officially changed from a fort to its current use as
a Military Academy. Its other strategic advantage, if you can call it that, was that it was
close enough to Washington DC so that politicians could keep their eyes on the
curriculum but was far enough away that the Superintendent could truly be in charge. Up
until 1824, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (West Point) was the only
engineering school for the nation. It also educated many of the politicians of the era –
and continues to do so. It is the oldest military educational institution in the United
States.
3
The west coast was new territory. As the nation was emerging as a world power through
industrialization, it started to increase its military force. With the Mexican Wars and a
potential for the United States to be a major influence in the Pacific and Far East, the
nation started to look to the western coastline to establish new installations. The Navy
obviously needed the coastline for its ships and since the Marine Corps supported the
Navy, it also needed to be close by. The west coast focus for these Navy and Marine
Corps military officers was on the San Francisco area and northward until politics started
entering the picture. The military officers were looking for what was strategically good
40
for their service. A primary concern of the Navy was a good deep water port. This was
something San Diego initially did not have. Political appointees and politicians look at
what is good for the service, but most importantly they look at what is good for their
constituents. The two objectives may be contradictory.
Community and Political Involvement
During the build-up of the military, communities would vie for their attention as it was
seen as a major industry that could add to their economic base. Thus, political will
became as important as strategic location, sometimes outweighing the concerns of the
professional military officer.
The role of the community and political forces at West Point was a bit different from the
San Diego commissions; different in that the Academy was already in existence and that
it is not in an urban setting. Its surrounding community looked to West Point as a source
of jobs, not for fiscal well being of their community. It was similar in that it required
political champions to forward its progress. West Point was always under scrutiny from
the War Department and Congress. All expenditures, building conditions and even the
curriculum were open for review and critique. West Point’s political machine was, and
still is, their Annual Board of Visitors. This Board was invited to look into all details of
the Academy and to report their findings to the Secretary of War. Each year a list of
distinguished educators and men of science; leading officers of the Army, the Navy, and
members of Congress – often men who had previously expressed hostility to the
Academy – were invited to West Point to participate as a member. The Army especially
41
liked to invite naysayers to join the Board of Visitors and used it as a tool to promote
their program to get appropriations. When the tide of the nation turned toward
supporting the military, the Board’s reports helped promote support that led to major
building programs. West Point also looked to other educational institutions for
comparison – primarily for curriculum comparisons.
4
By 1891, it was clear that San Diego had lost the fight for the railroad to Los Angeles.
In losing that fight, they lost the port business. Their next economic opportunity, was to
try to persuade the Navy to make San Diego its West Coast base. At the time, the Navy
was not at all interested in San Diego. Although it had agreeable weather, the port at San
Diego was too shallow.
5
San Diego used the visit of the Great White Fleet in 1908 and the 1915 Panama-
California Exhibition to show the nation the potential for a great port and the temperate
weather. These two opportunities to shine, planned by influential men from the Chamber
of Commerce, were also seized upon to show the Assistant Secretary of the Navy what
the town had to offer. The Naval officers, left to their own decision making process,
were firmly focused upon the San Francisco area and northward. This focus was so
strong that the build up of a Navy presence in San Diego was only possible through the
courting of the Secretary of Navy. Congressman William Kettner devoted his political
career to ensuring this happened. It was to take a great deal of persuasion to convince
them that a move would be strategically beneficial.
During this period of lobbying, the
42
City leased Balboa Park to the Navy and Marine Corps for a sum of one dollar a year.
This lease was aimed at keeping the military in San Diego until they could seal a deal.
6
Colonel Joseph Pendleton, representing the Marine Corps, was pursuing his own form of
lobbying. Pendleton’s lobbying activities were highly unusual, and in fact represented a
practice that was not condoned by the military. Congressman Kettner met Pendleton on
one of his trips home to view the Panama-California Exposition. When Pendleton first
proposed San Diego as “the proper place for the location of an advance Marine Base”,
Kettner stated that he found the idea “rather amusing”.
7
However, the two men hit it off
and through Pendleton’s persistence, Kettner eventually vowed to help in trying to get a
Marine base established in San Diego. Just as with the fight to bring the Navy to San
Diego, Kettner had to fight the Secretary of the Navy to bring the Marine Corps to San
Diego. Again, the Naval interest was with the San Francisco area. Once the Navy was
convinced, Kettner introduced a bill into the House in January 1916 for an appropriation
to purchase 232-acres of land in San Diego. Meanwhile, the city had committed to
donating an additional 500-acres of tidal flats, (fig. 19). Only after the
Fig. 19 MCRD, 1921
43
persistent political maneuvering by Kettner was the bill to purchase the land moved
forward. Of Pendleton’s efforts, Kettner writes: “Too much credit cannot be given to
our dear friend General Joe. His love of the Marines and San Diego is truly unlimited.”
8
The property that became North Island Naval Air Station (North Island) was owned by
the Coronado Beach Company. At the time, it was a desolate, flat scrub field, noted for
good rabbit and fox hunting. The Coronado Beach Company had future plans to
subdivide the property for housing. In the interim, they allowed use of the property by
the Curtiss Aviation School and the Army Aviation Corps. Kettner was very familiar with
the property because it also had an Aero Club, which he, as well as other Chamber of
Commerce members, belonged to. The Navy personnel’s first experience of the property
was as students of Curtis Aviation. The Coronado Beach Company had allowed short-
term leases of the property, but had no intention of letting go of their interests.
9
Both the Navy and the Army did establish an interest in the property. The proximity to
water and the mild climate made the site ideal. The community also embraced the
military and made them feel welcome. Once the services expressed an interest, Kettner
started a prolonged process, which was instrumental in eventually getting the property
title conveyed to the US Government in 1922 through the use of eminent domain. As the
Army and Navy operations grew, space to expand became scarce and air space had
become crowded. The Army vacated their portion of the property in 1929 allowing the
Navy exclusive use.
10
44
The Role of the Military Engineers
Once the municipalities and the politicians cleared the path & secured the funding, the
military engineers took over. The Army Corps of Engineers and Quartermaster Corps of
the Army, and the Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks and Navy Civil Engineer Corps each
had their specific duties. These four organizations were primarily comprised of military
or civilian men who were highly involved in the planning, design and construction of
military installations. Early manuals for the Quartermaster Corps and the Bureau of
Yards and Docks gave them minimal guidelines. Early printed guidance for the
Quartermaster Corps was largely privately published and the first printed guidance for the
Navy’s Bureau of Yards in Docks was published in 1923. Prior to that they relied upon
their experience and trade manuals.
11
Although the Navy regularly employed outside architects and engineers to assist with
planning and design efforts, the Army typically kept everything in-house. During the late
1800’s, Daniel Burnham was lobbying, through the American Institute of Architects, to
take major federal building commissions away from federal designers. Burnham’s focus
was on civic architecture such as post offices, courthouses and office buildings. Through
his efforts, the Tarnsey Act of 1893 was passed. This Act, although short in duration – it
was repealed in 1912 – required major commissions to be opened to competition. The
Tarsney Act, although in its twilight years, may have also helped open the doors of major
military commissions to civilian designers. For the nation, it was an era where
professionalization of architects grew in importance, and the design roles of engineers
and architects were being established. It was also an era of the design competition, a fact
45
lamented by architects of the era because of the effort they had to put forth with no
guarantee of a commission. Even with open competitions, the military still remained
actively involved in the entire process, design through construction. In the case of West
Point, every design decision had to be approved by the Chief of Engineers and the War
Department.
12
In the 1920’s communities were beginning to adopt city plans based upon planning
principles stemming from the City Beautiful movement and “garden city” initiatives.
This movement was credited in some part to the 1893 Chicago Exposition. It was
actually based upon Beaux-Arts traditions that were popularized by the Exposition.
They were not new concepts to the military in that the organizational structure
complimented their operations. These popularized city-planning concepts, however, had
a great influence on military planners in the Army Quartermaster Corps and the Navy’s
Bureau of Yards and Docks. What this movement did, was stimulate an era when the
appearance of the military installations became more important. It was an era where the
military turned to well known architects for assistance, which is consistent with what
Burnham championed in his push for passage of the Tarsney Act. It was also an era
where the military began to emphasize professionalism among its staff.
13
An important commission such as West Point clearly dictated a competition which
opened participation up to prominent architectural firms. Less important commissions
would have been designed in house by the Army Corps of Engineers or Quartermaster
Corps using standardized plans, the Army’s answer to economizing construction costs.
46
West Point by virtue of its prominence was not subject to these restraints. The firm of
Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson was given artistic license, albeit critically reviewed by the
military, and was contracted to provide the plans and specifications for their 1903
commission.
The Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) and North Island circumvented normal
procedures due to community and political influences. Although the Department of the
Navy regularly contracted planning and design to a civilian designer, these commissions
would normally not have been given to such a well-known personage such as Goodhue.
At the very minimum, they would have been contracted via an open bidding process,
open to several firms versus sole sourced to one firm, and would have been subjected to
an architectural committee for review.
14
As it was, the San Diego commissions followed
a modified version of the design process. Because no copy of a contract was found, it is
difficult to state with certainty what Goodhue was commissioned to accomplish.
Through limited correspondence, we do know that Goodhue was to provide the planning
and design schemes, but the construction drawings and specifications were prepared by
the Navy.
15
The building design and site plans were subject to heavy critique and
manipulation by Navy engineers, but do not appear to have been subjected to an
established Navy design committee. Since comprehensive planning and regional design
solutions during the 1920’s were being touted by Navy engineers and architects, if
Goodhue had not been the consulting architect, both institutions would probably have
still used the popular Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture.
16
As it was, the
Bureau of Yards and Docks freely adapted Goodhue’s designs for MCRD in the
47
construction at the adjacent Naval Training Center, (fig. 20), and Naval Hospital in
Balboa Park. Both facilities were under construction during the same time as the two San
Diego case studies.
17
The heavy-handed input into the design process by the Army and Navy cannot be
overstated. In the three case studies, the review process was cumbersome and time
consuming. It was further exasperated by distance. In the case of West Point, plans went
between Goodhue’s New York office, the firm’s main office in Boston, West Point and
Washington DC to be approved and signed off. At West Point, plans were reviewed by
their Advisory Board as well as the supervising Quartermaster. The firm wrote a lengthy
letter to General A. J. Mills, the Superintendent of West Point on October 5, 1905, which
highlights their frustration and irritation with the military’s involvement:
Our design is not an aggregation of utilitarian units which may be
arranged and re-arranged at will and modified unlimitedly in plan, location
and design. This is a professional matter, which perhaps may not appeal
to those who are not architects, but to us there is as much unity in an
architectural scheme, as there is in a musical composition, a piece of
sculpture, a drama, or any other work of art. We feel that where this
consideration is operative, the decision should be left to ourselves, since
Fig. 20 Naval Training Center
(now Liberty Station), San
Diego, 2008
48
we have been entrusted with this work by the Government and will be
held responsible at least for its artistic value by the public in years to
come. We acknowledge cheerfully the authority of the Military Academy
and of the Government to dictate to us absolutely in matters that are purely
utilitarian, administrative and financial, but we can not accept the position
that we are not architectural experts, but only draughtsmen, whose duty it
is to carry out instructions given us from a higher source.
18
There was also friction between the firm, predominately Goodhue, and one of the
supervising Quartermaster’s at West Point. That friction instigated the firm’s lengthy
litigation over reimbursement for their services. The matter was only resolved with much
legal and political influence.
By the time of the San Diego commissions, Goodhue had split with Cram and Ferguson
and was on his own. The plans for the San Diego commissions went between Goodhue’s
New York office, his San Diego office, run by his friend and partner in design for the
1915 exhibition, Carleton Winslow, the local Navy office and Washington DC. Again,
the process was a source of frustration to the designer. For North Island, Goodhue
laments in a letter dated June 20, 1918 to his friend, British architect Cecil Brewer:
…these buildings…will not be among those which I point with greatest
pride,…the rush in which my client, the Bureau of Yards and Docks is
getting out the drawings does not make for refinement either of design or
of construction.
19
For the Marine Corps Recruit Depot commission, Goodhue writes to the Chief of the
Bureau of Yards and Docks, Mr. Gregory, in January 22, 1923:
So far as I can make out my original scheme is no longer recognizable and
whatever interest it may have had has disappeared in a ‘straight-away’
and, to my mind, thoroughly commonplace arrangement of buildings….I
49
think you must admit its very discouraging to put a lot of thought and hard
work into a design and then have the result aborted.
20
In addition to the fact that the Bureau of Yards and Docks had essentially cut Goodhue
loose from the picture after he developed the initial scheme for the plan and design, the
above quote shows that Goodhue was also responding to the Bureau’s cost cutting efforts
done to his over arching master plan and design without his consultation.
21
The Role of the Consulting Architect
The design competition for West Point was opened to ten firms. By letter of invitation
dated October 20, 1902, each firm was given a specific program and allowed a stipend of
$2,000 for their efforts if they choose to submit. The firms were allowed to associate with
a landscape architect either under their name or as a joint venture. Prior to submission,
they were invited to the site to discuss the program and set the terms for the presentation
materials.
22
The competition was widely discussed during its time in national magazines
and newspapers.
23
The Army notified the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson that they had won the
competition by letter dated June 1, 1903, and in August 13, 1903, the contract was
executed for the work. It was for the development of plans, specifications and cost
estimates. The contract also included a stipulation that the firms have an on-site
Consulting Architect. The selection of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson was probably made
due to their Gothic design proposal, which was consistent with the predominant
50
architectural tradition of West Point, and their proposed integration of much of the
existing architecture into their scheme.
24
In the other two case studies, Goodhue, who was on his own at this time, was asked to be
a Consulting Architect to the Bureau of Yards and Docks. Although no contract has been
found that confirms the terms of the contract, correspondence suggests that Goodhue was
tasked with preparation of planning documents and design drawings for the buildings as
well. The construction working drawings, specifications and cost estimate for the San
Diego commissions were all prepared by the Bureau.
25
In the West Point commission, Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson worked with the Olmsted
Brothers. Other than the contract between the United States government and Cram,
Goodhue and Ferguson which states “with whom were associated Messrs. Olmsted
Brothers, Landscape Architects, of New York City”, the relationship between the
Olmsted’s and the firm is not well documented in the files researched for this thesis.
26
Additional information may be available the Library of Congress or at the Olmsted’s
office in Brookline, Massachusetts. Robie S. Lang states that “the laying out of
walkways and the placement of trees was planned by the firm of the Olmsted Brothers,
who completed their work by 1912”.
27
However, the topography of the site and the
building layout would indicate that the work of the Olmsted’s and Cram, Goodhue and
Ferguson was so intertwined it would be difficult to determine where responsibility for
site planning transferred hands between the landscape architect and architect. There was
no landscape architect used at MCRD and North Island – the proposed site plan was
51
worked out entirely by Goodhue.
28
As with West Point, North Island already had some
military construction on it, but the buildings were temporary in nature. MCRD
represented a clean slate.
At West Point, the firm had a greater presence in design oversight. The requirement for
an on-site Consulting Architect was satisfied by an agreement with the Army that
allowed Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to establish a satellite office in New York City –
close enough to West Point to allow easy access to the work. Goodhue, then in the midst
of a tumultuous relationship with his partner Ralph Adams Cram, made use of this
provision to distance himself from his partner. This was the beginning of the eventual
dissolution of the firm. Goodhue threw himself into this commission. Cram was clearly
the prominent name that caused them to be included in the competition, not to mention
the fact that Cram was the architect noted for his Gothic architecture over Goodhue. But,
Goodhue regularly complained to whomever would hear him out that it was he, Goodhue,
that did most of the design work for West Point. Goodhue gave Cram credit for the
gymnasium building, but then states that the others were mainly accomplished through
his efforts. Through correspondence, it appears that Cram conceived of the majority of
the building exteriors and Goodhue provided the detailing. Cram did give Goodhue full
credit for the Chapel.
29
Major J.W. Carson, Jr. was the Quartermaster and Officer in Charge of Construction
during the majority of the Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson commission. Goodhue and
Carson formed a strong bond and stayed in touch with each other long after his work at
52
West Point. This strong bond allowed for the military and design firm to operate as a
team. They still had to work through the beaurocratic review and approval process, but
ultimately decisions were not made unilaterally. This good relationship changed when
Major Carson moved on and Major Clayton took his place. Misunderstandings and the
fact that a new person was now stepping into what had become a mature working
relationship caused a strain.
30
The result was a lengthy lawsuit between the Army and the
firm that took years and congressional intervention to resolve.
31
Cram, Goodhue and
Ferguson, the firm now dissolving, was not asked to bid or design any additional work
for West Point, probably due to this lawsuit. The entire process left a very raw taste in
Goodhue’s mouth. Cram it appears was able to move on. Goodhue was never content
with the outcome and continued to lobby his old friend, now Colonel Carson for some
form of appreciation of his efforts.
32
In the North Island and MCRD commissions, Goodhue was firmly on his own. He had
lobbied his good friends, the Olmsted Brother’s for his commission at the 1915-1916
Panama-California Exposition. That led to his contract with the Department of the Navy
for the San Diego military commissions. In these commissions, his role was purely as
Consulting Architect. His designs were also reviewed and critiqued – this time by the
Bureau of Yards and Docks. Plans were mailed back and forth between San Diego, New
York and Washington DC. Numerous changes were requested. Goodhue relied upon his
on-site architect, Carlton Winslow, to keep him informed as to what was occurring in San
Diego. Goodhue made several trips to the base, but his relationship with the Bureau was
much different than with the Army. The Navy contract was administered by an on-site
53
Navy Public Works Officer who received direction from the Bureau of Yards and Docks
in Washington DC. There was no established relationship between Goodhue and this
Naval officer.
33
When his contract expired in March 1919, Goodhue was dismissed from
the project and the Bureau changed his building and site plans as they saw fit.
34
Funding
was an issue at this time. The project was started in the 1920’s when the economy was
strong and the nation was flexing its muscles. By the mid-point of construction, funding
was becoming severely limited. This could also have contributed to Goodhue being cut
loose from the project. During the same era of these commissions, Goodhue was
designing large estates in Montecito, the campus at the California Institute of Technology
(CALTECH) in Pasadena, and the Los Angeles Public Library. The building plan at
CALTECH is remarkably similar to MCRD. In fact, if Goodhue had been allowed to
continue with the site planning and the Administration building and Gymnasium at
MCRD, the base would have been much different than what resulted. Pendleton was
correct in his worries. But that discussion follows in the role of the patron.
35
The Role of the Patron
The last and maybe the most important player in the team is the patron. The term patron
is used here, not in the sense of a funding source, but rather as the champion of the effort.
At West Point, this patron was a committee. It may be argued that it was Delafield who
set the early tone at West Point. The committee reviewed plans and was the central
clearinghouse of information. They kept the project moving forward. Major Carson,
with his good relationship with Goodhue, may have also acted as a form of patron.
54
Correspondence indicates that he worked closely with Goodhue to ensure the integrity of
the designer’s intent.
36
MCRD had a very clear patron in the
form of Col Pendleton, (fig. 21). MCRD
was his baby that he nurtured and raised.
He would act as an intermediary with
the architect when Goodhue was being
excluded from influencing construction,
he would intervene when he thought
the funds were being wrongfully diverted,
and would press to insure MCRD would
be a showcase. The Marine Corps at the
time relied upon the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks (now the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command), and the resident Navy Public Works Officers for its construction
expertise and contracting. This relationship was (and currently is today) strained.
Pendleton, in his extensive correspondence expressed his concern that the Navy was
trying to ruin plans for “his” base. He was concerned that the Bureau of Yards and
Docks was dragging their feet, changing plans without his approval and maybe even
diverting money for Navy bases versus Marine Bases. A certain jealousy is evident. In a
letter to Colonel Lyman on August 11, 1921, he writes:
Fig. 21 Colonel Joseph Pendleton
55
Between Parks, that fat-head at the head of Y.& D., some of our
economists, and I suspect the Quantico interests, they are trying to change
and cut down the plans for our post here with an effort to ruin it entirely.
Kettner has gone on to Washington to try and save matters, but, of course,
he will trade us for the Naval Training Station at the slightest provocation,
and, as Mr. Butler is now interested only in getting money for Quantico, I
fully expect that Kettner will sell us out. If he does not, it will be a
variation from his usual line.
37
There are many other correspondences between Goodhue and Pendleton that perpetuate
the concern over design changes and perceived ulterior motives of the Navy.
38
It doesn’t appear that North Island had a champion for an architectural identity in the
same sense as West Point and MCRD. Although Goodhue did make some trips to the
Naval installation, he appears to have been cut out of the picture quite early during the
conceptual design stage.
The relationships between designers and the military, like the relationship between the
Navy and the Marine Corps have quite a history of mistrust and friction. The review
process is to this day, cumbersome and designers are not given true artistic license in the
name of economy. With the current practice of design-build, construction contractors are
given a much more prominent role in the process of design and construction acquisition.
Process as it Relates to Today
Some of the key players that were responsible for design and construction of the three
installations are still in existence today and still play an important role in the stewardship.
Clearly politicians are still needed to secure the funding for major construction programs.
56
Communities and political will also play a role, and it is a role that is constantly evolving.
Understanding this relationship between the community and the military installation is
key. It is a relationship that needs continual work, particularly with the San Diego
installations. The military engineers will always be part of the process. Today, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command are highly involved
in design and construction decisions. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps also now have
an established environmental program which champions the cause of cultural resource
management. This is the office that retains oversight of the stewardship responsibility
when a resource (installation) is deemed historically significant.. A key player, often
underestimated or not recognized as such, is the patron. West Point retains its Board of
Visitors which still serves a vital function as a patron as well as a political machine. Col
Pendleton is long deceased, but in his place, MCRD has alumni and a historical society.
These entities can be powerful assets if focused in the right direction. Between the Board
of Visitors, and the alumni and the historical societies at each of the installations, the
relationship of the patron to the installation continues forward to today.
The next chapter takes the reader forward in time and looks at the issues faced in
stewardship of the three installations now that they have achieved historical significance.
It looks at the notion of importance. What is important and why? It builds upon the
discussion of identity and process. The presumption is that if something is important, it
deserves special attention and care. It is the challenge of stewardship in preserving these
installations for future generations.
57
Chapter 2 Endnotes
1. Ralph Adams Cram, My Life in Architecture, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1936) 108.
2. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense, Installations, 1790-1940, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, Volume I of IV, August 1995) 5 & 23.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html (accessed July 7, 2008).
3. Ibid, 117.
4. The Board of Visitors Reports, many of which are found on the U.S. Military
Academy’s website, http://www.usma.edu/archives/archives.asp, address curriculum,
(accessed July 7, 2008). Theodore Crackel’s books, both listed in the bibliography,
also discuss the role of the Board of Visitors. As the political stance of the United
States grew, the curriculum varied to fit the needs of the nation.
5. William Kettner, Why It was Done and How, (San Diego, California: Frye & Smith,
1923) 14. The Kettner book reprints a letter from General George Dewy to the
Secretary of the Navy dated December 19, 1912 in which he discusses the current
depth of the San Diego Harbor and states that that changes would be required to allow
for Navy ship traffic. Steve Liewer’s article in The San Diego Union Tribune on
April, 13, 2008, “Great White Fleet Visit Put City on Navy’s Map”, states that “They
couldn’t enter San Diego’s harbor because it was to shallow”.
6. Kettner, Why It was done and How, 60.
7. Ibid, 52.
8. Ibid, 56.
9. Elretta Sudsbury, Jackrabbits to Jets, The History of North Island, San Diego,
California (San Diego, California: Neyenesch Printers, Inc., 1967) 35.
10. Elretta Sudsbury, Jackrabbits to Jets, 38-60. Also see William Kettner, Why It was
Done and How, 77-121. Both books provide the background of the Army and Navy
presence, the Army essentially being forced off North Island, and the background
behind the land condemnation which transferred title to the Department of the Navy.
11. The Corps of Engineers were in charge of engineering structures (bridges, harbor
improvements, etc.). They were also in charge of construction at West Point. The
Quartermaster Corps was originally just assigned duties of providing supplies. After
1818, the role was expanded to include construction of temporary posts. Design of
58
installations was typically held in-house by the army. The Navy contracted with
civilians for that function. The Bureau of Yards and Docks was established in 1842.
Under the Bureau, the Navy established the office of Civil Engineers, mainly
civilians. In 1867, Congress passed legislation that officially established the Civil
Engineer Corps – putting the civilian engineers in uniformed service. See also
Goodwin, National Context, Chapter 4, Planning and Architecture. Prior to military
manuals being published, private individuals chronicled their experiences in books
written in a “how to” format, ex: Colonel Frank Lawton’s Field Quartermaster’s
Handbook, part of a series published by George U. Harvey in 1917. In addition, there
were architect and engineer trade magazines that were gave the latest information on
design and construction.
12. Antoinette J. Lee, Architects to the Nation, the Rise and Decline of the Supervising
Architect’s Office (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 163-187. The
referenced pages provide a history of the passage of Tarsney Act and its influences on
federal architecture.
13. Stephen Mikesell, California Historic Military Buildings and Structures Inventory,
Volume II: The History and Historic Resources of the Military in California, 1769-
1989 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, March 2000), 6-2.
14. United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, Navy Department, Manual Pertaining to
the Public Works and Public Utilities of the Navy (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1924). The Bureau of Yards and Docks manual, dated 1923 but published in
1924, formalized regulations for the Bureau of Yards and Docks that existed prior to
the 1920’s (per endorsement of the manual by L.E. Gregory, Chief of Bureau) in
another (and unknown) format. The Bureau was responsible for all major building
programs for the Navy and Marine Corps. Typically, designs would have either been
done in-house by staff employees or contracted out to firms in the community via a
formal bidding process. Designs would have been administered by a Project Manager
and subjected to an Architectural Committee for review. In the case of the Goodhue
commissions there is no indication of a Project Manager or Architectural Committee.
Specifications for construction, per the manual, were to conform to Bureau standard
practice. Cost of work is stressed as important in acquiring property for the Navy
(and Marine Corps).
15. Williamson and Watts Architects with David Gebhard, PhD, Consultant, The
Architectural/Historical Significance of Buildings at North Island, San Diego,
California (U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California, May
1988) 24.
16. Stephen Mikesell, California Historic Military Buildings and Structures Inventory,
Volume II, 6-2.
59
17. Williamson and Watts Architects, The Architectural/Historical Significance of
Buildings at North Island, 26.
18. Letter from Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to General A.J. Mills, Superintendent of
West Point dated October 5, 1905. Source: U.S. Military Academy, West Point
Special Collections.
19. Williamson and Watts Architects, The Architectural/Historical Significance of
Buildings at North Island, 22.
20. Letter from Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue to the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and
Docks, Mr. Gregory, dated January 22, 1923. Source: National Archives.
21. Williamson and Watts Architects, The Architectural/Historical Significance of
Buildings at North Island, 26.
22. Improvements at West Point, endorsed by Colonel A.J. Mills, U.S. Army dated
January 3, 1903. Source: U.S. Military Academy at West Point Special Collections.
This document is what is commonly referred to as a request for proposal. It was sent
to the ten prequalified firms, the selected bidder list, and was the basis for the
architectural competition that the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson eventually
won.
23. The U.S. Military Academy Historic American Building Survey (HABS) records
several of such articles. Source: U.S. Military Academy Special Collections. For
example: in HABS No., NY-5708-20, 3 there is a listing of excepts from
Architectural Record, The Century Magazine, and The American Architect.
Montgomery Schuyler’s article in the Architectural Record, “The Architecture of
West Point”, 1902, alludes to the mention of the competition in national newspapers.
24. Since the Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson commission went into a lengthy period of
litigation, the most concise listing of important dates can be found in a document
titled: United States of America, District of Massachusetts, United States of America
vs Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson, Agreed Statement of Facts, January 15, 1926. The
document was prepared by C.N. Godfrey, who was the counsel assisting the firm.
Source: Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Fine Arts Department. Also
available from the same source is a copy of the Contract between the United States of
America and Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson of Boston, Mass. 1903 (unsigned copy)
and copies of two Memorandum’s of Agreement dated October 5, 1908 and April 18,
1910. These documents clearly spell out dates and terms of the contract.
25. This references correspondence found in the National Archives, Pendleton Papers and
Goodhue’s own correspondence found in the Columbia University, Avery Library.
Without locating an actual contract, it is speculative that this is the case. It is in
keeping with United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, Navy Department, Manual
60
Pertaining to the Public Works and Public Utilities of the Navy (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1924). Williamson and Watts Architects, The
Architectural/Historical Significance of Buildings at North Island, 23-26, also
provides substantiation of this observation.
26. Contract between the United States of America and Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson of
Boston Massachusetts, 1903, unsigned copy. Source: Courtesy of the Boston Public
Library, Fine Arts Department.
27. Robie S. Lange, West Point, An Overview of the History and Development of the
United States Military Academy, (Historic American Building Survey, National Park
Service, 1984) 28. His source was the Superintendent’s Annual Reports, 1912 report.
28. Williamson and Watts Architects, The Architectural/Historical Significance of
Buildings at North Island, 20.
29. Ralph Adams Cram, My Life in Architecture (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1936, and New York: Krause Reprint Co., 1969). Cram’s book speaks about the
relationship between Goodhue and himself. Douglass Shand Tucci, Ralph Adams
Cram, American Medievalist, (Boston Public Library, MCMLXXV) 28 & 29. Tucci
provides excerpts from correspondence between Cram and Goodhue that speaks to
the division of duties in design.
30. Letter from J.M. Carson, Jr. on War Department letterhead to Bertram Goodhue,
dated July 27, 1912, source: Columbia University, Avery Library, Special
Collections.
31. See note 24 re: Agreed Statement of Facts.
32. Many letters between Goodhue and others speaks to this fact. In particular, a letter
from Goodhue to Honourable Elihu Root from a hotel in Belmont New York dated
September 22, 1911 and in correspondence between Goodhue and now Colonel J. M.
Carson, Jr. on April 18, 1913 and November 25, 1913. source: Columbia University,
Avery Library, Special Collections.
33. Williamson and Watts Architects, The Architectural/Historical Significance of
Buildings at North Island, 23. There may have been some limited relationship
between Goodhue and the Public Works Officer, Commander Cox, who was in
charge of the design and construction at North Island. Construction began on MCRD
after Goodhue’s contract with the Bureau of Yards and Docks had expired.
34. Ibid, 26.
35. Romy Wyllie, Caltech’s Architectural Heritage – From Spanish Tile to Modern Stone
(Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 2000), 33. The noted page is the Goodhue master plan
61
for Caltech. Throughout the book are images of Caltech that resemble the building
details of MCRD.
36. Letter from War Department, Officer of Construction Quartermaster Fort Mills, Fort
Mills P.I., July 27, 1912 to Bertram Goodhue, signed J.M. Carsen, Jr. Source:
Columbia University, Avery library Special Collections.
37. Letter from Colonel Joseph Pendleton to Colonel Lyman dated August 11, 1921.
Source: Martin K. Gorden, Joseph Henry Pendleton, 1860-1942, Register of His
Personal Papers, (Washington DC: History and Museum Division, Hqtrs, U.S.
Marine Corps, 1975) folder 35. (See chapter one end notes for ordering information).
38. Martin. K Gorden, Joseph Henry Pendleton 1860-1942, Register of his Personal
Papers.. The Pendleton papers contain many letters expressing concern over the
Navy management of Marine Corps projects.
62
“…the multitude of plans that flow out of public and private professional offices these
days read like mush, padded with gibberish and end up gathering dust.”
Showley, 2007
1
Chapter 3: Importance of Military Installation Architecture
Importance is a relative term. In the context of this paper it relates to an irreplaceable
cultural resource, which in turn relates to a need for proper stewardship of this resource.
The introduction to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings talks about choosing the most appropriate treatment
and the careful decision-making required in looking at a building’s historical
significance. It says that you must also take into account other considerations. One of
those is “relative importance in history”. Terminology within the Secretary of Interior
Standards leans heavily on use of the term “significant” versus “important”. For the three
case studies, I have chosen to use the word importance in lieu of significance in
addressing issues of stewardship and cultural resource management within the
Department of Defense. The word significant is used in the context of the nominations
and aligns with Secretary of Interior language.
2
The question of importance cited in this thesis requires reflection on the past and current
relationship between the military and the history of the nation, as well as the military and
the traditions and memories of the people of the nation. Using the Goodhue
commissions, it draws from the discussions of identity and process from chapters one and
two, and a reflection on the conditions of today: the laws, the policies, the current
processes and the key players associated with stewardship. This reflection upon the past,
63
a look at today and eye to the future is key to understanding how actions impact the
identity and the perpetuation of these cultural resources.
The Mandate to Consider Importance
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and Executive Order (EO)
11593 of 1971 mandated that the federal government take stock of its historic resources.
Out of that Act and the subsequent Order and amendments, the federal government was
mandated to identify, evaluate, inventory and protect its historic properties and to
designate a qualified official as a Preservation Officer to coordinate preservation
activities of the agency (Section 110 of the NHPA), and to take into account the effect of
any undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and allow the Advisory
Council the opportunity to comment on the undertaking’s effect on historic properties
(Section 106 of the NHPA).
3
One of the first tasks military installations were required to undertake was to conduct an
initial inventory of all its buildings over 50-years in age to determine if they were
potentially eligible for the National Register. Many installations complied by
commissioning inventories. For West Point, there could be no question of its historic
status. For the other two case studies, while they did complete inventories, they did not
initially submit the results of their inventories to the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) for review, concurrence and actual listing. Dates that these initial inventories
were conducted is not recorded. It was only when the installations saw a positive benefit
64
for the total Section 110 SHPO review process that it was actually accomplished.
Executive Order (EO) 13287 of March 3, 2003 increased focus on the federal
preservation program by introducing Preserve America, and included federal reporting
requirements. The reports started to benchmark the nomination process and highlight
inconsistencies at installation and service levels.
4
The Nominations for Significance
West Point was officially designated as a National Historic Landmark on December 19,
1960. The nomination form for the Landmark nomination was revised by Richard
Greenwood, Historian, Landmark Task Review Force and is dated November 10, 1975.
It included a Landmark District of approximately 2,500-acres, (fig. 22). Significant dates
for the nomination were 1775, when it was established as a fort and March 10, 1802
when it was established as a Military Academy by Act of Congress. Consistent with past
Landmark practice, the listing is for all the land holds of the West Point. The word
approximate was used because the West Point did not have a recorded survey of their
property boundaries. The nomination summarizes a time-line and significant events from
the Revolutionary War through the early 1900’s and focused on West Point’s role as an
educational facility. It does not specifically cite particular buildings or building groups –
instead focusing on a period of history.
5
Other nomination forms for groupings of
buildings are currently being prepared. These forms are very specific in discussing West
Point’s architectural significance, which falls under Criterion C in the National Register
Act. In addition to these forms, an extensive Historic Structures Inventory has been
conducted through the Historic American Building Survey program.
6
65
Fig. 22 Map of Landmark District from West Point Environmental Office
66
In 1989, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), through a contract administered by
the Army Corps of Engineers, employed Jackson Research Projects, Consulting
Historians (JRP) to conduct an inventory, determine eligibility, and prepare the National
Register documentation for any structures found eligible for that designation. As a result
of that inventory, the nomination was prepared for a proposed 110-acre Historic District,
(fig 23), with 25 out of the total 37 buildings within the District identified as contributing.
The nomination was for statewide significance and the properties were designated
historic based upon Criterion A, a significant event or pattern of events, and C,
significant design and construction.
7
The period of significance was determined to be
1916 – 1940 with the primary period of significance being 1920 to 1926. It was listed on
the National Register on January 31, 1991. In the summary statement of significance,
the nomination states
In the United States military history, the district is strongly associated with
the nation’s emergence as a world power as reflected in the efforts of the
Navy Department to develop a west coast advance expeditionary base in
support of the ships deployed to protect American interests in the Pacific
arena. In Marine Corps history, …..it is significant as a symbol of the
Corps coming of age as a distinctive branch of the military …In
architectural history, the district is significant in several aspects: as an
example of the work of master architect Bertram Goodhue; as a
distinguished example of site planning; as a distinguished example of
Spanish Colonial Revival architecture; and as an important example of
military base architecture.
8
The nomination goes on to cite the installation’s integrity and strong sense of place. The
nomination deemed twelve of the buildings within the proposed District to be non-
contributing either because they were less than 50-years of age or based on the
determination that they had been significantly altered. The comparison of the Goodhue
master plan,(fig. 24), with what was built, (fig. 23), shows that the bulk of the historic
67
Fig 23 Marine Corps Recruit Depot ca 2006 (Historic District is outlined in yellow)
Fig 24 Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Goodhue’s Plan
68
district is still intact as planned. Figure 25 shows a Monterrey style building, which
Goodhue used to frame a series of courtyards.
North Island Naval Air Station was nominated to the National Register on September 6,
1990. It was listed on May 21, 1991.
9
North Island has two Historic Districts, the Army
Rockwell Field and the original Naval Air Station. This thesis focuses on the Naval Air
Station, Goodhue’s plan, which was constructed at the same time as MCRD. The
District nomination was comprised of 23 buildings and 3 structures, and encompasses
44.4 acres, (fig. 26). Other structures within the District boundaries were considered
non-contributing due to significant alterations or because they infringed upon the overall
site plan. An example of this infringement is the swimming pool and locker building that
were constructed inside the arcaded quadrangle after the period of significance. The
Fig. 25 Building 27, Marine Corps Recruit Depot
69
period of significance is from 1917 to 1938, which are the dates of development within
the District that conform to the overall Goodhue plan. The nomination states that:
While individual contributing buildings have had varying degrees of
alteration, and some non-contributing buildings have interposed on the
original spatial grandeur of the district, the artistry of the designer remains
evident, and the sense of the character of the district during its period of
historic significance endures.
10
North Island was nominated for both national and local significance, and the properties
were deemed historic based upon criterion A and C. In the summary, it states that the
District “is significant for its association with broad national and regional
themes in the history of military aviation, and for its architectural characteristics.”
11
Fig. 26 North Island Naval Air Station, Historic District
70
(fig. 27, 28, 29) The buildings are also cited for their national and local significance
because they represent a “significant application of the distinct characteristics
Fig. 27 North Island Naval Air Station,
circa 1929
Fig. 28 North Island Naval Air
Station, 2008
Fig. 29 North Island Naval Air Station, Administrative
Building, undated
71
of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in military architecture”
12
In addition, the site is
significant because it’s design can be attributed to Bertram Goodhue.
The North Island nomination explains that the style of architecture was originally called
Mission. Both San Diego case studies had arcades tying the building facades together
which included vigas, (fig. 30 and 31). The vigas have long been removed due to their
deterioration. Without these vigas, the appearance is clearly more Spanish Colonial
Revival than Mission.
Fig. 30 Arcade at North
Island Naval Air
Station
Fig. 31 Arcade at the Marine
Corps Recruit Depot
72
Discussion of Significance and Consistency of Nominations
The military architectural commissions of Goodhue, through his partnership in the firm
of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson or as a sole practitioner have been neglected in
historical writings. Richard Oliver’s book, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, mentions them,
but does not give them full due. Romy Wyllie, is exploring Goodhue’s work at the
California Institute of Technology (CALTECH) and his residential designs, but makes no
mention of his military commissions. Goodhue, although a prolific letter writer, does not
leave a legacy of his design theory. This lack of scholarly work on important military
installations is systemic. It therefore leaves the issue of their significance and nomination
up the services and the SHPOs.
13
West Point, with its Landmark designation, is a significant installation. Its designation as
an Academy was an acknowledgement of the need for a military and for a scientific
based educational facility. Prior engineering and scientific expertise was imported from
Europe. This Academy now allowed America to educate their own talented individuals.
It signified a shift from a consumer and an agrarian society to one of an emerging nation.
The Academy’s relatively consistent and distinctive Gothic style of architecture is also
significance and well known.
In the San Diego case studies, both installations were deemed significant and nominated
to the National Register. The discussion of their significance is inconsistent. One
installation was nominated for statewide significance and the other for national and local
significance, yet the statements of significance were very similar. The differing
73
determinations are a result of their independent preparation and because of the lack of a
national historic context at the time. Based upon the narrative and historical evidence,
both are significant locally, statewide and nationally. Locally, the military has a strong
connection to the economic and physical growth of San Diego. The installations are here
due to the lobbying efforts of San Diego leaders. The military was, and still is a
dominant industry for San Diego. Statewide, they reflect the military presence on the
west coast. Nationally, they were significant to the build up of the military and the
requirement for an expanded Pacific coast presence.
To truly discuss national significance, a more in-depth discussion is required that
transcends the three case studies and documents the significant role of our military
installations in the emergence of the United States as a world power. A national historic
context is a start to an all-encompassing review of Department of Defense assets. R.
Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc.’s, National Historic Context for Department
of Defense Installations, 1790-1940 is the result of extensive research. This is the
platform which should be expanded and vetted through all three military agencies and
Advisory Council. This type of documentation is needed to provide a comprehensive
methodology and historical framework to allow military properties to be evaluated versus
the isolated determinations that have been made.
14
Another aspect of significance that has not been highlighted is that these military
installations mirror and record a spectrum of events. Their footprints are still largely
intact due to funding constraints. The facilities used by the Buffalo Soldiers to teach
74
cadets riding skills at West Point visually tell the tale of the use of the cavalry versus
machinery, (fig 28 & 29).
15
A gatehouse at MCRD is a reminder of the streetcars that
used to pass by the gates and a more relaxed security, (fig 30 and 31). The hangers that
Goodhue designed at North Island visually tell the story of early aviation and the Navy’s
understanding that airfield runways would be water versus tarmac, (fig 32 and 33). These
stories are full of diversity and reflect a period of our American history that has been
preserved in time even if they are currently used for a different purpose. West Point tells
part of this story through their guided tours, but these do not exist for the San Diego
commissions.
Fig. 32 Buffalo Soldiers
Field Group, circa 1910
Fig. 33. Buffalo Soldiers
Field Group, 2007.
75
Fig. 34. Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Gate 3, late 1920’s
Fig. 35 Gate house in 2008
(moved and unused)
76
Military Cultural Heritage: Architectural vs Military History
The question of importance and stewardship of cultural resources within the Department
of Defense has long been studied with no apparent conclusion. Cultural resource
brochures contain strong wording about significance, but the message is a hard sell and is
often only sold to the cultural resource managers who have already bought into the
Fig. 36 North Island Naval Air
Station, circa 1930
Fig. 37 North Island Naval Air
Station hangars, 2008
77
process. From the brochure titled Cultural Resources in the Department of Defense,
which targets installation commanders and public affairs officers, we find the following
quotes:
The Cultural Resources managed by the Department of the Defense reflect
the whole history of the nation’s people. Through these tangible
resources, we achieve an understanding of those who lived before us and
an appreciation for the heritage we defend for the future. (Les Aspin,
Secretary of Defense)
The central mission of the U.S. military forces is the defense of the United
States – its people, its land and its heritage. America’s cultural resources
are an integral part of the nation’s heritage. …. These lands contain
places that are tangible reminders of people, events, and ideas that shaped
America’s character.
16
This document goes on to stress the importance of stewardship and link of cultural
resources to the military mission. The National Historic Context for Department of
Defense Installations states: “Cultural resources are tangible reminders and symbols of
our national heritage.”
17
The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) during recent years has
allowed the public to now have a view of what is behind the walls and fences of many of
our military installations. In California, this has resulted in a comprehensive statewide
inventory. In March 2000, a California Historic Military Building and Structures
Inventory was published.
18
Its intent was to identify what exists, what has been lost and
what is known about the installations. The study did not look at the relative importance
of each facility within the state. Although that would have been the logical next step, it
could not have been done without looking outside state boundaries. Each individual
78
installation is independently grappling with the subject through independent studies and
the use of site specific Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan (ICRMP). In this
effort, each base is working within their branch of the service. There has been little
collaborative effort done between the three services to date. An ICRMP may include the
involvement of a local government or a preservation group, but more than likely,
decisions are made insularly within a specific service of the military. This point is
discussed in the triennial reports required by Executive Order 13287.
19
The concerns of the military are very similar to civilian concerns. They want the ability
to adapt and change to reflect new missions. A very typical concern of the military is the
perception that a historic designation will stifle their ability to reuse or remodel a building
in new ways. This concern may be a result of lack of knowledge concerning the
constraints of designation or a shortsighted view of the situation. It may also be a
product of land shortage. The construction of a new building often requires the
demolition of an existing structure. In fact, today’s military is promoting demolition of
surplus buildings as a means of focusing limited maintenance dollars. This focus on
demolition is occasionally at odds with stewardship. Stewardship is a component of both
planning documents and environmental programs, and presumes a continuation of sound
planning principles and historical awareness. The notion of tradition, which is important
to the military culture, is taught to our military officers and enlisted men, however tends
to not include the built environment. One would think the two cultures, architectural
cultural heritage of military installations and military cultural heritage, would
complement each other. However, the opposite is often true. The degree of empathy
79
between architecture, tradition and military mission varies from complete apathy to an
amused or bemused acknowledgement of the connection between the two.
This discussion has a direct parallel to what college campuses are grappling with today.
Paul Venable Turner’s book, Campus, An American Planning Tradition, speaks about an
embodiment of an institutional character and a quality that endures over time. He also
argues that the buildings “..are among the most valuable assets of an institution, and their
preservation ought to be a prime goal of the planning process.”
20
This is the same
message the military cultural resource brochures were espousing.
Local and State Importance of Military Installations
Another judge of importance is if a property is acknowledged and afforded special
recognition to the community or state. West Point is listed in the American Automobile
Association (AAA) guide and other state literature.
21
However, a person attempting to
drive to West Point is not guided by road signs typically provided to direct visitors to a
landmark. In fact, from personal experience, it is a difficult place to find by automobile.
The 2002 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Guide to Architecture of San Diego
doesn’t list the North Island Naval Air Station. MCRD is listed in the form of an
advertisement for the military museum.
22
While lack of visibility is understandable in
this post 9-11 era with its enhanced security, at least an awareness of the assets should be
made to local architects, planners and city governments.
80
Historic tourism is the catalyst of many community plans. Both West Point and MCRD
are tourist sites. During graduation, members of a recruit or cadet’s family, friends, or
alumni visit to watch the ceremonies. They spend time walking the grounds. The
formality and history stir a sense of pride and a memory of what the installation has
witnessed over its long life. Many families have a long tradition of military service.
These memories and the traditions loom large.
What Military Installation is Nationally Important?
The above discussion still doesn’t adequately answer the question of importance. This is
an issue even posed by Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson in their work at West Point. In a
letter from the firm to the Superintendent at West Point on August 29, 1927 they weigh
the importance of existing buildings and state: “that for sentimental reasons Grant Hall
should be retained.”
23
West Point, MCRD and North Island Naval Air Station nominations listed by the
Departments of the Army and Navy reflect on a case-by-case basis what the Departments
deem important. What is lacking is a comprehensive review of all military installations
to determine importance, and national significance in addition to the state and local
significance. This broad review lends itself to considering varying degrees of
importance. Currently, a property is either eligible for the National Register and is
afforded some protection or not eligible and therefore, not subject to further review.
Review has traditionally focused on the National Register 50-year, age criterion for
eligibility. A third category may be required: not currently eligible, but subject to further
81
review. This third category is totally within the purview of the military to institute. It
also facilitates prioritization of limited preservation and restoration funding. That
prioritization in turn assists decision makers in making those difficult decisions that result
from the conflict between the military mission and cultural resource stewardship. The
problem is, that without hard regulations, enforcement is difficult and without outside
scrutiny, buildings designated as not eligible but subject to further review are put at risk.
It would not rule out localities and states acknowledging their assets if not deemed
nationally significant and/or listed on the National Register.
When a national approach is taken, the outcome of what is deemed important enough for
nomination to the National Register may be much different. Using the three case studies
as examples, there can be no question of the importance of West Point. Not only is it
architecturally significant and a work of a prominent firm, it was “the” engineering
school for the nation. Its massive construction program designed by Cram, Goodhue &
Ferguson reflected the nation making a commitment to having a strong armed force and
the emergence of the United States as a world power. The San Diego commissions are
also reflective of the nation’s emergence as a world power and of things to come in the
Pacific and Far East. MCRD was a result of the Marine Corps promoting itself and
becoming more independent of the Navy. Although not the first dedicated Marine base,
it was the first purposely built Marine base. The prominent architectural style and plan
further compliment its importance. North Island Naval Air Station proper was initially an
Army base, then a joint use base and finally purely Navy. It evolved from the two
separate Army and Navy bases. North Island was not master planned in the traditional
82
sense. Today, its appearance shows this dual beginning and change of missions. The
Goodhue District is an island in a midst of a hodge-podge of architecture. It is stately,
but diluted by a sea of cars, surrounding infill buildings and various other intrusions into
the original design, fig. 34. The
installation is linked to the story
of military aviation. In fact,
San Diego and Pensacola Naval
Air Station in Florida both contend
they are the birthplace of Naval
Aviation. Proponents of both
installations continue to fight for
the distinction. Would these two San
Diego commissions still be eligible for listing on the National Register if a national
approach to the importance of military installations was taken?
The 2000 California inventory was a good first step. Unfortunately, it now sits on a shelf
and is unknown to many. The same also holds true for documents such as the 1975
Context Statement for the Quartermaster Corps
24
and a 1995 National Historic Context
for DOD Installations (1790-1940).
25
In fact, the 1995 National Historic Context was not
listed in the bibliography of the 2000 California inventory, which may mean that its
existence was unknown to the authors. The vetting process for these two documents is
suspect, but if revisited both would assist in addressing importance. These were studies
that were located as part of this thesis that should be central components of property
Fig. 38 North Island, view within arcade
83
evaluations. There may be more, but information necessary to make informed decisions
is being lost or not available. The lack of visibility to base planners and the general
public exasperates this problem of importance and further causes documentation to be
lost or shelved.
This notion of an all-encompassing national survey and the military’s initiation of a third
approach - not eligible, but subject to further review - will be difficult given the
organizational personalities of the different SHPO offices and the challenges of
coordinating opinions of the three services. The groundwork necessary to get
concurrence on this approach cannot be overestimated. A collaborative approach
between the SHPO’s, the Advisory Council, the three military services and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense would be required. It is not impossible, but definitely is a
daunting task.
Stewardship and Mission in the Military
Assuming significance has been addressed, the question of who holds the stewardship
reigns within the military is complex. This discussion requires a modern day look at
identity and process, and a discussion of “mission”. Mission drives the military and its
decisions. For a program to be successful it must compliment the mission. If asked, “is
stewardship of historic properties a mission requirement?”, the answer you would get
from most is “no”. There is a perception that it detracts from the ability to perform the
mission. The goal is to change this mindset - to make stewardship integral to the mission.
84
Historic District Boundaries – What does this Mean?
Just as it is important to understand what and why something is significant, it is important
to have a clear delineation of the boundaries of the historic properties. West Point, by
categorizing the entire installation as a Landmark, needs to further identify specific
significant areas within its boundaries. With limited open real estate available to build
upon and funding constraints, identifying core areas of critical importance is essential to
future planning efforts. There is a strong argument to be made that certain cores areas of
Historic Districts should be preserved. Conserving these areas reinforces tradition and
the sense of place that accompanies it.
Fig. 39 Bird’s eye view of West Point Military Academy depicting the
Cram, Goodhue & Ferguson construction
Library
85
Fig 40. Olmsted Bros. Plan, West Point, 1911
Library ca 1911
86
For example, figure 35 shows a bird’s eye view of West Point from the era of the Cram,
Goodhue, and Ferguson commission. It reflects a distinctive face toward the river, a
Fig 42. Artist rendition of new library (under construction)
Fig 41. West Point. Existing library
Existing Library
87
large central parade field for ceremonial purposes and an equally distinctive line of
buildings that defines the academic area, the housing area, and so on. The argument to be
made is that these key areas should not be encroached upon.
The 1911 Olmsted’s plan, (fig. 36), for West Point is contemporary to the Goodhue bird’s
eye view. The location of the library is highlighted on both figures 35 and 36. Using the
library at West Point to highlight the point that certain core areas should be preserved,
figures 5, 37, and 38 show a progression of construction. Each new library building was
proposed based upon the need for a larger, more modern space. The first library, (fig.
25), was built in 1841 in the Gothic style. This structure stood on the southern border of
the plain for 120 years before its demolition to allow for the construction of the current
library in 1964, (fig. 37). The newest library under construction, (fig. 38), built in front
of the second library, is clearly more modern and erodes the line of buildings that defines
the open space. The building, which went through SHPO review, obstructs the view of
the earlier Gothic structures and is a distraction to the famous “West Point” image. This
is a major change to the District. The new building, which is not easily removed, could
have been sited elsewhere to preserve the integrity of the District, or the extension could
have been made by going underground. Other intrusions which can be more easily
removed, are on the open field and include a football practice field and a parking lot. All
cumulatively erode the feeling of timeliness and special aura of West Point. Retention of
the traditional view must be a given top priority. Just as a military parade field is a
sacred site – no civilian can cross – so should the core of a historic district be protected
from infill. If not, every era’s “small” change irreversibly damages the whole.
88
Small Changes that Cumulatively Impact
Each installation, West Point, MCRD and North Island, is in use and must accommodate
change. This makes the need to designate what is important imperative. Since all three
installations being reviewed are listed as an Historic Landmark or a Historic District,
there are areas that should to be retained unchanged or restored to their original
appearance as reflected in the discussion above. Outside of those boundaries are areas of
varying degrees of importance. All actions proposed within or surrounding a Landmark
or Historic District are subject to review through Section 106 of the NHPA and must
comply with the Department of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
Particularly important are the varying levels of significance of boundaries of a historic
district. The attack on the World Trade Center buildings triggered awareness and new
regulations for Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection. A change in command or mission
requires changes to buildings designated historic to accommodate new needs. In some
cases, well-intended individuals propose additions to historic districts in the name of
military tradition. Many of these additions are objects or attachments to building. All
these actions must go through a review by the CRM using the Department of Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Actions such as installations of
antennae, mass notification systems (speakers attached to the outside of buildings)), bird
screening, signage, bollards or planters used as bollards, awnings, lawn furniture…the list
is endless. In themselves, these actions do not impact a district. Typically they are
89
submitted one by one to the SHPO for consideration. Cumulatively, they destroy the
sense of “place”.
The removal of the vigas, fig. 17, changed the appearance of MCRD. In 1989 the
building were re-stuccoed. This also changed the appearance. The original stucco was a
hand finished, sanded composition that had a texture. The new finish is blown-on and
has a smoother and more modern appearance. An unintended consequence is that the
blown-on stucco finish collects dirt. MCRD also changed color from an original salmon
to an off-white, then a pale yellow – today a bold yellow. All of the above cumulatively
reflect a very different identity and style than intended by Goodhue.
West Point has commenced a study of its landscape. The Olmsted Brothers had opened
up views to the river. The vegetation is now so densely wooded that those views are lost.
The automobile has impacted all three installations. The parking lots in the open
ceremonial field at West Point, in the quadrangle at North Island and parade deck at
MCRD punctuate what were once open views causing a visual clutter not anticipated or
desired by the designers. West Point added athletic stadium stands and football practice
fields with fences to what was once an open parade field.
Clear understanding of identity and importance will allow for informed decisions in these
cases. Process, via the players, is critical. These small actions can significantly impact
an historic landmark or district. This is where the team effort is required. With a
90
recognized knowledge of what is significant, the stewardship team can make sure the
property is maintained for future generations.
The Caretakers: Assuming the Patron’s Role
The caretakers take on the role once fulfilled by the patron. Within the Department of
Defense, stewardship of these historic properties falls within environmental departments.
Most environmental offices are concerned with compliance issues that have been
successfully litigated, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc. West Point
currently has a dedicated Cultural Resource Manger (CRM). MCRD and the Naval Air
Station at North Island do not. Planning and planners typically do not have a linkage
with the environmental department except through the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), so many times decisions are made or projects submitted that get so far
through the planning/programming process that they can not be stopped by the time a
CRM gets to view and comment on them.
There are many players that can assist with the stewardship – assuming a team approach.
Consistency in where information is located and where the different players reside may
not be warranted. The inconsistencies, however, make it very difficult to find
information and stifles sharing data across the services. All three case studies have
separate offices that play a significant role, but are part of different chains of command
and support a different aspect of the mission. The two services also have a different
overall organizational structure. Occasionally they communicate to each other. In the
91
course of this research, it was evident that there was little interaction and this should be a
source of concern for all parties.
A key member of the stewardship team is the CRM who is located within the
environmental office in a Facilities or Public Works Branch. They are typically the
keeper of the Programmatic Agreement, the Integrated Cultural Resource Management
Plan (INCRMP), perform the Section 106 duties and advise the commands, through the
Facilities or Public Works Directors.
26
They generate plans for the future that tend to be
independent of an installation’s overall master plan, yet the CRM needs to work very
closely with the planning department. They need to advise the engineers and architects in
project management and assist maintenance workers with proper techniques for repair
and maintenance, and what is allowable or not allowable. They need to be
knowledgeable of the Secretary of the Interior Standards and they should be qualified to
perform the duties per the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards.
27
The “should” and “need” are an ideal situation. In reality, the CRM is typically a
collateral duty, either untrained or an archeologist with little or no interest in buildings,
and is isolated from a comprehensive team necessary for them to be a proper steward.
Another proposed member of the stewardship team is the archivist. West Point and
MCRD have archivists. West Point’s archivist is part of the library. MCRD’s is part of
the museum. Researchers are typically directed to archivists for data. A case in point is
the 1995, R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940 in which the researchers met with an
92
archivist and had no contact with the CRM.
28
Data in fact exists in both places. Ideally,
all should be gathered within one location to allow for a more comprehensive, complete
chronology of events that would allow for a more informed decision when required. The
logical location for this information would be either a museum or a library archive.
These locations presumably have the facilities and the capabilities to properly store and
catalog the material. That means the archivist and the CRM need to work together and
complement each other.
There are yet a third and fourth player in the stewardship team. These are the installation
Historical Societies (typically comprised of retired military officers), and the service’s
History and Museum Divisions located off site. Some sites may have a dedicated on-
staff historian. Information that these two entities hold is important to understand the
whole picture. The docents of a historical society and museum have the time to do the
public outreach – their audience is the general public. West Point has an installation
historian. This position is typical at large installations and is more closely aligned with
the museum than the day-to-day management and decision makers. Neither MCRD nor
North Island have an installation historian. The CRM, based upon training, is best suited
to reach out to their peers and to other professional associations. All currently work
independently from each other. Everyone needs to speak informatively about the
resources they are supporting and should be empowered to speak for the installation. The
goal is to preserve the asset for future generations, to make the public aware of the assets
of the installations and to promote cultural resources as an asset to the military mission.
93
The History and Museum’s division can provide the fiscal support to these two entities
and maintain the broad historical picture for the service.
Each of the installations has a message from the Commander that reinforces the
importance of their cultural resources. It is typically prepared for each incoming
Commander for their signature. It doesn’t address the cross boundary cooperation
necessary to truly have an effective stewardship program. To do so, a campaign plan
should be generated and vetted by the highest authority. Only then can a comprehensive
approach to the stewardship be maintained.
Record Management for the Military
The archivist was discussed above as part of the stewardship team. Their role is key in
the record management; an aspect of “process” that is currently being accomplished at
the installations by the CRM’s, the archivists, the museums and the installation
historians.
29
In this case the term “process” is not used to detail a massive building
program, but one that ensures the continuum of past to present to future information is
recorded, and available for decision makers and scholars. Records are available today
either at: the installation, the service (Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force), or the National
Archives. Record location and the electronic age now have a potential to impact access
to decision makers. This impact could either be positive through managed collections
and websites or negatively through scattered and un-cataloged collections and obsolete
technology.
94
Under the Federal Records Act of 1950, the primary agency for oversight and assistance
to Federal agencies for record management is the National Archives and Record
Administration (NARA). The Act says that each Federal agency is responsible for their
record management. It further, but weakly says that “As the Department transitions from
paper to e-government, we must capture and protect all forms of documentation…”.
30
Each service has provided policies on how to implement the Act and for the most part,
maintains their own records internal to the agency rather than under the NARA umbrella.
The archival material at West Point is, for the most part, captured as part of a NARA
asset that is maintained at West Point. Their Special Collections and Archives are set up
to adequately protect the work and make them available to the public upon request. The
CRM at West Point, however, retains some information that is not available to the
archivists. The other two case studies have no such established archive program for the
architecture and built environment, instead focusing on military heritage. Information for
cultural resource management is independently kept and is not cataloged. A CRM may
realize the benefit of the documentation, but information really belongs in a controlled
environment. An archivist, whether this position is part of a museum or library, is best
equipped to serve this function. This also goes along with the fact that information is lost
or destroyed – facilities or public works environments typically do not realize the
importance of the plans and building records for cultural resources.
The Federal Records Act, as currently stated, cultivates the separation of material. If
material was pulled under a NARA index, such as West Point, scholars would be more
95
likely to find information. It would also highlight the importance of the documentation,
standardize the cataloging and potentially make funding available if further curatorial
efforts are required.
Lastly, the electronic media needs immediate further direction for record management as
well as direction as to what is required to be maintained in hard copy. Changes in
technology, the instability of some electronic media, and obsolete media (floppy discs,
etc.) dictate direction now before information is lost forever. Although the electronic
media has some benefit, namely in shared websites, there is really no substitute for a
person’s ability to physically hold a document.
Ownership: the people of the Unites States
A point that is often overlooked by the military and civilians working on military
properties that are blessed with historic resources, is that the buildings and grounds are
the property of the United States. They were important tributes to past citizens and to the
people who fought to keep us a free nation. They are equally important to our future
generations. The term “steward” means that it is our responsibility to properly care for
these facilities. Just as stated in the introduction, this is not a task that should be taken
lightly. It is a huge responsibility to insure the importance of the installations is not
eroded through an ill-advised action.
There are many dedicated people in all branches of the services that want to do the right
thing and preserve our nation’s heritage. Frustrations are evident from the mission driven
96
military and the cultural resource stewards. Changing leadership at installations,
conflicting opinions of internal organizations on what their mandate entails, and a lack of
instilled architectural cultural resource responsibilities can cause irreversible damage in
addition to adding to the frustrations. Laws and policies are there to support the
stewards. Without enforceable teeth, they have to rely upon everyone’s desire to do the
right thing.
This look at three military commissions designed by Consulting Architect, Bertram
Grosvenor Goodhue allowed for a discussion of identity, process, and importance as it
relates to stewardship. The architectural heritage of military commissions has typically
not been documented in scholarly journals or books. Based upon the evidence provided,
this could be due to the frustrations of the designers or the difficulty in obtaining
available information. Decision makers are invited to learn from the past. This journey
through the Goodhue commissions further encourages the learning process.
Military architectural history is important to the history of the nation. This will involve a
paradigm shift. The three agencies, Army, Navy and Air Force, typically do not interface
with each other. Although the doors are open to scholars, the fences around the
installations, bureaucracies, and lack of central clearinghouses do not make it feel that the
doors are open. The lack of consistent archival inventory, the poor conditions of the
archives and the security precautions all make this a challenge. The fault is not all with
the installations – many communities don’t have a partnership with the military. This
segregationist mentality must be broken. Professionals within the military and the
97
civilian community have long had their own associations rather than being integrated.
The history of the growth of the nation and the military’s contribution to that history
through its built environment is integral. My hope is that message is articulated in the
review of the work of this prominent architect – Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue.
98
Chapter 3 Endnotes
1. Roger M. Showley, “Forgotten Visionary”, The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 7,
2007.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1.
http://www.nps.gov/history/standards.htm, (accessed September 2007).
3. The National Park Service website, http:www.nps.gov/history/standards.htm,
contains links to all of the federal regulations pertaining to property stewardship.
Persons assigned to Cultural Resource Management duties in the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps are typically required to take classes that provide binders with copies of
the regulations.
4. Executive Order 13287 of March 3, 2003 is found in the Federal Register, volume
68, No. 43, Wednesday, March 5, 2003, Presidential documents, pages 10635-10638.
It is also available on http://www.nps.gov.history/standards.htm.
5. U.S Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic
Places Inventory, Nomination Form. Form revised by Richard Greenwood, Historian,
Landmark Review Task Force and dated November 10, 1975. It is stamped
“Landmark designated 12/19/60”. Source: U.S. Military Academy Environmental
Office.
6. United States Department of the Interior, Historic Structures Inventory, United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York, National Park Service, Washington, DC,
volumes I and II, 1984. http://www.usma.edu/archives/archives.asp. (accessed July
7, 2008)
7. The National Register criteria for evaluation can be found on their website,
http://www.nps.gov/history/standards.htm, The criterion for nomination are found on
page 1. Evaluation criterion “a” is “that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and “c” is “that embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction”.
8. Jackson Research Projects, National Register of Historic Places, Historic District
Evaluation for the Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, dated February 1990,
section 8, 19 and 20.
99
9. National Register of Historic Places, Registration Form for the Naval Air Station, San
Diego Historic District, North Island, San Diego, prepared by Andrew Yatsko, III,
Archeologist, Natural Resources Office, Naval Air Station, North Island dated April
30, 1990.
10. Ibid, 3.
11. Ibid, 4.
12. Ibid, 4.
13. Richard Oliver, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, (New York: The Architectural History
Foundation, and Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press,
1983). Also see Romy Wyllie, From Spanish Tiles to Modern Stone, Caltech’s
Architectural Heritage, (Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 2000) and Romy Wyllie,
Bertram Goodhue, His Residential Architecture (New York, London: W.W. Norton
and Company, 2007).
14. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940, Volumes I-IV, (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, August 1995).
15. Rod Miller, The Campus Guide, West Point, U.S. Military Academy, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 12.
16. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Cultural Resources in the Department of
Defense, (Legacy Management Program, undated) inside cover and 2.
17. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, National Historic Context, iii.
18. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and Jackson Historical Consulting
Services, California Historic Military Buildings and Structures Inventory, volumes I-
IV, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, March 2000.
19. Executive Order 13287 of March 3, 2003 (Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 43, March
5, 2003, Presidential Papers) 10636. http:www.nps.gov/history.laws.htm (accessed
July 7, 2008).
20. Paul Venable Turner, Campus, An American Planning Tradition, (New York: The
Architectural Foundation, and Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984) 305.
21. The Automobile Association of America supplies state guidebooks, maps and other
literature for the United States that list areas of significance for its members.
100
22. Dirk Sutro, San Diego Architecture, (San Diego Architectural Foundation, 2002),
233.
23. Letter from the firm of Cram, Goodhue and Ferguson to the Superintendent of the
U.S. Military Academy (not named), dated August 29, 1927, source: courtesy of the
Boston Public Library, Fine Arts Department, Ralph Adams Cram collection.
24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Technical Center of Expertise for
Preservation of Structures and Buildings, Context Study of the United States
Quartermaster General Standardized Plans, 1866 – 1942, November 1997. This
report was not used in the preparation of the thesis. It is cited to support the
documentation that is available to decision makers that is relatively unknown.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html. (accessed: September 2007)
25. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940, volumes I-IV, prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, August 1995.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html (accessed July 7, 2007).
26. Two tools for cultural resource management are Programmatic Agreements (PA) and
Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plans (ICRMP). Typically the PA
implements the ICRMP. Programmatic Agreements are between the installation (or
Navy region in the case of North Island Naval Air Station) and the SHPO. They may
include interested parties, such as local preservation groups or local governments.
The Agreements are essentially contracts between the entities that spell out
authorities for decision making, dictate reporting requirements and delegate some
authority to the local level. The intent is to streamline the Section 106 reporting
process. ICRMPs are documents that outline procedures, processes and key players
for the CRMs. It is not a contract, but rather a planning and management tool.
27. Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR, Part 61 (48
Federal Register, September 29, 1983) http://www.nps.gov/history/standards.htm
(accessed July 7, 2008).
28. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940, volumes I-IV, (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, August 1995), xxv.
29. North Island Naval Air Station is managed by a regional command. Specific CRM
and reference material are therefore maintained at this regional level versus at the
installation.
30. Federal Records Act of 1950, http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/gen/leg/fra.html
(accessed June 23, 2008). It is also available at http:www.nps.gov/history.laws.htm
(accessed July 7, 2008).
101
Epilogue and Recommendations
Cultural resource management in the federal government is a challenging task. This
thesis uses the military commissions of a prominent architect, Bertram Grosvenor
Goodhue, to examine issues associated with this management; architectural identity,
planning and design process, and the notion of importance. The commissions, the United
States Military Academy at West Point, New York, and North Island Naval Air Station
and Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, California were large and were important
for their service. Their architectural history is the foundation for examining the cultural
resource challenges faced today and for recommendations for future actions.
Military bases are a significant part of our nation’s history. Just as diversity has been an
untold story in the past, the interdependence of the architectural heritage of our military
installations with our nation’s history is also not a story well told. Fortunately
installations such as the Marine Corps Recruit Depot have become timeless by default
due to lack of funding. With our current military mission and the influx of funding, that
may be changing. This makes a sense of urgency and an awareness critical.
Understanding the institutional identity of the military and the architectural identity of
these installations is critical to the stewardship of these historic resources. As chapter
one states, it is key in understanding what makes each place special. Without this
understanding, decisions can be made that may irreversibly damage these national assets.
102
Understanding the history of the acquisition process of the installation allows decision
makers to appreciate past decisions. Communities and political will continue to play a
role in stewardship. The function of the key players discussed in chapter two – the
politicians, the community, the military engineers and the patron – that were involved at
the time of Goodhue’s work are still in existence today and still play a key role in
stewardship.
Understanding what is important allows limited resources to be focused. The
presumption is that if something is important, it deserves special care and attention. As
suggested in chapter three, a national inventory would establish relative significance and
de-listing some assets would enforce the truly significant ones. The struggle with what is
important to preserve will continue. Money drives both as well as the influence of
current personalities – an installation commander or a community. Therefore, visibility
of the truly important assets is essential
In order for architectural cultural resource management to integrate with the mission, it
must be part of the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force) and the
installation’s strategic plan. It is clearly an integrated team effort. The team must be
cognizant of both the military heritage and the architectural heritage.
In studying the process of design acquisition, another important lesson is learned. The
military is continually looking to reinvent themselves, and to be as effective and efficient
103
as possible in their building program. Inevitably a new technique is proposed that is
actually not new at all. A critical review of history can help alleviate costly experiments.
Recommendations
• Have a high level of involvement on the part of the installation commanders in
development of the stewardship team. This involves looking at organizational
structures and maneuvering through functions that are inherent to the organization
plus those that are staffed by volunteers. Both have different rules and agendas.
Specifically needed is an understanding of roles and responsibilities of the history
division and the historical societies, the museums and the archive sections, and
the environmental and the planning section. This is the stewardship team and
they must work together. Their goals, preservation, interpretation and retention of
the asset and a heritage, are held in a common interest.
• Leave archival material at the installation, but catalog them in NARA. Make the
archivist the repository of historical documents and plans. Immediately address
electronic media and archival responsibilities. The current reliance on email and
electronic media make this an urgent issue. A revision of the Record
Management Act to include cross agency sharing as the underlying mandate is
needed immediately. Use of web-shared copies of the data available at the
installations is highly encouraged.
• Identify core areas of importance on the military installation. Preserve the sense
of place for those spaces that are critical to a place’s identity. Do not allow
visible construction in these core areas of importance. This involves a
104
coordination with the SHPOs, the CRMs, and the installation facility planners on
identifying open spaces and view corridors. It entails an assessment of identity, a
knowledge of process and an acknowledgement of what is important.
• Encourage state inventories of military installations and follow it up with an
evaluation of national assets. This may result in de-listing some properties.
Although this may result in putting some properties at risk, it allows for a more
focused approach to truly safeguard the most important assets.
• Understand the role of the community. Cultivate relationships within the
community and open doors during events such as Preservation Week.
Some of the recommendations reflect an ideal situation and will take years to
implement. The three Goodhue commissions highlight the fact that cultural resource
management is a complex subject. However, these installations are an important
architectural heritage for our future generations. Their title says it all: property of the
United States of America.
105
References
Correspondence
Boston Public Library, Ralph Adams Cram collection for West Point.
Columbia, Avery Library, Boxes containing correspondence from 1903-1915.
National Archives from the period of 1917 to 1939, boxes for Marine Corps Base San
Diego (includes letters written between the Department of Navy, Bureau of
Yards and Docks, Bertram Goodhue, and the installation commander).
Naval Aviation History Division (contacted via phone to confirm navy aviation birth
Place).
Pendleton Papers Collection, Library of the Marine Corps, Quantico, Virginia, Archives
and Special Collections (see Martin K. Gordon, Joseph Henry Pendleton, 1860-
1942, Register of His Personal Papers).
West Point Military Academy, Special Collections and Archives, Archives constitutes
Record Group 404 of the National Archives of the United States. Studies and
manuals from the Academy’s Environmental Branch Office.
National Register Nomination Forms
North Island Naval Air Station, prepared by the Dept. of the Navy, Andy Yatsuko, III of
the Natural Resources Office, Naval Air Station North Island, May 1990.
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, prepared by Jackson Research Projects, February 1990.
West Point Military Academy, revised by Richard Greenwood, Historian, Landmark
Review Task Force, November 10, 1975.
106
Bibliography
Abbott, Carl and Sy Adler, “Historical Analysis as a Planning Tool”, APA Journal,
(Autumn 1989) 467-473.
Amero, Richard, “San Diego Biographies, John Nolen (1869-1937”, Journal of San
Diego History, San Diego Historical Society (2004).
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/bio/nolen (accessed: April 19, 2008).
Anthony, Ethan, The Architecture of Ralph Adams Cram and his Office, New York and
London: W.W Norton & Company, 2007.
Bush-Brown, Albert, review of Dober, “Campus Planning”, The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, Vol 26, No. 2 (May 1967): 158. (accessed from
JSTOR)
Bushong, William, “A Gateway Restored”, Blueprints Magazine, National Building
Museum, (Summer 1988).
http://nbm.org/bluprints/80s/summer88/cover/cover.htm. (accessed February 28,
2008).
Coletta, Paola E., United States Navy and Marine Corps Bases, Domestic, Westport
Connecticut & London England: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Comacho, JOC (SW) Mary E., The History of Naval Training Center, San Diego,
Cradle of the Navy, 1923-1997, JOSTENS Publishing Company, 1997.
Crackel, Theodore J., West Point, A Bicentennial History, University Press of Kansas,
2002.
Crackel, Theodore J., The Illustrated History of West Point, New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., Publishers, in association with The United States Military Academy
Class of 1940, 1991.
Craig, Lois A., The Federal Presence: Architecture, Politics, and Symbols in United
States Government Buildings, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
MIT Press, 1978.
Christman, Florence, The Romance of Balboa Park, San Diego, California: San Diego
Historical Society, 1985.
Cram, Ralph Adams, My Life in Architecture, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company,
1936, and New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969.
107
Davis, Edward J. P., Historical San Diego, The Birthplace of California, A History of its
Discovery, Settlement and Development, Published by the author, 1953.
Department of the Army, Pamphlet 200-4, Cultural Resource Management,
1 October 1998.
Department of Defense, Built on Strong Foundations: Constructing Our Nation’s
Military Heritage, undated.
Department of Defense Instruction, 4715.3, Environmental Conservation Program,
May 3, 1996.
Department of Interior, Historic American Building Survey, Historic Structures
Inventory, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, 1984.
Department of the Navy, OPNAVINST 5090.1C, Chapter 27, Cultural Resources
Management, 30 October 2007.
Department of the Navy, SECNAVINST 4000.35A, Department of the Navy Cultural
Resources Program, 9 April 2001.
Dober, Richard P., Campus Planning, New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation,
1963.
Dober, Richard P., review of Turner’s “Campus, An American Planning Tradition”, The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol 45, No. 1. (Mar 1986)
79-80, source: JSTOR.
Doumato, Lamia, Bertram Grosvner Goodhue, 1869-1924, Vance Bibliographies,
Architectural Series: Bibliography #A 452, Prof. Lamia Doumato, Head, Art and
Architecture Library, University of Colorado, undated.
Fahey, John Edward, A History of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
California, Thesis Paper dated 1974 for the University of San Diego (Master of
Arts in History program).
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and Jackson Research Projects, Historical
Consulting Services, California Historic Military Buildings and Structures
Inventory, Volumes I, II, III, March 2000.
Fox, Stephan, The General Plan of the William M. Rice Institute and Its Architectural
Development, School of Architecture, Rice University, 1980.
Goodhue, Bertram Grosvenor, The Architecture and the Gardens of the San Diego
Exhibition, San Francisco: Paul Elder and Company Publishers, 1916.
108
Goodwin, R. Christopher and Associates, Inc., Built on Strong Foundations:
Constructing Our Nation’s Military Heritage, Department of Defense, Legacy
Resource Management Program, undated.
Goodwin, R. Christopher and Associates, Inc., Cultural Resources in the Department of
Defense, a Legacy project, undated.
Goodwin, R. Christopher and Associates, Inc., National Historic Context for
Department of Defense Installations, 1790-1940, Volumes I – IV, prepared for
the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, August 1995,
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html (accessed July 7, 2008).
Gordon, Martin K., Joseph Henry Pendleton 1860-1942, Register of His Personal
Papers, compiled by Martin K. Gordon, Washington DC: History and Museums
Division, Hqtrs, U.S. Marine Corps, 1975.
Hines, Thomas S., Burnham of Chicago, Architect and Planner, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1974.
Hoagland, Alison, Army Architecture in the West: Forts Laramie, Bridger, and D.A.
Russell, 1849-1912, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.
Jackson Research Projects, National Register of Historic Places, Historic District
Evaluation for the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California,
Prepared for the Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, February 1998.
Kamerling, Bruce, Irving J. Gill, Architect, A Publication of the San Diego Historical
Society, 1993.
Kettner, William, Why it was Done and How, San Diego, CA: Frye and Smith, 1923.
Lange, Robie S., West Point, An Overview of the History and Development of the
United States Military Academy, Historic American Buildings Survey, National
Park Service, 1984 (included in the Historic Structures Inventory), United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York.
Lawton, Frank Hall, Colonel, Field Quartermaster’s handbook, New York City: George
U. Harvey, Harvey Miltary Series, 1917.
Lee, Antoinette J., Architects for the Nation, the Rise and Decline of the Supervising
Architect’s Office, New York: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Legacy Resource Management Program, Legal Sourcebook, Historic Preservation and
Cultural Resource Management, Volumes I and II, undated.
109
Leigh, Catesby, “Architectural Conservation Comes to College Campuses”, The Wall
Street Journal, January 24, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com’article/SB120113931846012073.html?mod=googlenews.ws
j (accessed January 28, 2008).
Liewer, Steve, “Great White Fleet Visit Put City on Navy’s Map”, The San Diego
Union-Tribune, April 13, 2008.
Macchio, Melanie, “John Nolen and San Diego’s Early Residential Planning in the
Mission Hills Area”, The Journal of San Diego History, 2004.
McAlester, Virginia & Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc, 2002.
McCready, Eric, “Review of Bertram Grosvner Goodhue, Architect, and Master of Many
Arts” by Charles Harris Whitaker, The Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, Vol 37, No. 2, May, 1978, pp 130-131, source: JSTOR.
Mezger, Skip, ASLA, Cheryle Sullivan, ASLA, CoDesign Inc., and Stephen R. Wee,
JRP Historical Consulting Services, Summary Report on the Historic Landscape
of the San Diego Marine Corps Recruit Depot Historic District, January 1995.
Miller, Rod, The Campus Guides: West Point U.S. Military Academy, New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.
Neustadt, Richard E. and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time, The Uses of History for
Decision Makers, New York: The Free Press and London: Collier Macmillan
Publishers, 1986 and 1988.
Nolen, John, San Diego, A Comprehensive City Plan for its Improvement, Boston: Geo.
H. Elli, Printers, 1908.
Nolen, John, A Comprehensive City Plan for San Diego, California, prepared for the
City Planning Commission, the Harbor Commission, The Park Commission of
San Diego, Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass. 1926.
Oliver, Richard, Bertram Grosvner Goodhue (an American Monogram series), New
York: the Architectural History Foundation, and Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England, The MIT Press, 1983.
Peck, Amelia, Alexander Jackson Davis, American Architect 1803-1892, New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rizzoli, 1992.
Presidential documents, Preserve America, Executive Order 13287 of March 3, 2003,
Federal Register, Vol 68., No. 43.
110
Schragge, Abraham J., “I Like the Cut of Your Jib”: Cultures of Accommodation
Between the U.s. Navy and Citizens of San Diego California, 1900-1951”, The
Journal of San Diego History, Vol 48, No. 3, (Summer 2002).
Secretary of the Interior’s, Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61;
48 CFR 44716.
Showley, Roger M, “Forgotten Visionary”, The San Diego Union Tribune, January 7,
2007.
Showley, Roger M., “Paying Tribute to city’s building legacy”, The San Diego
Union-Tribune, November 24, 1996.
Showley, Roger M., San Diego, Perfecting Paradise, Carlsbad, California: Heritage
Media Corporation, 2000.
Slipek, Jr, Edwin J., Ralph Adams Cram, The University of Richmond and the Gothic
Style Today, Marsh Art Gallery, University of Richmond, 1998.
Sudsbury, Elretta, Jackrabbits to Jets, The History of North Island, San Diego,
California, San Diego, CA: Neyenesch Printers, Inc., 1967.
Sutro, Dirk, San Diego Architecture, From Missions to Modern: A Guide to the
Buildings, Planning, People and Spaces the Shaped the Region, San Diego:
American Institute of Architects/San Diego Chapter, San Diego Architectural
Foundation, 2002.
Tomlan, Michael A, Preservation, of What, For Whom? A critical look at historical
significance, the National Council for Preservation Education, the National Park
Service, and the Center for Graduate and continuing education, Goucher
College, 1998.
Tucci, Douglas Shand, Ralph Adams Cram, American Medievalist, Boston Public
Library, 1975.
Turner, Paul Venable, Campus, An American Planning Tradition, New York: The
Architectural History Foundation, and Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and London, England: The MIT Press, 1984.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Context Study of the United
States Quartermaster General Standardized Plans, 1866-1942, November 1997.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, California Historic
Military Buildings and Structures, Volumes I-IV, March 2000.
111
United States Army Environmental Command, Army Alternate Procedures to 36 CFR
Part 800, undated, http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html (accessed
July 7, 2008).
United States Army Environmental Command, Cooperative Agreements and Federal
Agency Partnerships, undated, http://aec.army.mil/usaec/cultural/index.html
(accessed July 7, 2008).
United States, Army Quartermaster Corps. Manual for the Quartermaster Corps, U.S.
Army, 1916 (corrected with changes to December 15, 1917).
United States, Army Quartermaster Corps, Quartermaster Corps Pamphlet, undated.
United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, Manual of the Bureau of Yards and Docks,
Navy Department. Pertaining to the public works and public utilities of the
navy, 1923.
United States Department of the Interior, Historic Structures Inventory, United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York, Washington DC: National Park
Service, volumes I and II, 1984.
United States Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
www.nps.gov/history/standards.htm (accessed July 7, 2008).
United States Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin, How to Complete
the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form, 1991, revised
1999.
United States Military Academy, Annual Report of the Board of Visitors, Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1901 & 1905.
United States Military Academy, Photographs of the U.S. Military Academy, dated and
inscribed by Goodhue to Colonel Carson, Officer in Charge of Construction,
August 17, 1915.
United States Military Academy, West Point, Folio of Drawings Submitted 16
December 1944 Under an Architectural Competition for Permanent Building
Construction, U.S. Engineer Office, New York District, NY, NY, 1945.
United States Naval History Center, United States Naval Aviation, 1910-1995, 1995,
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-23.htm (accessed July 7, 2008).
112
United States Navy, NAVFACINST 5090.1C, Chapter 27, Cultural Resource
Management, 30 October 2007.
United States Navy, SECNACINST 4000.35A, Department of the Navy Cultural
Resource Program, April 9, 2001.
United States Navy, NAVFACINST 11010.45, Regional Planning Instruction, Cultural
Resources, May 2001.
Vale, Lawrence J., Architecture, Power, and National Identity, New Haven & London:
Yale University Press, 1992.
Vezina, Meredith R. and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Historical Society, The
History of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, MCRD Historical
Society and Escondido, California: Heritage Press & Productions, 1997.
Walters Jr., William D., Naval Shipbuilding, 1890-1989, Geographical Review, Vol. 90,
No. 3, (Jul 2000), p418-431, published by American Geographic Society,
source: JSTOR.
Whitaker, Charles Harris, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue – Architect and Master of Many
Arts, New York: Press of the American Institute of Architects 1925.
Williams, Alexander Elliot, Lieut-Colonel, Manual for Quartermasters, the Collegiate
Press, Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1916.
Williamson and Watts Architects with David Gebhard, PhD, Consultant, The
Architectural Significance of Buildings at Naval Air Station North Island, San
Diego, California, prepared for the U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station, May 1988.
Wilson, William H., The City Beautiful Movement, Baltimore and London: The John
Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Wyllie, Romy, Caltech’s Architectural Heritage – From Spanish Tile to Modern Stone,
Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 2000.
Wyllie, Romy, Bertram Goodhue, His Life and Residential Architecture, New York and
London: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2007.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The military commissions of master architect, Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, are used to examine three issues: identity, process and importance, as they relate to stewardship of military architecture. The commissions are the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Interpretation of significance and conservation approaches in evolving contexts: taking Lilong as an example
PDF
Historic preservation in the United States Air Force: exploring new frontiers
PDF
Preserving the tangible remains of San Francisco's lesbian community in North Beach, 1933 to 1960
PDF
A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Smith, Sharon Lynn
(author)
Core Title
Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue's military commissions: identity, process, importance and stewardship of these cultural resources
School
School of Architecture
Degree
Master of Historic Preservation
Degree Program
Historic Preservation
Publication Date
12/16/2008
Defense Date
10/10/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue,cultural resource management,Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,military installation,North Island Naval Air Station, San Diego,OAI-PMH Harvest,U.S. Military Academy at West Point
Place Name
California
(states),
educational facilities: United Stats Military Academy West Point
(geographic subject),
military areas: Naval Air Station North Island
(geographic subject),
New York
(states),
San Diego
(city or populated place)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Breisch, Kenneth A. (
committee chair
), Hise, Greg (
committee member
), Thomas, Joseph B., Jr. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sharonls@usc.edu,smithbovee@cox.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1928
Unique identifier
UC1128049
Identifier
etd-Smith-2493 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-146401 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1928 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Smith-2493.pdf
Dmrecord
146401
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Smith, Sharon Lynn
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue
cultural resource management
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego
military installation
North Island Naval Air Station, San Diego
U.S. Military Academy at West Point