University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

(USC Thesis Other)

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PRESERVING CALIFORNIA CITY:
AN EXPLORATION INTO THE CITY PLAN PRESERVATION
OF A MID-CENTURY, MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY

by

Micaela Cortez Torres-Gil

_____________________________________________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

August 2015

COPYRIGHT 2015 Micaela Cortez Torres-Gil

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
If there is one thing I am sure of, this thesis could not and would not have been
completed without the help, guidance and encouragement of an amazing group of people. First,
my thesis chair: Trudi Sandmeier, who made this process less scary, more manageable and even,
dare I say it, smooth. But even beyond this past year as I worked on my thesis, Trudi has truly
been an inspiring mentor and leader throughout my time in the program. I am forever grateful for
the opportunity I received to complete this program, in which I was able to learn things I never
knew, and explore things I never thought I’d have the chance to explore.
I had such a strong group of people behind me as I worked on this thesis. Filling out my
committee were Jay Platt and Katie Horak, the most reliable and knowledgeable committee
members I could have asked for. Jay’s guidance into the world of preservation planning was a
crucial to this thesis, and his hard questions made my thesis stronger and more coherent. Katie
gave me tremendous insight into the role of significance and context within this thesis, and
helped me flesh out some of the most important concepts. Their help, on this thesis and during
my entire two years in the program, has been invaluable.
Beyond my committee I’d also like to give a special and whole-hearted thank you to
Jennifer Wood, mayor of California City. Ms. Wood has been the most welcome and
accommodating host upon my exploration into California City; her excitement for my
involvement with the city and my work on this thesis kept me writing during even the worst of
my writer’s block. I am so grateful for the road trips she took me on, and the anecdotes that came
with them. I hope this thesis is as helpful to her as she was to me.
Finally, I’d like to thank those closest to home, without whose love and support I would
not be here. My parents have given me constant support, in every way imaginable, throughout
these past two years. Thank you for always picking up the phone when I drove home late from
class, assuring me when I felt lost, and having confidence in me when mine wavered. As for
Alex, thank you for always being there to put a smile on my face, and for keeping me a sane
human being.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
i. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
i.I The Plan .......................................................................................................................... 1
i.2 Master Planned Communities ........................................................................................ 2
i.3 Thesis ............................................................................................................................. 3
1. A BRIEF CONTEXT OF PLANNING IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ..................... 6
1.1 Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement ...................................................... 7
1.2 Clarence Stein, the RPAA and Radburn ....................................................................... 8
1.3 The Greenbelt Communities ....................................................................................... 12
1.4 Garden Apartments ..................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Recreational Planning ................................................................................................. 16
2. EVENTS AND OCCURRENCES IN TWENTIETH CENTURY SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.1 World War II and Planning ......................................................................................... 20
2.2 Industry, Production and the Defense Worker ............................................................ 22
2.3 Housing for the Population Boom .............................................................................. 23
2.4 Transportation and the Automobile ............................................................................ 25
2.5 Other Occurrences ...................................................................................................... 26
2.6 We Can Do Anything .................................................................................................. 28
3. CHOOSING CALIFORNIA CITY ................................................................................... 30
3.1 “Pre-History” .............................................................................................................. 30
3.2 Nat K. Mendelsohn ..................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Community Facilities Planners ................................................................................... 34
3.4 Initial Planning for California City ............................................................................. 36
iv

4. THE LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF CALIFORNIA CITY ............................................... 43
4.1 General and Schematic Land Use Plans ..................................................................... 44
4.2 Recreational Parks and Centers .................................................................................. 55
4.3 Schools and Other Institutional Spaces ....................................................................... 67
4.4 Residential Design ...................................................................................................... 73
4.5 Senior Citizens in California City ............................................................................... 88
4.6 Industry ....................................................................................................................... 94
4.7 Commercial Districts ................................................................................................ 100
4.8 Ancillary Features ..................................................................................................... 102
4.9 Landscape Features ................................................................................................... 105
5. CALIFORNIA CITY: THEN AND NOW ..................................................................... 108
5.1 General and Schematic Land Use Plans ................................................................... 109
5.2 Recreational Parks and Centers ................................................................................ 117
5.3 Schools and Other Institutional Spaces ..................................................................... 133
5.4 Residential Design .................................................................................................... 141
5.5 Senior Citizens in California City ............................................................................. 159
5.6 Industry ..................................................................................................................... 161
5.7 Commercial Districts ................................................................................................ 165
5.8 Ancillary Features ..................................................................................................... 170
5.9 Landscape Features ................................................................................................... 174
5.10 Evaluation of California City’s Resources ............................................................. 175
6. PRESERVING CALIFORNIA CITY’S PLAN, TODAY .............................................. 177
6.1 Opportunities for Plan Protection ............................................................................. 177
6.2 Plan Preservation as a Tool for Development ........................................................... 184
7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 193
APPENDIX A: Shortened Timeline of Design Endeavors by Whitney Smith
and the Smith and Williams’ Firm ...................................................................................... 203
APPENDIX B: Existing Smith and Williams’ Resources in California City ..................... 207
APPENDIX C: Galileo Park Map from California City’s
Final General Plan 2009-2028 ............................................................................................ 213
v

LIST OF FIGURES
i.1 City boundaries of California City ..................................................................................... 4
1.1 Ebenezer Howard’s Town-Country Magnet ...................................................................... 8
1.2 Separation between automobiles and pedestrians in Radburn ......................................... 11
2.1 City of Los Angeles Master Plan Summary .................................................................... 21

3.1 California City’s Cotton Crop, ca. 1960 .......................................................................... 31
3.2 Nat K. Mendelsohn .......................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Extents of California City, CA ......................................................................................... 38
3.4 The “creation myth” for California City (1) .................................................................... 39
3.5 The “creation myth” for California City (2) .................................................................... 40
3.6 California City road infrastructure ................................................................................... 41
4.1 Smith and Williams’ Inter-Intra Space Diagram for California City .............................. 45
4.2 Smith and Williams’ Schematic Land Use Plan for California City ............................... 46

4.3 Smith and Williams’ Traffic Diagram for California City .............................................. 48
4.4 Smith and Williams’ General Plan for California City .................................................... 51
4.5 General Plan detail ........................................................................................................... 52
4.6 General Plan legend ......................................................................................................... 52
4.7 Intersection of California City Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard ................................. 54
4.8 A vision for “Wonderland Park” ...................................................................................... 57
4.9 Postcard of Central Park Lake ......................................................................................... 58
4.10 Central Park Lake with a cascading waterfall .................................................................. 59

4.11 Postcard of Central Park Lake Waterfall ......................................................................... 60
4.12 Central Park Bathhouse .................................................................................................... 61
4.13 Central Park Lake Pavilion .............................................................................................. 62
4.14 Smith and Williams’ Site Plan for Galileo Park ............................................................... 64
4.15 Galileo Park Site Plan detail (1) ........................................................................................ 65
4.16 Galileo Park Site Plan detail (2) ....................................................................................... 66
4.17 Map showing potential school/park sites within California City ..................................... 69
4.18 South façade of Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School ...................................................... 70

4.19 Smith and Williams’ drawing of California City Congregational Church ...................... 71
4.20 Exterior photograph of California City Congregational Church ...................................... 72
4.21 Interior photograph of California City Congregational Church ....................................... 73
4.22 Smith and Williams Diagram of the Atrium (Walled Garden) home typology ............... 75
4.23 Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Town House Village typology .............................. 76
4.24 Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Patio-Town House typology ................................. 77

4.25 Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Neighbor-Oriented house typology ...................... 78
4.26 Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Park-Oriented house typology .............................. 79
4.27 Advertisement of California City housing models .......................................................... 81
4.28 Smith and Williams’ “The Geneva” plan ........................................................................ 82
4.29 Sketch of “The Constance” home model ......................................................................... 82
4.30 Sketch of “The Garda” or “The Geneva” model .............................................................. 83
4.31 Interior photo of “The Como” model ............................................................................... 84
4.32 Smith and Williams’ Illustration of Eastlake Condominium ........................................... 85

4.33 Smith and Williams’ Site Plan for Fairway Estates ......................................................... 86
vi

4.34 Smith and Williams’ Diagrams for various parklet strategies ......................................... 87
4.35 Location of Older Adult Area west of Central Park Area ................................................ 90
4.36 “California City’s Uniquely Planned Older Adult Area” ................................................. 91
4.37 Garden apartment sketch ................................................................................................... 93
4.38 Illustration of Older Adult Area as it was envisioned ...................................................... 93
4.39 Map of California City Industry ...................................................................................... 97
4.40 Drawing of the proposed California City Airpark Village .............................................. 99

4.41 Aerial View of the Airpark Village ................................................................................. 99
4.42 Smith and Williams’ Elevation and sign for California City Municipal Airport ........... 100
4.43 California City’s first commercial center, Aspen Mall .................................................. 102
4.44 Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (1) ..................................... 103

4.45 Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (2) ..................................... 104
4.46 Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (3) ..................................... 104
4.47 Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the evolution of California City’s Wash ................... 105
4.48 Illustration of California City built-out .......................................................................... 106
5.1 General Plan overlay on Google Aerial map of California City .................................... 110
5.2 California City program today ....................................................................................... 111

5.3 Desert views in California City ...................................................................................... 113
5.4 California City Boulevard directing views east toward desert buttes ............................ 114
5.5 Local street patterns in California City .......................................................................... 115
5.6 Local street patterns in undeveloped areas of California City ....................................... 116
5.7 Central Park pavilion and winged parasols .................................................................... 119
5.8 Central Park waterfall and bridge .................................................................................. 120
5.9 Central Park bridge and fishing pond ............................................................................ 120
5.10 Central Park Bathhouse .................................................................................................. 121

5.11 Central Park Lake and new recreation center ................................................................ 121
5.12 California City Central Park program in 2015 ............................................................... 122
5.13 Central Park Overlay ...................................................................................................... 123
5.14 Galileo Park Site Plan Detail .......................................................................................... 124
5.15 Aerial of Galileo Park today ........................................................................................... 125
5.16 Original layout of Galileo Park detail ............................................................................. 126
5.17 Comparison of original layout of Galileo Park to current layout .................................. 127
5.18 Galileo Park barns .......................................................................................................... 128

5.19 Galileo Park petting zoo ................................................................................................. 128
5.20 Galileo Park tipi in campgrounds ................................................................................... 129
5.21 Galileo Park administration building .............................................................................. 130
5.22 Smith and Williams’ south elevation of Galileo Park administration building ............. 130
5.23 Galileo Park observation tower ...................................................................................... 131
5.24 Galileo Park hilltop stage remnants ............................................................................... 132

5.25 Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School overhang detail .................................................... 134
5.26 Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School sunshade .............................................................. 135
5.27 Hacienda Elementary School ......................................................................................... 135
5.28 Remnant of California City Congregational Church ..................................................... 137
5.29 California City Community Church ............................................................................... 138
5.30 Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church ........................................................................... 139
5.31 Ghost of Sierra-View Estates ......................................................................................... 141
vii

5.32 Smith and Williams’ Site Plan for Fairway Estates ....................................................... 143

5.33 Fairways Estates today ................................................................................................... 143
5.34 Unused parklet spaces in Fairway Estates ..................................................................... 145
5.35 Parklet spaces used as residential lots in Fairway Estates .............................................. 145
5.36 Example of a “play street” in Fairway Estates ................................................................ 147
5.37 Presence of “play street’ today in Fairway Estates ........................................................ 148
5.38 Tract map showing wash with pedestrian walkway highlighted ................................... 149
5.39 Wash and pedestrian walkway ....................................................................................... 150
5.40 Pedestrian walkway across wash today ......................................................................... 151

5.41 Pedestrian walkway today .............................................................................................. 152
5.42 Two Como home models ................................................................................................ 153
5.43 Two-story house locations in Fairway Estates ................................................................ 154
5.44 Two-Story houses in Fairway Estates today .................................................................. 155
5.45 Lakeshore/Eastlake Condominiums location today ........................................................ 156

5.46 Lakeshore/Eastlake Condominiums site aerial detail ..................................................... 157
5.47 Lakeshore Condominiums parkway today ...................................................................... 158
5.48 Lakeshore Condominiums today ................................................................................... 159
5.49 Programming in Older Adult Area today ........................................................................ 160
5.50 Current major California City industries ....................................................................... 162
5.51 California City Municipal Airport and Industrial Park today ........................................ 163

5.52 California City Municipal Airport ................................................................................. 164
5.53 California City Boulevard commercial districts/centers ................................................ 165
5.54 Aspen Mall ...................................................................................................................... 167
5.55 Back alley of Aspen Mall ............................................................................................... 167
5.56 Office in Aspen Mall ..................................................................................................... 168
5.57 Area originally dedicated to the California City Central Business District ................... 169
5.58 California City Fire Department .................................................................................... 170
5.59 Original Galileo Park signage ........................................................................................ 171

5.60 Likely original apartment signage ................................................................................. 172
5.61 Recent city entrance signage ........................................................................................... 173
5.62 Recent Central Park signage ........................................................................................... 173
5.63 Mendiburu Road showing remnants of separate lanes and medians ............................. 174

viii

LIST OF TABLES

4.1 California City Industry ................................................................................................... 96
5.1 Summary of Recreation Parks in California City .......................................................... 118
5.2 Church Sites ................................................................................................................... 140

ix

ABSTRACT
Plan preservation has been a preservation tool for decades, but it is not often used, and
even less understood. How it can be used or where it should be used remain unclear to many
within the field. This thesis explores the possibilities of preserving a city plan using California
City, CA, as a case study. California City is a mid-twentieth-century, master-planned city
designed by noted architecture firm Smith and Williams in association with the Community
Facilities Planners, and located in the Mojave Desert. Imagined as a city to rival Los Angeles, it
never fully developed. However, because of what was actually built or designed, the central city
contains intriguing remnants of an important past, one shared by many master-planned
communities designed after World War II. This thesis investigates California City’s intended
design versus its current landscape in an effort to determine what needs protecting, and how one
would do so. It concludes that while plan preservation in California City may not be the best tool
available, analysis of the original master plan offers many lessons. Plan preservation in
California City can and should be seen as a tool for future development, rather than a hindrance
to it. Furthermore, planned cities approaching or surpassing the fifty-year mark will need to be
evaluated and protected, and plan preservation may be an effective strategy.
1

i. INTRODUCTION

i.1 The Plan
There are many ways to identify and protect historic resources. There are surveys, which
find the potential resources; designations, which recognize them as significant; and regulations,
which ensure they are maintained and their integrity is not compromised. Some of these efforts,
such as surveys, are more proactive in recognizing resources; by identifying a potential resource
ahead of time, there is a more likely chance that it may be protected in the future. However,
whether intentionally or not, preservationists often react once something becomes endangered.
This leaves many resources vulnerable to future development.
In the United States, the field of heritage conservation and tools such as designation and
incentives are structured under the umbrella of preservation planning, as identified by the
National Park Service (NPS). The NPS defines preservation planning as “the rational, systematic
process by which a community develops a vision, goals and priorities for the preservation of its
historic and cultural resources.”
1
The action of preservation planning is implemented after
historic resources have already been identified and been assigned a cultural or historical meaning.
By preparing a plan to protect the resources, the hope is that future development will not destroy
them, and their stories can be passed on to future generations. This system, while not foolproof,
has led to many successes in heritage conservation. However, as the field advances, the extent of
what needs protection and how it should be protected has understandably broadened. For
example, heritage conservation now identifies not only individual resources, but also districts
and landscapes. It is becoming more clear that in heritage conservation, protection of the larger
whole—the setting, the context, the community—can be just as, if not more, important than
protecting the individual resource. Therefore, one resource that needs further discussion is the
element that organizes all the smaller pieces – a city’s (or community’s) master plan. What
happens when the plan itself is the entity that is significant and needs protecting? Can protecting
the plan be a proactive tool to ensure protection of resources in the future?

1
“Historic Preservation Planning Program,” National Park Service, accessed December 15, 2014,
http://www.nps.gov/preservation-planning/.
2
Frederick Law Olmsted, “Introduction,” in City Planning, ed. John Nolen, (New York: Appleton and Company,
2

i.2 Master Planned Communities
One of the United States’ most noted planners, Frederick Law Olmsted, explained, “City
planning is the attempt to exert a well-considered control on behalf of the people of a city over
the development of their physical environment as a whole.”
2
More simply, it is understanding the
idea of how a community should develop and what should go where. This thesis will analyze the
idea of the city plan as utilized in master-planned communities. Master-planned communities are
one type of planned community; in technical terms, the American Planning Association (APA)
classifies a planned community as a “planned unit development” (PUD).
3
The APA considers a
master-planned community as an extreme case of clustered PUDs, where the plan “involves
substantial acreage and combines employment, office, retail, and entertainment centers with
associated self-contained neighborhoods.”
4
Authors George Hjelte and Jay Sanford Shivers
consider master-planning as a dynamic process, one that “suggests neither conclusiveness nor
finality.”
5
It should guide development based on extensive research and an understanding of the
site and community.
Master planned communities are not uncommon to the United States, and date as far back
as the sixteenth century, as in the case of St. Augustine, Florida. Other examples over the course
of history include Jamestown, New Haven, Williamsburg, and Savannah. However, in the mid-
nineteenth century, master planned communities became especially prevalent, due to in-
migration between states, and subsequent increased populations in need of housing. As the idea
of this community typology developed, and more master planned communities were constructed,
developers had to become more creative with how to attract people to these new places. At the
same time, they also became the canvas in which noted players in design professions, such as
architecture, landscape architecture and planning, could experiment with ideas and
unprecedented designs.
The extent to which development teams planned these communities is truly remarkable.
In many, everything in the community could be strategically laid out, from the assignment of

2
Frederick Law Olmsted, “Introduction,” in City Planning, ed. John Nolen, (New York: Appleton and Company,
1929), 1.
3
“Quicknotes: Understanding Planned Unit Development,” American Planning Association, no. 22, accessed
December 15, 2014, https://www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/pdf/QN22.pdf.
4
Ibid.
5
Jay Sanford Shivers and George Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press, 1971), 121.
3

public and private spaces to the design of a lamppost or road sign, in order to create a sense of
unity and comfort. As both a “type of development and a process,” a successful planned
community would need to provide for the needs of the people and be a pleasant place to live.
6

Unfortunately in some instances, the outcomes of these developments fail to reflect this initial
creativity or drive for greatness. This is to be expected. With changing social, political and
economic factors, the needs of the people often change the way a city develops. Arguably, it is
impossible for a small team to predict the growth of a large community of thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of people. But as a community evolves, the original planned spaces and
unique built resources may be threatened or completely lost. It seems logical that the security of
the original plan can be used as a tool for both protection and development. This would ensure
that valuable spaces and places are not endangered as the city grows organically.
This idea is not revolutionary to heritage conservation in the United States, but it also
hasn’t been embraced. This is because the idea itself is tricky, and many questions arise from its
implications. First, how does one even protect a plan? Is the idea too stifling, restricting a city to
a certain path of development instead of letting it grow naturally and in response to the people’s
needs? In contrast, what is the point of a city plan if not to follow it? Is the work of the original
team to be forgotten? Currently, there are few cities whose master plans are specifically
designated as historic in the National Register of Historic Places; perhaps the most well known is
the “L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington, District of Columbia.” While plenty of towns and
communities are designated as historic districts, the plan for Washington, D.C. is designated for
its identity as a plan, and is not considered a historic district. There have been few similar
designations since D.C.’s plan designation in 1997; because of its precedence, it sets up a starting
point for discussing city plan designation in a broader forum. Even more so, it shows how a city
can capitalize on its own history, by protecting its original city plan and using it as a tool for
efficient, but complementary, development.

i.3 Thesis
This thesis aims to present a discussion of the designation and preservation of city plans,
using California City, California as a case study. California City’s history and current state is

6
Daniel R. Mandelker, Designing Planned Communities (Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, Inc., 2010), 2,
http://landuselaw.wustl.edu/BookDPC/Designing%20Planned%20Communities.pdf.
4

much different than that of Washington D.C.’s. Located in Kern County’s Mojave Desert (in the
Antelope Valley), just over 100 miles northeast from Los Angeles, this master-planned city had
its origins only 57 years ago, in 1958. Developer Nat K. Mendelsohn purchased over 80,000
acres in the desert, essentially creating a city out of thin air.
7
He believed the city, incorporated in
1965, would one-day rival Los Angeles. The team of prominent Southern California planners,
architects and landscape architects he assembled intricately planned the city, the concept a mix
of recreational planning and Garden City principles catering to multi-generational families –
from small children to the elderly. When construction began it was heavily documented and
marketed. Much excitement arose about this oasis in the desert, but when momentum slowed a
decade later, few actually moved there. A city designed to house millions of people, now has a
current population of only 14,120 residents.
8
Only a handful of the architects’ original designs
were built, and since their construction, most have been demolished. Streets were graded, paved
and given names but have since eroded, present only as dirt roads. Lots stand empty, the desert
environment slowly overtaking the built one (Figure i.1).

Figure i.1: City Boundaries of California City, California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google.

7
“California City Early Years: 1958-1959,” East Kern Historical Museum Society, accessed April 15, 2015,
http://ekhms.weebly.com/1958---1959.html.
8
“All About California City,” California City, accessed December 15, 2014, http://californiacity.com/about.html;
This number is from the 2010 U.S. Census.
5

Surprisingly, new growth has occurred in areas originally dedicated to similar
programming. Though battered, residential roads are still physically present. Original buildings
spared from demolition peek out beneath layers of stucco. There is still reason to believe that
California City’s original city plan is worth preserving, and an opportunity to discuss how that
could be accomplished. Referencing Washington, D.C.’s plan designation as a precedent, I will
examine California City’s master plan, and understand it architecturally, socially and even
culturally. This thesis will look at the factors influencing the original design of the plan by
prominent Los Angeles architecture firm, Smith and Williams; analyze the original idea through
drawings, diagrams and sketches; evaluate how the city looks today as compared to the original
plan; and discuss whether the preservation of the city’s plan would be beneficial to its future
development. In doing so, this thesis will provide a more comprehensive understanding of plan
designation at any municipal level and can be presented as a tool for city development and
proactive preservation planning.

6

1. A BRIEF CONTEXT OF PLANNING IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

The evolution of city planning in the United States has a long history, spanning over a
century, and originating outside of the U.S. Therefore, before beginning an in-depth analysis of
the design of California City’s master plan, it is important to have a general understanding of the
phases of planning and design that affected California City specifically. California City’s plan
appears to be a product derived from three different phases in Garden City planning, combined
with popular recreational planning principles of the early-to-mid-twentieth century; it is this era
that is arguably one of the most influential times in U.S. planning. It was during this time that
urban planning became an actual profession, and went beyond the ideas of architects or
designers.
9
It was also a time when some felt the need for an “urban cleansing.” That is, planners
began trying to repurpose their cities, giving them a fresh face and rebelling against the harsh,
industrial environments that many had succumbed to.
10
Ebenezer Howard had already proposed a
solution to this in the United Kingdom by 1898. Known as the Garden City Movement, Howard
sought a city that provided ample green, open space, while facilitating a harmony between town
and country. The idea itself was physically implemented in only a handful of situations in the
U.K. However the concept became of increasing fascination and interest, especially within the
United States. This second phase of Garden City planning continued with Clarence S. Stein. An
admirer of Howard’s, Stein adapted the principles of the movement to the urban conditions of the
U.S.
11
Stein organized a team of urban professionals (and friends) into the Regional Planning
Association of America (RPAA) to help brainstorm and implement ways to make America’s
cities better. The RPAA worked from 1923-1933 on different planning projects; like the Garden
City Movement in the U.K., few were completed in the States, but those that were have left us
with a vast amount of information about this period in urban planning history.
12
Furthermore, the
projects and the ideas implemented provided a foundation for another wave of planning projects
around the mid-twentieth century. Urban planners and developers again adapted Garden City
principles into master-planned cities developed in response to changing conditions including

9
Kenneth Breisch, Class Lecture, Architecture 553: History of American Architecture and Urbanism, USC, Los
Angeles, November 24, 2014.
10
Kenneth Breisch, Class Lecture, Architecture 553: History of American Architecture and Urbanism, USC, Los
Angeles, November 17 and 24, 2014.
11
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Architecture View: Clarence Stein—The Champion of the Neighborhood,” New York
Times, January 16, 1977.
12
Kermit C. Parsons, “Collaborative Genius: The Regional Planning Association of America,” Journal of the
American Planning Association 60, no. 4 (1994): 462.
7

increasing industry, population booms, and an interest in architectural experimentation. This
final phase of Garden City planning in the 1930s and 1940s can be seen in the design of the
Greenbelt communities of Maryland, Ohio and Wisconsin. It was also adapted on the West Coast
in superblock, garden apartment communities such as Baldwin Hills Village. California City’s
master plan is an amalgamation of these three phases of planning, in combination with planning
principles catering to recreation and leisure. Planners and designers, such as Wayne R. Williams
of Smith and Williams, believed that recreation was crucial to the social, mental and emotional
health of the general population and, therefore, it must be integrated into all design and planning
projects. This chapter will give a brief overview of these planning principles, which will later
become more apparent in the exploration of California City’s master plan.

1.1 Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement
In response to a region that had been overcome with pollution, overcrowding, ill health,
and city plans that no longer fit social and physical needs, Ebenezer Howard visualized a city
that would contain clusters of self-sufficient communities protected by greenbelts of open,
natural space.
13
While he was an advocate for rural life, he understood that many people who had
flocked to urban city centers in the later part of the nineteenth century could not be easily enticed
back to rural environments. Therefore, he needed to create a city that could provide urban and
rural advantages, a harmonious relationship between town and country.
14
He envisioned a
diagram of three magnets, Town, Country and Town-Country, and listed the qualities of each.
Through this diagram, Howard found that, while Town and Country provided both advantages
and disadvantages to dwellers, “…neither the Town magnet nor the Country magnet represents
the full plan and purpose of nature. Human society and the beauty of nature are meant to be
enjoyed together.”
15
This resulting magnet represents the social, economic and physical
advantages of both the Town and County magnets (Figure 1.1).

13
Parsons, “Collaborative Genius,” 478.
14
Molly Timmins MacKean, “Greenbelt America: A New Deal Vision for Suburban Public Housing” (PhD Diss.,
Northwestern University, 2013), 38.
15
Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Reprint, London: Faber and Faber, 1946, 17.
8

Figure 1.1: Ebenezer Howard’s Town-Country Magnet, Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Reprint, London: Faber and
Faber, 1946, 16.

1.2 Clarence Stein, the RPAA and Radburn
In early-twentieth century United States, Americans began to become entranced with
picturesque street design and landscapes, such as those of Andrew Downing and Frederick Law
Olmsted.
16
They saw images of how these carefully calculated landscapes, with rolling hillsides,
winding roads, handsome trees and gothic cottages, could create beautiful visual effects.
17
The
ideas for Howard’s Garden City fit well within this picturesque identity, which included curving
streets, vegetation and both a visual and physical separation between automobiles and

16
Michael Southworth and Eran Ben-Joseph, “Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia,” Journal of the
American Planning Association 61, no. 1 (1995): 66.
17
Breisch, Lecture.
9

pedestrians.
18
This became an attractive idea for many Americans, who felt their cities were
following in the footsteps of those in the U.K. and succumbing to “social and moral
degeneration.”
19
Many planners and designers began to think of ways to plan towns that
encompassed these new ideals, and that would be rid of the toxic social standards that could be
seen in the urban metropolis. Urban planner Clarence Stein’s response was “to connect a diverse
group of friends in a critical examination of the city, in the collaborative development and
dissemination of ideas, in political action and in city building projects.”
20
While many people
filtered in and out between 1923 and 1933, the group’s active years, the core five members
consisted of Clarence Stein, Benton MacKaye, Alexander Bing, Lewis Mumford, and Henry
Wright.
21
The men created different commissions that focused on different types of planning
projects. While the group worked on many different types of planning projects, Stein and Wright
took on the idea to experiment with Garden City planning, with an intent to “bridge the gaps
between the city, the suburbs, and the open region.”
22
Their work resulted in two garden city
projects: Sunnyside Gardens in New York and Radburn in New Jersey. Stein acknowledged that
Radburn diverts somewhat from the Garden City principles as Howard had envisioned them, but
today it is recognized as one of the few communities in the country that most resembles a Garden
City.
23
Though many of Howard’s ideas seemed to get lost in transition from the U.K. to the
United States, it is still important to understand how the RPAA envisioned their own Garden
City, because it provides the foundation for the post-war, master-planned communities of the
mid-twentieth century.
Radburn, New Jersey is often considered a “successful failure,” even by Stein himself.
24

This is in part due to the fact that it was envisioned in 1929, just before the stock market crashed
and the Great Depression hit.
25
While many ideas were envisioned for Garden Cities in general,
many could not be financially carried out. Another reason for its “failure” may have been the
adaptation of the original Garden City principles to fix the issues found significant by the RPAA.

18
Southworth and Ben-Joseph, “Street Standards,” 67.
19
Southworth and Ben-Joseph, “Street Standards,” 67.
20
Parsons, “Collaborative Genius,” 465.
21
Ibid, 462 and 463.
22
Southworth and Ben-Joseph, “Street Standards,” 71.
23
Clarence S. Stein, “Towards New Towns for America,” The Town Planning Review 20, no. 3, (1949), 204.
24
MacKean, “Greenbelt America,” 74.
25
“Introduction,” Radburn: A Town for the Motor Age, accessed November 28, 2014, http://www.radburn.org/;
Stein, “Towards New Towns”, 219.
10

Radburn was considered a community designed for the motor age, because one of the highest
priorities was to separate pedestrians from motor vehicles. Because of this, Radburn arguably
could be considered a transitional city—one between a Garden City and a New Town.
26
Stein
explains:
In our minds’ eye we still had the theme that Ebenezer Howard had created so
vividly…We believed thoroughly in green belts, and towns of a limited size
planned for work as well as living…We did not fully recognize that our main
interest after our Sunnyside experience had transferred to a more pressing need,
that of a town in which people could live peacefully with the automobile—or
rather in spite of it.
27

This thinking almost became unique to the problems faced in the United States, and this type of
planning can be seen in other types of developments such as Central Park in Manhattan. The
solution was known as the “superblock,” in which topography, site and landscape became a
canvas for streets to be easily developed and mapped out.
28
This strategy made it easier to
separate vehicles and pedestrians. In the superblock tradition, cars were restricted to the
perimeteres of neighborhoods, while open green space ran through the blocks as continuous park
spaces.
29
Among the superblock, other elements of the “Radburn Plan” included specialized
roads (designed to have a specific function), houses turned inwards towards parks and gardens,
rather than outwards towards the street, and parks that acted as the backbone to the superblocks.
30

Unfortunately, some elements that Howard advocated for, such as the greenbelt, were sacrificed.
Radburn was planned as a system of three neighborhoods with a combined population of 25,000,
and the area proved too small to support a greenbelt.
31
Furthermore, only two of the three
neighborhoods were even started, and neither was ever fully completed.
32
Stein and Wright’s
experiences with Radburn, as well as the future issues that Stein and other planners had while
working on the greenbelt communities of the 1930s, illustrate the challenges of adapting Garden
City guidelines to a completely different region of the world.
33
While Howard’s ideas were
welcomed by planners of the RPAA (Stein proclaimed himself a “disciple” of Howard), they

26
Stein, “Towards New Towns”, 223.
27
Ibid, 220-221.
28
Ibid, 221.
29
Ibid., 224-226.
30
Stein, “Towards New Towns,” 224-226.
31
Stein, “Towards New Towns,” 221-222.
32
Ibid, 232.
33
These greenbelt communities include Greenbelt, Maryland, Greenhills, Ohio, and Greendale, Wisconsin.
11

were forced to accept and evolve the successful results of these cities in ways that were more
appropriate to the circumstances in the United States.
34

Fortunately, there were successes among the failures at Radburn. The community turned
out to be incredibly safe, due to the separation of automobiles and pedestrians. At the time Stein
wrote “Towards New Towns for America” in The Town Planning Review, in which he detailed
his experiences planning Sunnyside Gardens and Radburn, there had only been two road deaths
in the community, only one of which was between a vehicle and a pedestrian.
35
Radburn had
successfully incorporated elements to separate these two entities, such as overpasses and
underpasses, which not only provided safe passage around the community, but also acted as
points of reference for citizens (Figure 1.3).
36

Figure 1.2: This photo captures the separation between automobiles and pedestrians in Radburn. Pedestrians use
pathways under the bridges while cars use separate roadways. Clarence S. Stein, “Towards New Towns for
America, ” The Town Planning Review 20, no. 3, (Oct. 1949), Plate 42.

34
Stein, “Towards New Towns,” 204.
35
Stein, “Towards New Towns,” 233.
36
Ibid, 234-235.
12

Radburn also successfully integrated recreational spaces into its plan. The planners placed
emphasis on recreation by centering the neighborhoods around elementary schools and
playgrounds.
37
They also constructed two swimming pools that became the “centers for outdoor
life in the summer.”
38
Ultimately, the development of Radburn (and the future greenbelt
communities) instilled a set of main principles that became basic to good planning: separation of
pedestrians and vehicles, superblocks with green space, cul-de-sacs, footpaths and overpasses,
relation of outdoor spaces to indoor ones, shared common land and a town center, and places for
recreation and leisure activities.
39

1.3 The Greenbelt Communities
Radburn could not be completed as it was envisioned because the financial backing for
the project was affected when the world fell into an economic depression. Other greenbelt
communities were eventually created between 1935 and 1937 by Rexford Guy Tugwell, as part
of the New Deal Resettlement Administration, which was developed in response to the Great
Depression to provide employment.
40
These communities were smaller than those of Sunnyside
Gardens and Radburn, due to the idea that there could be many smaller Garden Cities “scattered
across the landscape.”
41
These communities—Greenbelt, Maryland, Greendale, Wisconsin and
Greenhills, Ohio—were based on the Garden City model, though advertised as more affordable
and better planned, with more public and green spaces.
42
Unfortunately, in reality they became
“the meager remnants of a far larger project: the remaking of the American landscape envisioned
by individuals like [Rexford Guy Tugwell]…and by the members of the RPAA before him.”
43

Though 3,000 greenbelt towns were envisioned by Tugwell, only three were actually constructed,
and only partially at that.
44

37
Ibid, 231.
38
Ibid, plate 40.
39
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Architecture View: Clarence Stein—The Champion of the Neighborhood,” New York
Times, January 16, 1977.
40
MacKean, “Greenbelt America,” 3.
41
Ibid, 14.
42
MacKean, “Greenbelt America,” 9.
43
Ibid, 18.
44
Ibid, 18. Tugwell left while the greenbelt communities were under construction, so much of the original form of
the towns was lost.
13

In its marketing, the Resettlement Administration (RA) linked the greenbelt design to
major players in the Garden City Movement, including Ebenezer Howard and the RPAA.
45
Like
previous garden cities, Greenbelt communities were designed to enable community development,
and were intended to have open, social spaces in order to “guarantee healthy growth patterns.”
46

Author Molly Timmins MacKean explains, “The greenbelt communities constituted not simply
an alternate physical planning model, but also a whole new social and economic order with
which to house the nation.”
47
Greenbelt, Maryland is credited with being the most fully
envisioned and the most similar to the RPAA’s plans for Radburn. Designed around the
superblock, Greenbelt featured row housing and pedestrian networks similar to that of Radburn,
while Greendale and Greenhills were designed more like traditional suburbs.
48
MacKean also
explains, “In Greenbelt, the RA therefore came close to realizing the kind of environment for
social learning that the RPAA had sought to establish at Radburn.”
49
However, one problem that
the RA began to discover was that it was difficult to adapt their Garden City plan to the different
sites selected. Therefore, each community was interpreted and designed in a very different way,
and designs were compromised.
50
For example, while Greenbelt was able to take advantage of
pedestrian networks and open spaces, Greenhills provided many challenges for design. For that
site, “the town’s designers struggled to provide the public spaces, clustered homes, and
pedestrian networks that made Greenbelt, Maryland so famous a site for social learning.”
51
The
topography made it difficult to construct superblocks and clustered dwellings; while the site
provided scenic views, it did not provide a stable terrain.
52
In combination with budget
constraints, Greenhills had to greatly sacrifice Garden City principles as defined by the RPAA.
53

Also like Radburn, construction for these communities began before the RA completed
fully formed community plans.
54
This ambitious approach, as well as the timing of the
communities being constructed during the Great Depression, contributed to the “successful

45
Ibid, 102.
46
Ibid, 90.
47
Ibid, 21.
48
MacKean, “Greenbelt America,” 118-119 and 19-20.
49
Ibid, 121.
50
Ibid, 118.
51
Ibid, 130.
52
Ibid, 127-128.
53
Ibid, 135-136 and 138.
54
MacKean, “Greenbelt America,” 116.
14

failure” of the RA’s greenbelt methodology.
55
While more than 100 cities were initially selected
to house greenbelt communities implemented by the RA, the number decreased to twenty-five,
then five and finally three. Similarly, the number of housing units in each community decreased
as well.
56
However, despite the seemingly large number of failures in regards to the greenbelt
communities, MacKean reasons that “all three greenbelt communities nonetheless constituted an
unprecedented federal venture into the planning of public communities.”
57
Again like Radburn,
the greenbelt communities contributed greatly to how Garden City planning was interpreted,
implemented and accepted in the United States.

1.4 Garden Apartments
Garden City planning principles also made a transition to the West Coast during and after
World War II, particularly to Southern California, where there was a need for higher density
housing due to a major population boom. Greg Hise, author of Magnetic Los Angeles, states that
war-driven population growth in California was 1.5 million people. Los Angeles alone
experienced a boom of 301,410 residents, a 20% increase from the preceding decade.
58
Southern
California-specific housing response came in the form of garden apartment communities. Post-
war garden apartments evolved as a “paradigm of the planning principles of the RPAA,” offering
higher density buildings, with less green space and more opportunities for recreation.
59
While the
design of these spaces again lost the expression of some Garden City principles due to different
needs in Southern California, it is important to conclude this Garden City Movement analysis
with garden apartments, since they were likely some of the most significant precedents studied
by the designers of California City.
Just before World War II, some architects in Los Angeles were experimenting with
Garden City development. This included Reginald D. Johnson and Lewis E. Wilson, who
worked on slum clearance projects, clearing out the Beaudry Street slums and building a new
community in its placed based on the design of Radburn.
60
Architect Lloyd Wright also

55
Ibid, 73-74.
56
Ibid, 73-74.
57
Ibid, 144.
58
Greg Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth—Century Metropolis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1997), 154.
59
Architectural Resources Group, Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement, October 2012, 21.
60
Architectural Resources Group, Garden Apartments, 24.
15

experiment with garden city development in place of slums.
61
By 1938, Stein had traveled to
California, calling for larger future developments with “varied community space.”
62
He consulted
on two housing projects, Carmelitos and Harbor Hills; his Garden City philosophies were
eventually embraced by the federal government and became the design standard for public
housing.
63

In 1941 and 1942, both the City and County Housing Authorities of Los Angeles
constructed sixteen garden apartments, with the intention to fit within a propose Master Plan for
Los Angeles.
64
The garden apartments were designed with superblock site planning whenever
possible, which catered to higher density housing and separation of pedestrian and automobile.
65

Garden City planning principles where implemented when possible, but “federal guidelines on
unit count and cost prohibited the relegation of land to community and recreation facilities and
common green space at a degree comparable to that of pre-war complexes.”
66
Again, the
interpretation of Garden City planning principles were adjusted to react to the needs of the
people—in Southern California, these were World War II defense workers.
The first garden apartment community in Los Angeles, Wyvernwood, was constructed in
1939.
67
However, the Federal Housing Act of 1937 enabled more housing to be constructed post-
World War II.
68
At least twelve garden apartments were constructed in Los Angeles between
1949 and 1950, due to a fear that funding for construction would soon run out.
69
While many
garden apartments were publicly funded, some, such as Baldwin Hills Village (now known as
Village Green), were privately funded and targeted middle-class residents.
70
Stein consulted on
the planning and design of Baldwin Hills Village, which opened in 1941. He considered the
seventy-acre community one where “his tenets came together in their most fully realized form,”
and where the design team was finally able to “tame the car.”
71

61
Architectural Resources Group, Garden Apartments, 24.
62
Ibid, 24-25.
63
Ibid, 24 and 16.
64
Ibid, 25-26.
65
Ibid, 26.
66
Ibid, 27.
67
Ibid, 39.
68
Ibid, 26-27.
69
Ibid, 40.
70
Ibid, 38.
71
Ibid, 38-39.
16

In early garden apartment communities, planning for recreation was seen as a priority for
both children and adults. “For both public housing and privately funded garden apartments,
recreational facilities were considered a vital and integral part of the designs, encouraging
residents to get out into the landscape and interact with one another.”
72
Unfortunately, once the
race for garden apartment construction began in the late 1940s, recreation became a lower
priority, as higher density resulted in less open space.
73
However, while garden apartment
architects lost this focus, other community planners and designers, such as Smith and Williams,
were becoming more interested in recreation-minded planning.

1.5 Recreational Planning
Post-World War II, many developers realized that industry was at an all time high, and
successful communities would need to cater to working people, even more so than Howard had
predicted in his Garden City plan. In particular, wartime aircraft manufacturing for the war:
…led to the creation of new satellite communities around Los Angeles and
Southern California…Home builders anticipated an influx of defense workers
drawn by these employment centers and selected sites in close proximity to new
production facilities for the plotting and construction of new communities. In their
location, design and construction they adhered to the dictates of modern
community planning.
74

As these communities were created, a stronger emphasis was placed on recreation. Architects
and planners advocated for parks and recreation facilities as the social and cultural centers for
neighborhoods.
75
Architect Wayne R. Williams, of architecture firm Smith and Williams,
claimed that these spaces began to become necessities even at the start of World War II, to “ease
the tensions generated by all-out war.”
76
Again, the idea of green open space was adapted to fit
the changing needs of the time. What started as simply getting away from the toxins of the urban,
industrial city in the U.K., grew into a need for safety within communities, which then
transitioned into a need for social and leisure activities.

72
Architectural Resources Group, Garden Apartments, 36.
73
Ibid, 40.
74
Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles, 124-125.
75
Wayne R. Williams, Recreation Places (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1967), 236.
76
Ibid.
17

Planning for recreation can be traced as far back as the 1890s, when it became more
acceptable to preserve open spaces specifically for recreational purposes.
77
As the process
evolved, it became clear that general societal planning was inseparable from recreational
planning.
78
Some even argued that general planning and recreational planning together would
result in master plans, because the social implications of the two went beyond the need to plan
for individual projects.
79
This need also arose because of the belief that in modern community
planning, it was recreational spaces such as parks or playgrounds that were the most sacrificed.
80

Thinking of recreational planning on a larger scale protected these spaces.
Recreational planning was revisited after World War II. During this time, much thought
went into what recreation meant in the modern world; there needed to be room for interpretation
because it began to be considered necessary in daily living. In 1958, the same year California
City was founded, one of its designers, Wayne R. Williams, wrote a book specifically about
designing recreational places: their importance, what they should look like, and how they should
function. He consulted different planners, designers, researchers and educators, who understood
“recreation” in a myriad of ways. John E. Burchard, Dean of Humanities and Social Studies at
M.I.T, defined it as “refreshment of the strength and spirits after toil; diversion; play.”
81
James J.
Cox, Staff Head of the Pasadena Welfare Council claimed, “In general terms, the ultimate goal
of recreation should be to re-create the whole human not only from a physical point of view but
socially and emotionally as well.”
82
George Hjelte, Administrator, Department of Recreation &
Parks at the City of Los Angeles: the “vast collection of activities which are voluntarily engaged
in by all people…” with the intent of creating “a happy and cultured society.”
83
Hjelte also
emphasized that recreation is both objective and subjective, in that it is both the personal
experience of the individual, as well as the subjective reflection on the recreation of others.
84
In
his own book entitled Planning Recreational Places, Hjelte added to his argument, “As progress

77
Jay Sanford Shivers and George Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson
University Press, 1971), 40.
78
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 39.
79
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 22.
80
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 50
81
John E. Burchard, “A Broad Definition,” in Recreation Places, Wayne. R. Williams, (New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, 1967), 11.
82
James J. Cox, Recreation Places, “A Broad Definition,” in Recreation Places, Wayne. R. Williams, (New York:
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1967), 39.
83
George Hjelte, “A Broad Definition,” in Recreation Places, Wayne. R. Williams, (New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, 1967), 159.
84
Ibid.
18

is made in educating the public to its own needs, greater emphasis will be placed on the social
role of planning as well as its physical capabilities…”
85
It becomes clear that there was a
sociological approach to recreational planning, because by definition, recreation catered to the
social and emotional tendencies of the human population.
With such a heavy emphasis on recreational spaces in city and community planning,
players like Hjelte and Williams developed a broad set of principles in recreational planning.
Recreational experiences or services should be:
• “…essential in the daily lives of people.”
• “…a vital function of government at all levels.”
• “…available to all of the people.”
• “…controlled development of all resources.”
86

By designing places based on these principles, designers and planners could ensure that the
resulting communities would enrich peoples’ quality of living “through the constructive use of
leisure…”
87
Williams and Hjelte both agreed that in all types of planning the needs of the people
were the most important and that planners should focus on making neighborhoods livable, where
all peoples’ needs are met.
88
This would be most successfully accomplished by planning
communities around buildings and sites that encourage and reinforce leisure activity and
recreation.
In his book Recreation Places, Williams makes extensive predictions about the future of
the United States related to recreation. Particularly, he states, “Productivity will increase
considerably. Leisure time will multiply by about one third.”
89
He also predicts that the
automobile will have a great effect on the evolution of recreation, because with more
automobiles, travel will increase, “largely in pursuit of recreation.”
90
He believed that with an
increase in production, many people would be working and transitioning into different ways of
life, specifically by either changing jobs, moving to new places or meeting new people.
91
This
would make the neighborhood less stable in the future, and recreation was the answer to this

85
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 22.
86
Ibid, 47-48.
87
Williams, Recreation Places, 237.
88
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 41; Williams, Recreation Places, 237.
89
Williams, Recreation Places, 35.
90
Williams, Recreation Places, 235.
91
At the time the book was written, the President’s Commission on Materials Policy was predicting that people
would be working thirty-four hours per week by 1975. So even though productivity would be increasing, time
physically at work would be decreasing, leaving more time for leisure and activities.
19

problem.
92
By integrating recreation into everyday life as a necessity in the form of neighborhood
recreation centers and parks, families would adapt more easily to unfamiliar environments, and
neighborhoods would again stabilize.
93
Williams’ own ambitious goal for the following twenty
years was “to provide the new, larger recreation parks and facilities that will be required; and to
redesign, enlarge or replace some of the existing areas that are no longer ‘good enough.’”
94
One
of Williams’ first attempts at this was the creation of California City.
Another prediction for the future was that people would start retiring at an older age.
95

This meant that cities needed to plan for an influx of seniors, who needed to be kept busy and
integrated in society. This concept wasn’t fully embraced by the general public. People
associated aging with disability, declining energy, cosmetic changes and “the loss of [the] earlier
adult role.” In a document entitled Recreation for our Older Citizens, the North Carolina
Recreation Commission argued that these reasons were exactly why older adults needed
recreation in their lives.
96
Whitney R. Smith, the other half of the architecture firm Smith &
Williams, agreed, “To many people, an equation for later years is: old age= retirement=
recreation= leisure= ’killing time’…Because old age is so closely associated with recreation, it
becomes possible to make recreation a catalyst for a fuller life.”
97
With an increase in the
development of entire retirement communities such as Del Webb’s “Sun City” or Ross Cortese’s
“Leisure World,” it became natural for communities to make recreation a higher priority, in order
to service people of all ages and with many different needs.

92
Williams, Recreation Places, 236.
93
Ibid, 236-237.
94
Ibid, 236.
95
Ibid, 235.
96
Whitney R. Smith, “The Older Adult,” in Recreation Places, Wayne. R. Williams, (New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, 1967), 209.
97
Williams, Recreation Places, 208.
20

2. EVENTS AND OCCURRENCES IN
TWENTIETH CENTURY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Southern California’s transformation in response to World War II made it an incredibly
dynamic place to be in the mid-twentieth century. The effects of the war on Southern
California’s biggest cities, such as Los Angeles and San Diego, created the unique landscapes we
see today, which include not only the densest of areas, but also those that attempted growth,
particularly in outlying regions. Historian Clark Davis explains, “The Second World War
provided the full realization of Southern California’s economic potential, first significantly
tapped in the 1920s.”
98
It was World War II, above all else, that contributed to the economic,
social and cultural consequences that would eventually lead to the creation of California City in
the Mojave Desert. This included an unprecedented population migration throughout the country,
a stronger belief in industry, production and worker culture, and an ever-increasing dependence
on the automobile. With a stabilizing economy and renewed sense of prosperity, developers and
planners felt safe in pushing the boundaries of development into untouched landscapes.

2.1 World War II and Planning
Despite the advances in Garden City planning before World War II, and the emphasis on
leisure and recreation that matured in the 1950s, the action of city planning was actually stunted
during the war and somewhat chaotic immediately after it ended. Though “the war benefited city
planning somewhat, [it] did not create, for city planning, a revolution, transformation, second
Gold Rush, or cataclysmic change.”
99
Between 1941 and 1945, the main stretch of the war, little
to no new planning legislation was created; additionally, city planning became difficult for local
governments because workers were already so overburdened with other tasks (Figure 2.1).
100

When the post-World War II population boom and subsequent housing shortage became
increasingly intense, planning became improvisational, with planners intuitively carving out
parts of the landscape for the buildings and programs needed.
101
Planning in the short term was

98
Clark Davis, “From Oasis to Metropolis: Southern California and the Changing Context of American Leisure,”
Pacific Historical Review 61, No. 3, (1992): 373.
99
Roger W. Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California: City Planning and The Transformation Hypothesis,”
Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (May 1993), p. 145.
100
Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California,” 147, 148.
101
Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California,” 146.
21

incredibly difficult due to “pell mell urbanization.”
102
Fortunately, this only reinforced the
importance of planning in the long-term. Historian Roger Lotchin argues,
The war produced nothing comparable to the garden city, new town zoning,
public housing, or comprehensive planning concepts of earlier eras. To the extent
that the war induced a renaissance in planning thought, it stimulated a burst of
familiar ideas. In neither programmatic nor a conceptual sense did the war
establish the planning agenda for the future.
103

Again, the most important thing the war did for planning was establish that it was direly needed.
This gave planners and developers the ammunition to get projects going.

Figure 2.1 “City of Los Angeles Master Plan Summary” shows that planning for Parks and Recreation, Housing and
Community Redevelopment in Los Angeles were all put on hold or “In process of study” during the war. Roger W.
Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California: City Planning and The Transformation Hypothesis,” Pacific
Historical Review 62, no. 2 (1993): 149.

102
Ibid, 151.
103
Ibid, 167.
22

2.2 Industry, Production and the Defense Worker
Southern California was a place of major industry during and after World War II. In
particular, six major industries provided people with jobs, and helped stabilize the economy after
the Depression: aircraft (being the largest), ships, ordnance, ammunition, metal products, and
machinery.
104
It was this defense industry that caused a great migration to Southern California
during the war, with an estimated 150,000 young workers coming to Los Angeles between 1940
and 1941.
105
Nearly a decade later, between 1950 and 1957, manufacturing employment in the
Los Angeles area had increased by 379,000.
106
The influx of workers related specifically to this
wartime industry resulted in a need for housing that was adjacent to production and employment
sites.
Development of defense worker housing followed a very similar pattern to that of
agricultural worker housing in Southern California’s pre-World War II past. Author Greg Hise
explains,
In short, beginning in 1941, the production technologies and community planning
principles the [Farm Security Administration] had put into practice during the
1930s to create rural new towns for seasonal agricultural workers and their
families were redirected toward the housing of defense workers.
107

He also stressed that defense housing was not a “secondary act,” but was directly related
to industrial production; it not only helped fix production problems by ensuring there
were enough workers but also provided for the social needs of the workers.
108
With
expanding industry, homebuilders and developers sensed the growing need for worker
housing. They strategically “selected sites in close proximity to new production facilities

104
Morrison Handsake, “The Postwar Labor Market in Southern California,” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 222 (1942): 162; It is important to note the importance of the aircraft industry to
Southern California; this breakthrough was so location-specific, and was really the driving force behind industry in
the area. It seemed that many realms—employment, education, and technology—were directly related to the aircraft
industry. Not only did the introduction of the aircraft in wartime industry offer technological breakthroughs, it
insured the economic market because the government made continuing aircraft purchases. Additionally, educational
institutions began offering specialized training related to the aircraft industry, so anyone that came to Southern
California had a chance at employment; see Allen J. Scott and Doreen J. Mattingly, “Aircraft and Parts Industry in
Southern California,” Economic Geography 65, no. 1 (1989), 50.
105
Handsake, “The Postwar Labor Market,” 163.
106
Howard J. Nelson, “The Spread of an Artificial Landscape over Southern California,” Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 49, no. 3, part 2 (1959): 80.
107
Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles, 116.
108
Ibid, 121.
23

for the plotting and construction of new communities.”
109
Large housing tracts developed
in response to this growing need.
110
In big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and San
Diego, these new tracts and communities were aggressively marketed.
111
For example,
Marlow-Burns’ Westside Village project in Los Angeles advertised “super models,” that
promised the “Greatest Galaxy of Modern Features That Ever Embellished a LOW
DOWN PAYMENT HOME Regardless of Cost!!”
112
In the San Fernando Valley, Kaiser
Homes justified the construction of Panorama City as “Building a City…where a City
belongs.”
113

2.3 Housing for the Population Boom
The influence of wartime industry and convenient worker housing contributed to the
unprecedented population boom in Southern California following World War II. This post-war
population boom is an undeniable, contributing factor to Southern California’s evolutionary
history, and another one of the reasons planners and developers felt comfortable in beginning
large-scale projects in various parts of the region. A 1944 report claimed that war-driven
population growth in California estimated an additional 1.5 million residents since the 1940
census.
114
The county of Los Angeles had a population increase of 49% between 1940 and 1950,
and an additional 45% increase the following decade.
115
The city of Los Angeles alone
experienced a 20% increase in population in the 1940s, growing from 1,504,277 residents to
1,970, 358.
116
Population in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area continued to
increase by approximately 263,000 persons per year after 1950.
117
There was no precedent for a
migration such as this in Southern California’s history, and little sense of what was to come.
This boom understandably created a greater need for housing in Southern California, to
accommodate families moving to the area. A Women’s Wear Daily survey estimated that 90% of
those who had moved to Los Angeles during the war planned on staying, three-quarters of them

109
Ibid, 124-125.
110
Merry Ovnick, Los Angeles: The End of the Rainbow (Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 1994), 258.
111
Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles, 125-126.
112
Ibid, 139.
113
Ibid, 212.
114
Ibid, 154.
115
Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 253-254.
116
Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles, 154 and Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California,” 146.
117
Nelson, “Artificial Landscape,” 80.
24

with intentions to build housing.
118
By 1946, only a year after World War II ended, Los Angeles
was in the midst of an extreme housing shortage.
119
Yet while one problem was created, another
was fixed. World War II actually helped the U.S. economy, enabling it to bounce back from the
Depression.
120
In order to ensure there was not a post-war recession, the Los Angeles government
initiated large-scale public works projects, which included housing developments, freeways,
schools and parks.
121
The federal government also instilled the philosophy that “home-ownership
was sound and should be encouraged,” and helped to ensure that people would actually be able
to afford the homes. While the National Housing Act (1934) and the Federal Housing Authority
(FHA) already provided large loans for potential homebuyers, the Servicemen’s Readjustment
Act of 1944, or the GI Bill of Rights, ensured even more opportunities for thousands of veterans
returning from World War II to purchase homes, go back to school and receive unemployment
pay.
122
The GI Bill is estimated to have provided approximately 2.4 million home loans for
World War II veterans between 1944 and 1952.
123
So while “residential construction never
eradicated housing need, the speed of recovery and the number of units begun and completed
each successive year outpaced most forecasts of what home builders would produce.” Southern
California finally had a plan, and that plan was to produce housing, create jobs, and expand
industry and production.
In Southern California, the single-family residence was the default home model in
housing developments. In order to build more quickly, the developer or community builder
would provide buyers with a variety of home models to choose from, while also preparing
subdivided lots for building. Then, “visitors to the model would financially commit themselves
to a selected lot, choosing one of the variants of the floor plan and exterior trim packages from a
set of illustrations.”
124
With an efficient strategy for development, large housing tracts infiltrated
the suburban areas of Los Angeles. When that land filled up, the tracts replaced open areas even
further out, such as Westchester, Panorama City, Covina and Azusa.
125
These rings of

118
Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles, 154.
119
Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 280.
120
Ibid, 254.
121
Ibid, 272.
122
Ibid, 256; “Education and Training,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accessed February 17, 2015,
http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp.
123
“Education and Training.”
124
Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 257.
125
Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 283.
25

development grew increasingly farther from the city center. However, with the growing
popularity of the automobile, and an extensive transportation infrastructure to accommodate it,
these far-reaching, largely undeveloped areas became an attractive opportunity to developers.

2.4 Transportation and the Automobile
The City of Los Angeles first wrote legislation for the construction of freeway systems in
1939; by 1940, the first freeway was constructed.
126
Though the automobile had already been in
use for some time, the implementation of such a widespread network of roadways enabled
people to travel farther, faster. This combination of car and road affected drivers both physically
and mentally. It gave people the physical opportunity to go greater distances, and also instilled
excitement at the idea of being able to accomplish so much more. By the 1940s and 1950s, car
culture in Los Angeles had completely taken over, and been incorporated into many industries,
including film and architecture. It completely altered the landscape, contributing “the sense of
random and rapid movement that marked the cityscape at all hours.”
127

More than anything, the automobile and the accompanying freeway system provided
freedom. In Los Angeles, this meant freedom from rail lines that had previously dictated where
suburban development would occur, since people needed to be able to walk to rail stops.
128
One
article written in 1959 estimated that by that time, 2,750,000 cars were owned in Los Angeles.
129

With this freedom and such a widespread access to the automobile, Los Angeles’ city center
became decentralized, and commerce moved elsewhere. Areas in between former rail stops
became the new homes of residential and commercial development. Author Reyner Banham
argued that the “plains,” these in-between spaces, were where the most interesting aspirations for
land and development occurred and where land was the most manipulated.
130
At the rate that Los
Angeles was growing and at which its landscape was being manipulated in response to the
automobile and the new freeway system, it is understandable that developers would take the risk
of moving further outside the region to entice residents.

126
Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2001), 70; Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 273.
127
Ovnick, The End of the Rainbow, 273.
128
Nelson, “Artificial Landscape,” 95.
129
Ibid.
130
Banham, The Architecture of Four Ecologies, 143.
26

2.5 Other Occurrences
In addition to the most obvious and direct causes of growth in and around Los Angeles,
more subtle occurrences contributed to the general idea that more was better (and possible) in
post-World War II Southern California. For example, tourism resulted from the heightened quest
for leisure and recreation in daily life.
131
In the two decades following the war:
Southern California’s population explosion radically altered the region’s features.
Urbanization and modernization could not destroy the climate, but they did affect
its tranquil and resort-like appeal. Over three and a half million inhabitants and
nearly a million tourists a year now shared the area’s beaches, deserts, and
mountains. Los Angeles had emerged as the major metropolis in western America.
However strong the Ramona myth continued to be, the reality of Southern
California in the 1930s was that of a bustling and rapidly expanding Los
Angeles.
132

The opening of tourism hotspots such as Disneyland (1955) gave people direct access to leisure
activities and resulted in the “modern tourist industry.”
133
Regions used tourism to attract people,
capitalizing on the post-World War II culture of needing “things to do.”
134
Those developers
who planned for recreation in their brand new cities could also incorporate a plan for tourism that
would be economically beneficial.
Another occurrence was the realization that older citizens thrived in warmer, dryer
environments that were designed specifically to meet aging needs. Author Judith Ann Trolander
argues, “age-restricted, active adult communities have played a significant but overlooked role in
some major planning trends since World War II.”
135
This is because some of the biggest age-
restricted communities, those designed specifically for the elderly and constructed in the decades
following World War II, were completely unprecedented. The first ever age-restricted
community was called Youngtown and was constructed in Phoenix in 1954.
136
It’s developer Ben
Schleifer, who had originally moved to Phoenix with the hopes that the dry weather would cure
his asthma, wanted to “create a place where old people could enjoy some autonomy, ‘stay active,

131
Leisure and recreation in response to World War II and in residential planning is discussed more in depth in
Chapter 1.
132
Davis, “From Oasis to Metropolis,” 367.
133
Ibid, 361.
134
Ibid.
135
Judith Ann Trolander, From Sun Cities to the Villages: A History of Active Adult, Age-Restricted Communities
(Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2011), 10.
136
Ibid, 40.
27

live their own lives, and not lose their identity.’”
137
Dell Webb’s Sun City in Phoenix (1960) and
Ross Cortese’s Leisure World in Seal Beach (1960) followed. Again sited in warm, arid
environments, these age-restricted communities used aggressive advertising to draw thousands of
people to the expansive sites.
138
They also put a greater emphasis on recreation, something
Youngtown hadn’t done, and marketed it as “active retirement.”
139
Again, “taking a concept like
Youngtown, combining it with the amenity-rich appeal of retiree trailer courts, then building it
on a huge scale, and finding phenomenal success in the process was something unprecedented in
history.”
140

Interest in desert living went beyond retirement communities for seniors. By the post-war
period, desert communities like Palm Springs were gaining in popularity. Originally envisioned
as a winter health resort in 1908, Palm Springs experienced a great influx of people immediately
after World War I who hoped that the dry desert air would help cure them of the flu.
141
In the
1920s, Hollywood discovered the area; “only a few hours by car from Los Angeles, the isolated
desert village offered privacy and relaxation, warm winter sunshine and stunning natural beauty,”
that was attractive to this crowd.
142
The post-World War II boom in Palm Springs led to winter
populations nearing 30,000 people in the 1950s.
143
By this time, tourists were also infiltrating the
area, those who sought “the good life previously…available only to the very rich.”
144
This
unexpected success in the desert proved that people would be willing to move to dry, warm, and
isolated environments centered on leisure, recreation and the idea of living healthy, productive
lives.
Finally, the desert became an attractive location for military training and testing during
and after World War II; “the flat, untenanted wastelands could be quickly converted to air bases,

137
Ibid.
138
Advertising and marketing new cities was perhaps a result of an increasing a competitive attitude that likely also
pushed developers to develop bigger and better. In Lotchin, “World War II and Urban California,”156, he cites a
prediction by Homer Hoyt from 1943 that there would be competition amongst American cities after the war
because of how many people were uprooted and how much new industry would be created.
139
Trolander, From Sun Cities to the Villages, 43 and 47.
140
Ibid, 47.
141
John LoCascio, “A Different Kind of Eden: Gay Men, Modernism, and the Rebirth of Palm Springs” (master’s
thesis, University of Southern California, 2013), 9-10, ProQuest: Dissertations and Thesis @ University of Southern
California (1459216958).
142
Ibid, 15.
143
Ibid, 21.
144
Ibid.
28

ordnance depots, heavy weapons ranges and desert training centers.”
145
In 1933, Edwards Air
Force Base began using lakebeds in its desert environment for planned and emergency
landings.
146
Along with these ideal landscapes, the desert offered 350 days of flying weather per
year.
147
This immense military center measures at over 301,000 acres, and by the 1960s, was
producing $100 million a year in business.
148
This income benefitted the local economy in
Antelope Valley as well, and those at the base hoped to use this to create strong relationships
with local communities (the base is so large that it extends into three different counties: Los
Angeles, Kern and San Bernardino).
149
In a 1964 Los Angeles Times article, Brig. Gen. Irving L.
Branch, commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center, was quoted:
As we move toward delivery of these systems of tomorrow and the day after we
are always aware of the partnerships which exist not only at Edwards but also the
partnerships which exist between us and our Antelope Valley neighbors. Your tax
dollars give you shares in our business and a voice in running it…We also depend
upon you and Kern County merchants for supplying many of our needs.
150

Many desert communities sprung up in response to promises like these, such as Los
Angeles County’s cities of Palmdale (1962) and Lancaster (1977).
151
Now, the desert not
only offered health benefits, but rich opportunities in the wildly successful military
industry.

2.6 We Can Do Anything
More than anything, Southern California’s post-World War II years reveal a sense of
excitement about the future. The idea of the “American Dream” almost took on a magical
meaning: one could literally create something out of nothing. One Life magazine article from the
era written about Los Angeles was entitled “The City that Started with Nothing But Sunshine

145
“A New Vista in the American West: Opening the Desert Living,” Life Magazine, March 23 1962.
146
“Edwards Air Force Base High Desert Birthplace of the Jet Age,” Los Angeles Times, November 24 1993, Valley
Edition, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-24/local/me-60482_1_edwards-air-force-base.
147
Willard Thompson, “Edwards Air Force Base: $100 Million Industry in a 301,000-Acre ‘City’,” Los Angeles
Times, April 10 1964, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/168567648?accountid=1474
9.
148
“High Desert Birthplace;” Thompson, “$100 Million Industry.”
149
Thompson, “$100 Million Industry.”
150
Thompson, “$100 Million Industry.”
151
“Demographics,” City of Palmdale: A Place to Call Home, accessed February 18, 2015,
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/Your-City-Hall/Demographics; “History of Lancaster,” Lancaster, California,
accessed February 18, 2015, http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/index.aspx?page=218.
29

Now Expects to Become the Biggest in the World.”
152
The goal was to urbanize open space,
beyond all else. Another 1950s article excerpt illustrates this attitude:
Although large areas of wild landscape remain on mountains and in some desert
areas, the mark of urban man heavy upon it…He hikes through it, camps in it, and
gets lost in it. In season he skis down its slopes and breaks his bones on them. He
burns it and litters it, until the wild landscape too, is in a sense urbanized.
153

This mentality resulted in such a dramatic change in the physical landscape, that those involved
in its manipulation and development surely believed they could continue building and growing
forever.

152
Davis, “From Oasis to Metropolis,” 375.
153
Nelson, “Artificial Landscape,” 81.
30

3. CHOOSING CALIFORNIA CITY

While the site of California City may seem like an unlikely place to create a city, many
saw in it a potential for greatness. Beyond the circumstances pushing people outside the
developed areas of Southern California, the site already had a rich industrial and agricultural
history, which suggested it could support a more substantial community. The city also had
widely-known and respected architects, planners and developers encouraging its creation. Finally,
it was so intensely marketed that it is no wonder many people initially flocked to the “oasis in the
desert.” And yet, people didn’t stay. The dream of California City never fully came to fruition,
and the only current reminder of what it could have once been is the city’s plan, carved into the
desert landscape. The following exploration establishes a local history for California City,
identifying key events and players that led to its creation.

3.1 “Pre-History”
The site of California City once played a small, but crucial role in the transport of borax
from Death Valley. When Borax was discovered in Death Valley in 1881, workers began
exploring different routes to move it through the desert. The Harmony Works trail, more
commonly known today as the Twenty Mule Team Trail, measured 165 miles long across the
Mojave Desert and took a twenty-mule team ten days to travel the length of the route.
154
It hosted
trips until 1888.
155
Small mining towns sprung up along the trail and eventually, “due to cheap
and abundant land, numerous recreational opportunities, a warm climate, and proximity to
national parks, many of these small towns grew into large cities.”
156

At the end of the nineteenth century, ranchers found that there was also an opportunity
for agriculture. Brothers Gregorio Mendiburu and Oscar Rudnick founded the M & R Ranch on
the site of what is present day California City (located in the Boron Valley), with its headquarters
located approximately twenty miles north in the town of Cantil.
157
The M & R Ranch constructed

154
Mary Ringhoff, “Life and Work in the Ryan District, Death Valley, California, 1914—1930: A Historic Context
for a Borax Mining Community,” (master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 2012), 27,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1027922795?accountid=147
49.
155
Ibid, 28.
156
Manuel Gonzalez, “Future Scenarios of Land Use in the California Mojave Desert,” (PhD diss., Utah State
University, 2001), 19, http://cnr.usu.edu/quinney/htm/whatwehave/theses-dissertations/publication=10936.
157
“M & R Ranch,” East Kern Historical Museum Society, accessed June 1, 2015, http://ekhms.weebly.com/m--r-
ranch.html.
31

eleven water wells to harvest water from an immense underground lake.
158
The ranch used the
water to grow cotton and alfalfa (Figure 3.1).
159
This water supply and the existing water wells
were to become a key factor in the selection of this portion of the desert as the home of
California City. When founder Nathaniel (Nat) K. Mendelsohn “discovered” the ranch in 1956,
“there seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of water under the Boron Valley.”
160
Reflecting on
his arrival to the area, Mendelsohn would later exclaim, “Where grains and cotton grew, where
bands of sheep grazed in pastoral quietude, a new town is rising.”
161

Figure 3.1: “California City’s Cotton Crop, ca. 1960.” Photo from USC Libraries Special Collection; filename
CHS-45207 (http:// http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll65/id/7501/rec/2).

158
“M & R Ranch;” Stetson Engineers, Inc., Evaluation of Groundwater Resources in California City, December
2008, 3, http://californiacity.com/2008ccgroundwaterresourcesevaluation.pdf; Thomas M. Stetson, Review of Water
Supply and Water Quality, California City Area, Kern County, California, February 17, 1971, 2,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/beacon/documents/other/2010-03-
04_California_City_Groundwater_Data_TN-55732.PDF; Today this lake is known as the Rand Basin, though
California City now gets most of its water from the Fremont Valley groundwater basin.
159
Glenn Stevenson, “Nat Mendelsohn,” East Kern Historical Museum Society, accessed June 1, 2015,
http://ekhms.weebly.com/m--r-ranch.html.
160
Ibid.
161
N. K. Mendelsohn, Annual Report to California City Residents and Property Owners, December 1, 1961, 2,
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 3, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
32

3.2 Nat K. Mendelsohn
Nat K. Mendelsohn had a vision for the Mojave Desert (Figure 3.2). He recognized that
Southern California’s major cities were growing in population and economically expanding, and
that another city could potentially take in the overflow of people that was sure to occur. He also
felt that the desert, near enough to the major metropolis of Los Angeles but far enough away to
have its own identity, would be the best place for this to happen.

Figure 3.2: Nat K. Mendelsohn, Photographer unknown. East Kern Historical Museum Society, accessed June 1,
2015, http://ekhms.weebly.com/m--r-ranch.html.

Mendelsohn was born in Czechoslovakia in 1915; his family moved to the United States
in 1920.
162
After receiving a Master of Arts degree from Columbia University, he continued at
Columbia, teaching rural sociology under Professor Edmund Brunner.
163
Mendelsohn was

162
“Nat Mendelsohn.”
163
“Nat Mendelsohn”; It is unclear exactly what field Mendelsohn received his degree in.
33

interested in “land usage in rural America,” and began conducting research projects for the
Department of Agriculture.
164
However, he gained much of his knowledge of finance when he
worked with the Office of Price Administration, researching farm income and economy.
165
He
went on to become treasurer for power generator manufacturing company called Cyclohm
Motors.
166
As his career progressed, Mendelsohn began putting his acquired knowledge and
income towards the construction of large-scale developments. His first venture was Arlanza
Village in Riverside County, in which he converted an abandoned army facility and industrial
park into a company town.
167
He then partnered with developer M. Penn Phillips to develop the
town of Hesperia, located in Victor Valley.
168
His largest and most ambitious project became the
development of California City, which he hoped would be the “perfect city” to catch Southern
California’s overflow and, one day, rival Los Angeles in size and global acclaim. Los Angeles
County Regional Planning Commission’s Director of Planning, Milton Breivogel, predicted that,
due to growth, at least 200,000 additional acres of land would be required for development in
Southern California. Mendelsohn claimed, “It seemed to me we had an unusual chance to do
something different—to prevent Los Angeles happening again.”
169

As president of Great Western Cities, Inc., Mendelsohn secured funding for California
City from its parent company Great Western United Corporation.
170
Then, he created the
California City Development Company (CCDC) to implement his vision. Mendelsohn chose the
Mojave as the perfect setting for his city. In an article in the Los Angeles Times discussing this
decision, the author reasoned, “Mendelsohn thinks of California City and neighboring Mojave as
‘one integral area.’ What’s good for one is good for the other…”
171
Residing in Hollywood Hills
during California City’s development gave Mendelsohn direct insight into how to plan for

164
“Nat Mendelsohn.”
165
Ibid.
166
Ibid.
167
Ibid.
168
Ibid.
169
“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow,” Los Angeles Examiner, January 22, 1961, 18, California City Branch Vertical
File: California City History 2, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
170
M & E Koppel, “The Dream that Became California City,” California City Branch Vertical File: California City
History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
171
Howard Ginold, “Realty Promoters Cash in as Desert Lures Thousands,” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 1961,
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
34

California City, and what notable planners, engineers and architects would be suitable for the
job.
172

3.3 Community Facilities Planners
To begin this impressive endeavor, Mendelsohn hired a team of architects and planners to
translate his vision into reality. He first enlisted the Community Facilities Planners, a group of
architects, planners and engineers working under the same roof in a South Pasadena office, to
help with the city’s planning and design components.
173
The Community Facilities Planners
began working together in the mid-1950s, and their body of work included large-scale projects
such as parks, master plans and commercial centers.
174
Those that played a large role in the
development of California City included the architecture firm Smith & Williams (Whitney R.
Smith and Wayne Williams with associate Peter Holdstock), landscape architect Garret Eckbo,
and city planner Simon Eisner.
175
Mendelsohn also hired engineer Charles Clark.
176
From 1961-
1968, Smith and Williams had control over the overall three-dimensional design and aesthetic
quality of the city.
177
Each player provided their own acquired expertise; for example, much of
the recreational vision for California City came directly from Wayne Williams, who had a
passion for recreation as a necessity in daily life. Williams embraced the opportunity to “bring
beauty and pleasure into daily living.”
178
Smith likely played a greater part in designing the
residential and commercial centers, as by this time he had already amassed extensive experience

172
“Nat Mendelsohn.”
173
Art Seidenbaum, “The Next Noise You Hear May be Your Last,” Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1967, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times, C9,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/155638994?accountid=1474
9; The Community Facilities Planners’ worked out of a shared office space, located in South Pasadena and designed
by architecture firm Smith and Williams. Smith and Williams worked as the architectural and design component of
the team, Simon Eisner as the city planner, Kariotis and Kesler as the structural engineers, Selje and Bond as
interiors and graphics, and Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams as landscape architects. Many of these team members
helped design California City. The Community Facilities Planners had worked on at least thirty planning and design
projects by 1967.
174
Jocelyn Gibbs, “Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Williams,” in Outside In: The Architecture of Smith
and Williams, ed. Jocelyn Gibbs (Santa Barbara, CA: Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California,
2014), 36.
175
Gibbs, “Outside In,” 36; Seidenbaum, “The Next Noise.”
176
“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow;” Koppel, “The Dream.”
177
“Selected Projects of Whitney R. Smtih and Smith and Williams, 1936-1973,” in Outside In: The Architecture of
Smith and Williams, ed. Jocelyn Gibbs (Santa Barbara, CA: Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of
California, 2014), 185.
178
“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow.”
35

in residential design and community planning.
179
Working with the Retirement Home Planners of
Pasadena, the duo also helped to create California’s City’s Older Adult Living Plan.
180

It is important to emphasize that both together and individually Smith and Williams can
be considered noted architects of their time within Southern California. Smith’s resume included
a number of successful residential designs based around garden concepts, including Case Study
Houses No.5 (the Loggia House) and No. 12 (the Lath House), both designed in 1946.
181
He also
worked on larger-scale developments such as the Linda Vista Shopping Center in San Diego. His
residential works that emphasized interior gardens, as well as his large regional works, likely
influenced his designs in California City. Williams found a deep passion for recreation, writing
an entire book about the subject, and using it to guide his designs with Smith. When they joined
forces in 1946, they created an extensive and beautiful collection of work, which is more
thoroughly documented in Appendix A.
182
In general, the firm’s particular style of design offered
as much in pragmatism as it did in popular architectural style.
183
The idea that how people feel
when they are in a building is just as important as how the building looks was something the firm
felt strongly about. This social element in architecture was something that the firm shared with
Mendelsohn. It is speculated that wood post-and-beam construction, popular in design studios at
the University of Southern California in the 1940s and 1950s at the same time that Smith studied
there, made the design of free flowing, flexible spaces easier to accomplish.
184
This type of plan
related back to the social aspects of design that Smith and Williams advocated for. While Smith
and Williams steered clear of assigning any particular “style” to their work at the time, this type

179
N. K. Mendelsohn, Annual Report to California City Residents and Property Owners, August 10, 1960,
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library; Debi
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection: Origins and Context in the Work of Whitney R. Smith,” in Outside In: The
Architecture of Smith and Williams, ed. Jocelyn Gibbs (Santa Barbara, CA: Art, Design & Architecture Museum,
University of California, 2014).
180
“What the Older Adult Can Look Forward to In California City,” California City Sun, November 15 1961, 3,
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 2, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
181
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection.”103. While both of these case study houses were never built, Smith did
have an extensive resume of homes that were constructed. Appendix A gives a more thorough overview of Smith’s
individual work, and the work of Smith and William together. It also speculates on what projects provided Smith
and Williams with experience and inspiration for their design of California City.
182
Dennis McLellan, “Whitney Smith, 91; Pioneer Modernist Architecture,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2002,
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/28/local/me-smith28.
183

Gibbs, “Outside In,” 13.

184

Gibbs, “Outside In,” 15.

36

of construction became prevalent in their designs, including those buildings they designed for
California City.
185

Besides a shared interest in social architecture, it is unclear exactly why Mendelsohn
chose Smith and Williams and the Community Facilities Planners to create California City.
However, it could be attributed to the team’s vast collection of institutional, residential and
commercial projects, both individual and master-planned. Nevertheless, the planning for
California City became the start of a long-lasting relationship between Mendelsohn and Smith
and Williams. Not only did the firm design Mendelsohn’s Colorado home (1964), they worked
with him on projects outside California City, including the redevelopment of Old Sacramento
(1961), a subdivision plan in Colorado (1967), and an urban development plan for North
American Towns Incorporated in Mexico (1970).
186
Smith and Williams’ design for California
City would go on to win an “Award of Merit” by Sunset Magazine in 1961, chosen by a panel of
AIA and Sunset editorial experts.
187
That these incredibly accomplished designers played such a
major role in the design of California City over the course of nearly a decade, and the fact that
this was the firm’s only city-scale project, suggests the potential significance of the original
design.
188

3.4 Initial Planning for California City
As early as 1956, the California City Development Company purchased 82,000 acres, or
206 square miles, of land in the upper Mojave Desert, located in Boron Valley.
189
This is
approximately 140 square miles less than the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles (Figure
3.3).
190
In total, the land cost $6,021,000 with a final project investment estimated at
$150,000,000.
191
The site was 2,400 to 3,700 feet above sea level and was scattered with small
buttes.
192
The environment offered dry, arid weather, with a generally pleasant climate year

185

Gibbs, “Outside In,” 15.

186
“Selected Projects,” 186-187.
187
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
188
Gibbs, “Outside In,” 36.
189
“California City Early Years”; Today Boron Valley is known as Fremont Valley, and is located adjacent to
Antelope Valley.
190
“Community Profile,” Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce, accessed April 10, 2015,
www.sanfernandovalleychamber.com/live/profile.asp.
191
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
192
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
37

round, and plenty of water. These factors made the Mojave site an attractive place to build.
Furthermore, the surrounding area already boasted extensive industry, including the Rio Tinto
Borax mine, opened to mining in 1927, and the Edwards Air Force Base, its first training site
built in 1933.
193
These industries, and the jobs they provided, played a major role in making the
California City dream a reality. Finally, the Kern County Planning Commission had also
expressed interest in establishing two urban centers within the Boron Valley.
194
Armed with Kern
County’s approval and a set of planning criteria for Boron Valley, “Policies for Planning the
Boron Valley,” the creation of California City could commence.

193
“History,” 20 Mule Team Borax, accessed April 15, 2015, www.borax.com/about-borax/history; “Edward’s
History,” Edwards Air Force Base, accessed April 15, 2015,
www.edwards.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10346.
194
Kern County Planning Commission, Policies for Planning the Boron Valley, (Bakersfield, California, 1958), 4,
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
38

Figure 3.3: California City, CA, 206 square miles (Top) as compared to the San Fernando Valley, CA, 345 square
miles (Bottom). California City, CA and San Fernando Valley, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps.
Google.
39

Mendelsohn and his teams envisioned California City as a unique combination of urban
density and desert landscape. This concept fits well within Ebenezer Howard’s initial concept for
a Garden City, in which the best of both the Town and the Country come together to create the
ideal city. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 below, rendered by Stan Repp in 1961, illustrate Smith and
Williams initial idea for combining the Town (Los Angeles) with the Country (the desert). Per
the book Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Williams, the sketches are a “creation myth
for California City, imagining its discovery and settlement as Old California meets the
freeway.”
195

Figure 3.4: The “creation myth” for California City. Sketch by Stan Repp (1961), courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

195
Gibbs, “Outside In,” 41.
40

Figure 3.5: Sketch by Stan Repp (1961), courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design
Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

This whimsical communion is indicative of what the city’s planners, architects and developers
hoped California City would one day become. Smith and Williams used this concept in
determining their own design standards, which sought to maintain a unified architectural
landscape throughout the city.
While the California City Development Company hoped that eventually they would get
the population overflow from Los Angeles, they predicted that, in the short term, much of their
housing demand would be based on growth from adjacent Edwards Air Force Base.
196
Because
housing was the greatest demand, their strategy for growth was to rapidly subdivide and sell
plots of land. After the city was incorporated in 1965, it was able to establish the California City
Community Services District, a municipal agency “empowered by law to provide…every type of
city service essential to good community development.”
197
This included sewage disposal,
plumbing, streetlights and road development. The Community Services District introduced
plumbing and electrical infrastructure over larger areas of land by selling plots distanced from
each other.
198
They also graded and paved residential streets throughout the city. The faster this

196
Policies for Planning. 4.
197
“Airpark Village in California City – Tract 2528,” original source unknown. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California
City, CA 8/129 IV.C.
198
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, February 9, 2015.
41

type of groundwork was put in place, the faster lots could be sold. However, with housing and
services spread out, the need arose for a more extensive transportation infrastructure.
In the Boron Valley, automobiles and transportation were one of the most important
factors of city and valley growth: “Perhaps the most important basis for recent growth in the
desert, and for the possible success in Boron Valley, is fast, comfortable, individual
transportation by automobile on good highways.”
199
The placement of automobile circulation is
perhaps the largest difference between the Community Facilities Planners’ city design, and
Garden City principles. Separation between pedestrians and automobiles was not as much an
issue at the macro-scale. For a city as big as California City, in a landscape that had little to no
transportation infrastructure, automobile circulation was considered a necessity (Figure 3.6).
Furthermore, Williams felt that the automobile was becoming more desirable because people
needed it to get to places of recreation.
200
So, while automobile circulation was carefully planned
around the perimeters of American garden cities, the Community Facilities Planners decided it
necessary to integrate it directly within California City’s layout.

Figure 3.6: California City road infrastructure showing the extent to which infrastructure was planned, when it was
still unclear that people would actually move there. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google
Maps. Google.

199
Policies for Planning. 5.
200
Williams, Recreation Places, 235.
42

The firm embraced automobile culture, and incorporated it directly into the city’s identifying
elements. For example, they named streets after car brands, including Cadillac Boulevard,
Chrysler Drive, Dodge Court, Chevy Drive and Buick Boulevard.
201
So while Smith and
Williams did plan for safety from the automobile, through the design of garden apartments and
cul-de-sac “tot lots,” they did so within individual neighborhoods and commercial centers. As a
whole, the Community Facilities Planners and the California City Development Company felt
strongly that the city’s plan was “a concept which is almost certain to be studied and copied in
dozens of places across the United States.”
202

201
Mike Anton, “A Desert City that Didn’t Fan Out,” Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2010,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/local/la-me-cal-city-20100814.
202
“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow.”
43

4. THE LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF CALIFORIA CITY

As the Community Facilities Planners began designing California City, the Kern County
Planning Commission produced a document entitled “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley.”
203

This proposal established planning and land use criteria for two cities that were to be located in
Boron Valley, based on the premise that Boron Valley was the ideal site for large-scale growth.
The document acknowledged the frightening potential of California City’s failure, but also stood
firm on the idea that smart planning would lead to its success:
It is difficult to belittle the importance of the Boron Valley – whatever
degree of success may result. If it is successfully developed and poorly planned,
the result could conceivably be less desirable than if it had ‘just growed.’ [sic] If it
is successfully marketed but incompletely developed, an unprecedented
redevelopment problem may result. If water is available for only a low population
for a short period of time, the backfire would be detrimental to everyone involved.
Therefore, the County of Kern, responsible to the people who may inhabit
Boron Valley and to the taxpayers who are seriously affected by resulting
economy or miseconomy of wise or unwise planning, has an unusual interest in
the soundness of the plan and even in the success of the development.
204

The planning policies also suggested municipal and social “opportunities” to avoid “the
problems which have plagued American cities for the last several decades.” These opportunities
are presented as functions that can essentially be mixed and matched to complement and service
each other; they consisted of trafficways, commerce, public facilities, neighborhoods and
communities, and industry and safety. The Commission predicted that some problems would
arise during development of the Boron Valley, including insufficient water resources, lack of
variety and “scatteration,” resulting from the speculative nature of the planned cities.
205
With the
acknowledgement of the potential obstacles the project faced, the Commission established
standards and objectives for consistency of development. These objectives served as the guiding
principles for the Community Facilities Planners as they embarked on their design for California
City.

203
Boron Valley was part of what is now known as Fremont Valley.
204
Kern County Planning Commission, Policies for Planning the Boron Valley, (Bakersfield, California, 1958),
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library. Any
information pertaining to California City’s planning principles within this chapter comes from this document, unless
noted otherwise.
205
Policies for Planning the Boron Valley defines “scatteration” as essentially development that is widely dispersed,
potentially resulting in the “inconsistency of the character of each area and…premature blight.”
44

Smith and Williams later devised their own planning document entitled “California City:
A Planning Approach.” This document was prepared in 1968, a decade after the duo had begun
designs for California City; it appears that the document was a reflection of the planning
principles followed by the team, specifically in response to traffic circulation, as they
commenced on their ambitious journey to design the city. It was also more conceptual in nature,
offering a number of conceptual diagrams that would lead to finalized circulation patterns for the
city. Along with the policy-based approach of Boron Valley’s planning documents, the team was
able to integrate their own ideas for city design with requirements for the desert’s development.
The following description and analysis aim to convey the incredible thought and detail
that went into planning California City, and the firm belief in its success. Smith and Williams’
plan for the city is the entity in which its architecture and infrastructure was allowed to evolve.
Those elements related to each theme within this chapter are those that ultimately make up
California City’s unique identity. In one of Mendelsohn’s “Annual Reports” to the citizens of
California City, he discusses the “fourth dimension” in the city’s plan: “social architecture.”
206

He elaborates, “We recognize that the location and character of each element…must relate to,
and be judged by, the effect on the whole picture. In other words, the California City plan is total
community planning.”
207

4.1 General and Schematic Land Use Plans
The initial concept for California City was the design of seven satellite cities of 30,000
people each, surrounding a central city of 85,000 people.
208
The Los Angeles Examiner described
the satellite cities as “each with its own nucleus and each with its own ‘reason to be.’”
209
Plenty
of space was left untouched with the idea that every resident would have a view of the desert; the
city was intended to be part of the desert not separated from it.
210
Smith and Williams wrote, “In
California City by grouping large land users (inter community) and small land users (intra

206
Mendelsohn, Annual Report to California City.
207
Ibid.
208
Gibbs, “Outside In,” 36.
209
“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow.”
210
Ibid.
45

community) together we obtain a sense of order immediately.”
211
They emphasized a distinct
formula of open (inter) and urban (intra) spaces in which, “You may stand in a plaza of one town,
view across inter community space and view another town. Because the ‘open space’ intercedes
between towns, each town has a positive definition.”
212
These concepts can be seen in the
original Schematic Land Use Plan created by the Community Facilities Planners, as well as the
Inter-Intra Space Diagram from Smith and Williams’ “A Planning Approach” (Figures 4.2 and
4.1, respectively).

Figure 4.1: Smith and Williams’ Inter-Intra Space Diagram for California City. This original concept, in
which there is a consistent dispersal of open and urban spaces, leads to a more realistic vision represented in the
Schematic and General Plans. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art,
Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California
City, 8/138 IV.C.

211
Smith and Williams, Architects and Engineers, California City: A Planning Approach, June 10, 1968, 5, folder
Smith and Williams 770 California City, 8/138 IV.C, Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California,
Santa Barbara.
212
Ibid, 9.
46

Figure 4.2: Smith and Williams’ Schematic Land Use Plan for California City illustrating the seven satellite
communities and their place within the overall city context. Courtesy of Olson-Spencer & Associates, 12037-1 and
the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University
of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1517 I.V.D.

The schematic plan became a more coherent version of the inter-intra concept originally
diagrammed by Smith and Williams once the team was able to integrate the following four
objectives for planning established in the “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley”:
• The Individual: “To preserve and strengthen the physical environment in which an
individual may freely participate and identify himself…”
• The Land: “To obtain the optimum usefulness of land by providing the physical setting
for it stable value…and the preservation of its natural qualities.”
• The Community: “To strengthen the unity, tradition, vigor and integrity of each
neighborhood.”
• The Facilities: “To provide community facilities in proper variety and number, in
effective locations…”
47

The schematic plan is the first type of plan discussed under “The Planning Process” of “Policies
for Planning the Boron Valley.” Also known as the “Boron Valley Plan,” it lays out regional
highways, urban centers, major land use areas, and major rail and air terminals and lines.
In the schematic plan, each satellite city had a combination of mixed-density residential,
parks and schools (including universities), neighborhood centers, quasi-public offices, a medical
center, and mixed industrial spaces. However, what is most apparent in the diagram are the
circulation patterns, which were carefully planned out by the firm, who believed “in order for
people to move from one neighborhood to another or one community to another, in a defined,
efficient manner, a traffic circulation system must be carefully defined.”
213
The thick, red line
surrounding the city represents what would someday become a freeway system. Boron Valley’s
planning policies noted, “Highways placed in high frequency tend to limit specialization for the
benefit of both traffic movement and use of land.” Smith and Williams supported this,
rationalizing freeways, or traffic corridors, were to be located in “intercom” (inter-open space)
communities only, which is likely behind the reasoning for the particular placement of the
freeways along the city peripheries.
214
Major streets located within the city boundaries were to
remain straight in intra-urban areas, and could only become curvilinear in the inter-open
spaces.
215
Smaller, local streets were then organized to keep order within each individual
community: “Residential streets are kept free of traffic. Collector streets lead to the
neighborhood center. Secondary streets perform the intra community function and major streets
perform the inter community function.”
216
Circulation was clearly a major component of
California City’s plan at both the citywide and neighborhood scales, as seen in Figure 4.3.

213
Smith and Williams, A Planning Approach, 13.
214
Ibid, 13.
215
Ibid, 17.
216
Ibid, 20.
48

Figure 4.3: Smith and Williams’ Traffic Diagram for California City, highlighting circulation patterns of inter and
intra areas. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City,
8/138 IV.C.

More information about land uses and circulation patterns is revealed in the city’s general
plan, as illustrated by Smith and Williams (Figures 4.4-4.6). This type of plan was listed as a
“City Plan” in Boron Valley’s planning document, and laid out the following:
• Community, industrial districts and central business district boundaries
• Population densities (general location)
• Additional urban highways
• Major recreation areas, junior college and major special land uses
• Sewer and drainage (general)
51

Figure 4.4: Smith and Williams’ General Plan for California City illustrating more specific land uses and circulation
patterns. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1517 I.V.D.
52

Figure 4.5: General Plan Detail showing the central part of the city.

Figure 4.6: General Plan Legend.
53

Within the study area of the General Plan, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on
institutional (or “public” per the plan’s legend) facilities like schools, recreational spaces, and
commercial areas. The diagram represents more specifically where all of these functions were to
occur. In abundance are the green and white striped triangles, representing neighborhood parks,
and green and white striped squares, representing schools for different age levels. These parks
are representative of William’s belief that a city should have a unified system of parks, and that
“the effectiveness of any particular recreation park depends upon its being carefully related to
other recreation facilities.”
217
The park-school sites were adjacent or overlapping with areas
predicted for medium-density housing, represented by the yellow ovals, or high-density housing,
represented by orange ovals. Low-density housing filled in the spaces between. There were also
a number of neighborhood commercial centers, represented by the pink and pink-and-white
striped squares. The pink-and-white striped circles were intended as commercial areas for
professionals or business. Industrial parks, represented by blue and green stripes, were kept
outside residential centers. Golf courses, represented by the green-shaded areas with a black flag,
were to be abundant within or just outside of the study area. In the General Plan, the Community
Facilities Planners planned for eleven golf courses.
The Schematic Land Use Plan and General Plan illustrate the very specific path for
development intended for California City. While it is not uncommon for a city to have diagrams
such as this, it is intriguing to see how clearly the vision of Smith and Williams reflects the
occurrences of the era, and how truthfully their passions, recreation in particular, were
transferred to paper. Detailed drawings of various neighborhoods then provided a more holistic
view of how Garden City and recreational planning principles were fused together to create a
modern image of the city. The following plan falls under the heading of “Major Area Land Use
Plans” in Boron Valley’s planning documents, which assigned specific functions to Communities,
the Central Business District and Industrial Districts.
Figure 4.7 shows the intersection of California City Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard,
located in the central city, and four programmed neighborhoods surrounding it. The plan depicts
how the golf course (the dark shaded area), which started in the Central Park and wove its way
through the landscape, could become fully integrated into different “major areas.” In this

217
Williams, Recreation Places, 240.
54

approach, there was always green space and recreation space available to a resident, whether
they were in the Central Business District, the Older Adult Area, or the Quasi-Public Area, as
outlined in the drawing. With an idea of how the city was intended to look at a macro-scale, it is
possible to investigate each different type of land use, its significance, and how it fit within the
larger city context.

Figure 4.7: The intersection of California City Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard, and the programmed zones
surrounding it. Report for California City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic
Growth, Prepared by Community Facilities Planners courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

This general plan for the city proved popular with potential residents. Almost
immediately, potential residents began purchasing lots within the city. When 376 lots became
available for purchase in May, they sold out by the second day on the market.
218
Three months
later, another 427 lots sold.
219
The first twenty homes in the city did not actually complete

218
“12-year California City History Marked by Gains,” Bakersfield Californian, July 8, 1970, California City
Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
219
Ibid.
55

construction until September, though property sales reached $3.5 million by the end of the
year.
220
That number jumped to $15 million by August 1960, with more than 8,000 families
economically invested in the city.
221
By1961, three years after the city was founded, Mendelsohn
boasted about the 175 homes that had been built.
222
The following decade would bring an
additional couple thousand housing units, and 500 mobile home units.
223
For a city that almost
literally started with nothing, each lot purchased, house constructed, and new resident moved in
was an exciting accomplishment.

4.2 Recreational Parks and Centers
In his 1961 Annual Report to the citizens of California City, Nat Mendelsohn claimed,
“Recreation places are ‘built-in’ to the community and are to be as conveniently available to
people as are shopping centers.”
224
At that time, existing recreational establishments included
riding stables and trails, lakes, a golf course, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, and a lawn
bowling green.
225
Most everything was within two major parks: Central Park (known as
Wonderland Park in the original design documents), which anchored the western half of the city,
and Galileo Park (now known as Silver Saddle Ranch), which anchored the eastern half. It was
understood that many smaller neighborhood parks would be scattered throughout the city near
institutions that also had recreational qualities, such as schools. Property owners were offered
full access to all recreational facilities at no extra cost.
226

Three years earlier, Wayne Williams outlined the goals and functions that he believed
should be achieved through the implementation of municipal parks and city recreation areas in
his book Recreation Places. He claimed “…the primary responsibility of municipal parks is to
provide open spaces for free play and a background of basic facilities, qualified leadership, and
services on a community-wide basis.”
227
This was to be done by:

220
“California City Early Years;” “History Marked by Gains.”
221
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1960.
222
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
223
“History Marked by Gains.”
224
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
225
Ibid.
226
California City in Beautiful Boron Valley, Brochure, Jack Maguire Local History Room, Beale Memorial Library,
Kern County Library.
227
Williams, Recreation Places, 124.
56

• Keeping spaces in their natural states and to “act quickly to save these
open spaces.”
• Organizing activities that encourage people to interact.
• Providing a stage to encourage these organized activities.
• Guiding “poorly adjusted individuals and groups through activities.”
228

Presumably, Smith and Williams based their concepts for Central Park and Galileo Park on these
guiding principles in park and recreational development.
The duo also followed strict guidelines in determining park locations and sizes, initially
outlined in “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley.” The Boron Valley planning documents
provided planning principles for different types of parks: neighborhood parks, community parks,
golf courses and open areas. Neighborhood parks were the smallest, around five to seven acres in
size and serving 3,000 to 5,000 persons. These parks were anticipated as “integrated with
elementary schools, to permit use of school playgrounds for active recreation, thereby
eliminating the need for duplicate facilities.” Essentially, neighborhood parks and elementary
schools shared so many basic recreational functions that it made sense for them to be designed
and constructed together. They were each to be located no further than one half mile from those
using them. Community parks, twenty to twenty-five acres in size and serving 25,000 to 40,000
persons, were “integrated with high schools, comparable to those for neighborhoods” in design
and program. The parks had a service radius of two miles. Golf courses were to be 150 to 160
acres, serve 30,000 to 40,000 persons and located no more than five miles from those they served.
With these guiding principles, “recreation parks [could be] more numerous, more readily
accessible, more inviting in every way...”
229

Based on these policies, the 160-acre Central Park was considered a golf course park,
though it actually offered many recreational services in addition to golf. Construction began in
1960, when California’s Community Services District sold $400,000 in bonds for funding.
230

Over the next seven years, portions of the park developed. A 24-acre lake was carved into the

228
Williams, Recreation Places, 124.
229
Ibid, 236.
230
“Timeline,” East Kern Historical Museum Society, accessed June 1, 2015,
http://ekhms.weebly.com/timeline.html.
57

desert floor, sealed with polyethylene, and then filled with over 30 million gallons of water.
231

Eventually the golf course and a sports center opened as well. Before long, the park was actively
used for boating, fishing, golfing, swimming, or simply relaxing. Its central location provided
easy public access and it soon became the central focus of the entire city (Figure 4.8-4.11).

Figure 4.8: A vision for “Wonderland Park” (now more commonly known as California City Central Park).
Illustrator unknown, Report for California City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of
Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community Facilities Planners. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records,
Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara,
folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA
8/129 IV.C.

231
“Timeline;” “Artificial Lake at Desert Development Being Filled,” Los Angeles Times, April 9 1961, J28,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/167829183?accountid=1474
9.
58

Figure 4.9: Postcard of Central Park Lake, produced by ColourPicture Publics, Inc, distributed by Chris Cards, date
unknown. Used as marketing material circa 1970s. Photo courtesy of Van and Albert Pray and
www.ilovecaliforniacity.com.
59

Figure 4.10: Central Park Lake with a cascading waterfall, photographer unknown, no date. Photo courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1520 IV.D.
60

Figure 4.11: Postcard of Central Park Lake Waterfall, photographer unknown, date unknown. Used as marketing
material circa 1970s. Photo courtesy of Van and Albert Pray and www.ilovecaliforniacity.com.

Central Park is also where many of Smith and Williams architectural designs are seen.
The lake bathhouse in particular conveys the post-and-beam style that is a Smith and Williams’
hallmark. (Figure 4.12).
61

Figure 4.12: Central Park Bathhouse, photographer unknown, no date. Photo courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1517 I.V.D.

However, the park also provided a canvas for architectural experimentation. Most prominent was
a pavilion that extended out into the middle of Central Park Lake, covered by winged “parasols”
constructed of “eight graceful plywood fins.” Beyond a unique design, the firm found that
construction of the fins was economically and architecturally beneficial: “1. It cost half as much.
2. It is more stable in extremes of desert heat. 3. It could be shaped to fit right at the site with
ordinary tools.”
232
This design element was a repetitive theme in a handful of built and planned
buildings throughout the central city, including the California City Congregational Church, and
is a great example of what Smith and Williams were designing at an architectural scale. The
pavilion itself became a focal point within the park and now serves as a reminder of the city’s
original visionary design (Figure 4.13).

232
Ad No. 64-202-2 for the California City Congregational Church, Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.
62

Figure 4.13: Central Park Lake Pavilion with parasol fins, photographer not listed, no date, picture number
4361-7. Photo courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City,
46/1521 IV.D.

Galileo Park was designed as a western-themed recreational center, or “a ‘rugged’
complex, which includes rodeo grounds, picnic facilities, and the start of a museum to represent
the pioneer era.”
233
The park offered equestrian activities such as horseback riding, accompanied
by a barn and stable, as well as spaces for camping; it also had its own administration center,
which was used to manage the site.
234
Located on a hill just over 15 miles northeast from the city

233
“History Marked by Gains.”
234
California City Chamber of Commerce, Community Economic Profile for California City, Kern County,
California, October 5, 1982, Jack Maguire Local History Room, Beale Memorial Library, Kern County Library.
63

center, the park was named after Mendelsohn’s hero, Galileo Galilei.
235
It was upon this hill that
Mendelsohn once stood and looked over the land he envisioned as California City. Naturally, an
observation tower was placed at the very top.
By Boron Valley’s park planning standards, Galileo Park would also be considered a golf
course park. The exact acreage of the original site is unclear; today it is approximately 130 acres,
though it was most likely larger to include housing within the park. In a preliminary site plan,
five small neighborhoods in starburst-like configurations surrounded the center of the park; per
this site plan, each neighborhood had approximately seventy parcels, though it is unclear if each
parcel would be occupied by a residence, and exactly what type of residence was to be
constructed. It is also unclear if the residential communities would directly abut the park or be
separated from it, though it does appear that no direct circulation was planned from the
communities to the park center. A small section of the park was also planned to have rancho-
inspired residences, fitting in with the pioneer-era theme for the park. The golf course does not
appear in this initial plan (Figure 4.14 and 4.15).

235
“Nat Mendelsohn.”
64

Figure 4.14: Smith and William’s Site Plan for Galileo Park (1961), located outside the central city,
number 770 177/A. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder 394 IV.E, Smith and Williams, California
City, Galileo Hill Development, California City, CA (1961) #770.
65

Figure 4.15: Galileo Park Site Plan detail.

Another detailed site plan provides a more comprehensive view of how the park was to
function (Figure 4.16). For example, it shows where the driving range, 18-hole golf course and
golf club house would be built. It also features more recreational spaces, such as a tennis ranch, a
marina, a beach, a vacation trailer park, more camping areas, and multiple sites for swimming.
The rancho area was expanded, as was the circulation system throughout the park. The
observation tower at the top of the hill was replaced with a hilltop resort, with an aerial tram
connecting it to the marina at the bottom of the hill.
66

Figure 4.16: Galileo Park Site Plan Detail (1961), with program for the park more fleshed out, number 770
182A. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder 394 IV.E, Smith and Williams, California City, Galileo
Hill Development, California City, CA (1961) #770.

Galileo Park was a realistic representation of William’s hypothesis that “…in a locality
with high summer temperatures a recreation park on an elevated site with cooler temperatures
than lower areas might attract people from a wide radius.”
236
The Mojave landscape, where the
hot, dry desert floor was scattered with small buttes providing opportunities for cooler
temperatures, was the ideal spot to test this theory out. And while the park seems inconveniently
located for everyday recreation, it actually would have been accessible to California City’s
residents, had development continued eastward from the city center.
In general planning terms, popularized in recreational planning in the mid-twentieth
century, both Central Park and Galileo Park would also be considered “recreational complexes.”
A recreational complex was defined as:
any parcel of land in excess of 100’ or more acres, having either geological and
topographical features, together with man-made structures of various
types…Most specifically, a recreational complex should be a spacious property
with interesting terrain containing hills and woods and lakes, streams, and/or
shoreline.
237

236
Williams, Recreation Places, 247.
237
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 119.
67

The sites chosen for both parks were ideally suited because they offered diversity in natural
features that could be blended easily with man-made recreational structures. Since the landscape
didn’t have natural water channels or bodies of water, Smith and Williams carved out their own;
this can be seen in Central Park in the form of Central Park Lake and the fishing pond, and
Galileo Park in the form of the boat marina. Planning principles for recreational complexes also
stressed the importance of landscape design that capitalized on views of or from the site: “any
scenic views that can be observed from the complex, either to foothills, mountains, or marine
areas, should be incorporated as part of the environmental exterior design.”
238
These criteria are
reminiscent of nineteenth century park principles, which evolved during the picturesque
landscape-era and which eventually were integrated into Garden Planning principles. California
City’s Central Park and Galileo Park were enjoyable, landscaped spaces offering a variety of
recreational activity to all citizens.
In park planning, site reservation was crucial because it was widely accepted that areas
for recreation and green, open space were the hardest to retrieve once they were gone. This was
why so much emphasis was placed on acquiring land early and beginning the development
process for California City’s parks while the land was still undeveloped.
239
However, Boron’s
planning policies also stressed the importance of site reservation for institutional spaces such as
schools and other public buildings, because it could “reduce costs considerably, enable
convenient and economic operation and assure potential residents and businesses that those
services will exist in the right locations when warranted.”

4.3 Schools and Other Institutional Spaces
California City’s parks and schools were considered interconnected entities sharing many
of the same programs.
240
As such, they were sited and designed together, as seen in both the
city’s Schematic Land Use and General Plans. In “Policies for Planning in Boron Valley,”
schools were to be built adjacent to neighborhood parks in order to eliminate the need for
duplicate facilities. Schools were also strategically located based on the Valley’s planning
principles to account for the safety of the children attending them. In 1961, twenty sites had

238
Ibid, 138.
239
Williams, Recreation Places, 241.
240
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 249-250.
68

already been set aside for schools with the first school scheduled for 1962; ultimately the city’s
first school, Robert P. Ulrich Elementary, was completed in 1966.
241

“Policies for Planning in Boron Valley” outlines detailed principles in identifying school
sites, from elementary schools to junior colleges.
242
It even provides a system for estimating
enrollment based on site locations. The document provides four principles for choosing an
elementary school site (defined as grades K-6):
1. Sites should be located so that the proposed service area boundary is identical with the
neighborhood boundary and defined by major traffic ways.
2. Sites should be located and designed to be integrated with a park, with a minimum of
five acres.
3. Sites may be slightly off-centered in each service area so that prevailing afternoon winds
are at the back of most children walking home.
4. Street patterns within the elementary school service area should be designed so that
children cross a minimum number of intersections while walking to or from school.

Additionally, elementary schools were to serve around 635 students each, be located no more
than three quarters of a mile walking distance from the students’ homes, and be around ten net
acres in size. Like Radburn, neighborhoods were always to be centered around elementary
schools and playgrounds, ensuring accessibility and safety.
243
And while California City children
still had to share some residential streets with automobiles, safety for children was always a top
priority.
Based on these principles the site chosen for Robert P. Ulrich Elementary lay within the
city center, one block south of California City’s main commercial thoroughfare, California City
Boulevard. The streetscape surrounding the school eliminated the need for students to cross
multiple intersections. While the school was fully developed, it is unclear if a neighborhood park
was constructed next door, as predicted in a map of the city center (Figure 4.17). The
construction of a park would have been a top priority for those developing the city, who would
have wanted this site to set a precedent for schools to follow. Like the bathhouse and pavilion in

241
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961; “History Marked by Gains.”
242
This section will only review the principles for planning an elementary school, since Robert P. Ulrich
Elementary was the only school developed under the direction of Smith and Williams.
243
Stein, “Towards New Towns”, 231.
69

Central Park, design was also a consideration because of the ideal that “distinctive architecture
adds to the attractiveness of the scene” (Figure 4.18).
244

Figure 4.17: Map showing potential school/park sites within California City’s central city. Photo courtesy
California City in Beautiful Boron Valley, Brochure, Jack Maguire Local History Room, Beale Memorial Library,
Kern County Library. Edited by author.

244
Robert P. Ulrich photograph caption, Newspaper Clipping in California City Branch Vertical File: California
City History 1. California City Branch, Kern County Library.
70

Figure 4.18: South Façade of Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School. Photo courtesy of newspaper clipping in
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.

Another important institutional space in California City was the church. “Policies for Planning in
the Boron Valley” provided planning guidelines for choosing church sites, but beyond that,
Smith and Williams brought their unique vision for the design of the California City
Congregational Church. Along with the winged lake pavilion in Central Park, the original church
was one of the most recognizable buildings in the city.
In California City, church sites were inherently related to school and park sites.
Neighborhood and Community churches were to service 1,200 families and 10,000 respectively
and were to be “adjacent to or near the school and park.” Additionally, “all sites should be
located on corner properties near trafficways which serve the respective neighborhood,
community or urban area.” This would have been the reason the California City Congregational
Church was situated at the corner of California City Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard, in the
heart of the city center. And though Smith and Williams had to follow a particular set of
guidelines for choosing the location of the church, their creativity was not compromised.
Designed in 1961, the church became representational of the type of architecture that could be
created inside a cohesive, comprehensive community plan (Figures 4.19-4.21).
71

Figure 4.19: Smith and Williams’ drawing of California City Congregational Church as it was envisioned (1961).
Courtesy of Olson-Spencer & Associates and the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection.
Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770
California City, 46/1522 IV.D.
72

Figure 4.20: Exterior photograph of California City Congregational Church as it was built, photographer not listed,
no date. Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum;
University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams: Photographs/Negatives; California City, City
Plan, California City, CA (#770), 46/1519 IV.D.
73

Figure 4.21: Interior photograph of California City Congregational Church as it was built, photographer not listed,
no date, number 4361-5. Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1521 IV.D.

4.4 Residential Design
Residential planning and design was imperative to California City’s success. It had to be
attractive and affordable, in order to entice people to purchase lots, and it had to be well-
functioning, to encourage them to stay. Planners of Boron Valley were well aware of the
“endless miles of bedroom subdivisions [that] typify the post-war American suburb.” Therefore,
they wanted to ensure that “neighborhoods and communities can be planned with meaningful
centers and boundaries which give them an individuality similar to towns or small cities.” Smith
and Williams took this endeavor very seriously. They designed a variety of single-family
residences under $20,000 for potential residents to choose from. They also implemented
important Garden City principles such as green belts and pocket parks to keep them happy and
safe, so “persons can proudly identify themselves with their area.” Initially the homes, or at least
74

the idea of them, were popular. Within California City’s first year (1958), more than 800 lots
were sold, and property investments totaled $3,500,000.
245
Two years later, 500 residents lived in
the city, and investments had increased to $15 million.
246
It was clear that the collection of homes
that Smith and Williams designed and their concepts for neighborhood development resonated
with buyers early in California City’s development.
Neighborhood planning also resulted from a specific set of principles outlined in
“Policies for Planning in Boron Valley.” These principles guided location selection for
neighborhoods, but also stressed the importance of neighborhoods evolving into close-knit,
functioning communities. They are as follows:
1. Residential areas should be formed into unified neighborhoods and
communities, with clearly defined boundaries and integrated commercial, school
and park facilities.
2. Residential areas should be varied in residential density, housing type and
design to provide a maximum range of choices based on economic ability, family
composition and personal taste.
3. Multi-family housing parcels should be large enough for flexible site plans
and maximum utilization of land.
4. The number of access points between highways and neighborhoods or
communities should be limited to protect both highways and residential areas, yet
be sufficient for desired movement.
5. Neighborhood street patterns should be designed to provide convenient
movement from highway access points to the neighborhood center and prevent
the movement of disruptive through traffic.

Like earlier garden cities, residential sites were to have an intentional disconnect from high
traffic thoroughfares. The Community Facilities Planners wanted residents to feel safe within
their neighborhoods, but made sacrifices in having complete separation between pedestrians
and automobiles. Instead, Smith and Williams enhanced neighborhoods by incorporating
open, usable green space. They also designed distinct housing typologies that aimed to create
active, social communities.
Within California City, Smith and Williams created concepts for housing typologies that
catered to both private and social individuals. Landscaping was a highlight in each concept.
For those who wanted complete privacy, the team offered the “Atrium (Walled Garden)

245
“History Marked by Gains.”; Most of California City’s early marketing material implies that lots were purchased
by individual families, rather than speculators buying numerous plots for development.
246
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1960.
75

Home, “a house that turns in on its own garden and is literally walled off from the exterior
native environment.” (Figure 4.22)
247
As seen in the sketch, the natural environment was
brought directly into the living environment.

Figure 4.22: Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Atrium (Walled Garden) home typology, no date. Courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

247
Smith and Williams, “Atrium (Walled Garden) Homes” sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design
& Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
76

This concept is reminiscent of many of Smith’s residential designs, a style that he had mastered.
In 1946, he designed the unbuilt “Garden Wall House” for the Barr Lumber Company, which
was envisioned as “an intimate garden out of which the house rises.”
248
This design “clarified his
priorities: garden and site first, buildings second, tailored around nature.”
249
It was also Smith’s
practice to create a plan first, from which the elevation and form of the building would be
derived.
250
This would explain why there are so many conceptual plans for housing in California
City, though many never materialized.
For those who wanted the option of social interaction, but also valued privacy, there was
the Town-House Village (Figure 4.23).

Figure 4.23. Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Town House Village typology, no date. Courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

248
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection,” 96.
249
Ibid.
250
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection,” 99.
77

The Town-House Village consisted of clusters of the Patio-Town House property type (Figure
4.24). This property type was described as a home “for the urban dweller,” where “enclosed
courts provide privacy and outdoor living space” (Figure 4.24).
251
The town houses were
available in a variety of different sizes, and most included more than one patio space, some
located off the exterior facades and some located in the middle of the homes. In “Outside In: The
Architecture of Smith and Williams,” Debi Howell-Ardila lists Smith’s design essentials (evident
in the town house plans): “a large living/dining room off the terrace, a kitchen with cross light
and air, and two bedrooms offering garden views, one with outdoor access.”
252
Each layout took
clear advantage of the patio spaces, which also offered privacy. Residents in this village were
able to retreat to their private patios when they did not feel like socializing in the communal
areas of the community.

Figure 4.24: Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Patio-Town House typology, no date. Courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

251
Smith and Williams, “Atrium (Walled Garden) Homes.”
252
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection,” 99.
78

A more neighbor-oriented, single-family residence option was the appropriately named
Neighbor-Oriented plan (Figure 4.25). Also equipped with a back patio, Smith and Williams
utilized landscaping to delineate property lines. This residential type was considered the “more
usual suburban house…placed facing the street.”
253
Though Garden City principles typically had
homes facing away from the street, to ensure safety for children, Smith and Williams wanted this
option to create a unified streetscape, which each lot being part of a street design.
254
This proved
different from Smith’s usual approach to home design. He often received requests for the plans
of a home he had already designed for a client, so that others could replicate its design. He
always refused, saying that each house was particularly suited to his client’s individual needs.
255

In his and Williams’ design for California City residences, the houses were thought of
collectively, with the understanding that each plan would be replicated and would need to create
a cohesive neighborhood pattern.

Figure 4.25: Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Neighbor-Oriented house typology, no date. Courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

253
Smith and Williams, “Neighbor-Oriented” sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
254
Ibid.
255
Howell-Ardila, “The USC Connection,” 99-100.
79

Most in line with Garden City residential design principles was the concept for Park-
Oriented housing. A Park-Oriented house was one that “looks out on, or is in a park” (Figure
4.26).
256

Figure 4.26: Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the Park-Oriented house typology, no date. Courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1518 IV.D.

256
Smith and Williams, “Park-Oriented” sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
80

It was this idea that Smith and Williams probably assumed would be most popular within
California City, due to the expectation that a number of parks, of all sizes, would be built. They
reasoned, “As many parks are planned, many residences will be able to take advantage of this
opportunity. Regulation of fences on this type of house will allow the park atmosphere to flow
around and include the house site.”
257
A shared driveway situated clusters of single-family
residences deep into their park settings so they could be fully integrated into nature. This also
took the houses off the main residential streets, providing safer spaces for children to be. As seen
in the sketch, houses varied in orientations, still providing an element of privacy.
Smith and Williams designed five original housing models for California City for
residents to choose from. These models were variations of the Park-Oriented neighborhood
concept and the Atrium House design. Only a handful of these plans were actually constructed.
The models were affordable, the most expensive sold at $18,500, making them attractive to
potential residents.
258
An advertisement encouraging residents to choose their favorite plan
described the houses:
All five models have in common a special charm and character but each has
special features and values to appeal to the particular needs of various owners.
Which house is right for you? All share many of the same advanced features
which include perimeter heating and draft-free comfort, all-electric kitchens,
custom cabinet work, air-conditioning, spacious floor plans and panorama
windows for spectacular views.” The five houses are name for five of the world’s
most beautiful lakes.
259

Examples of the different models can be seen in Figure 4.27.

257
Ibid.
258
Report for California City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth,
Prepared by Community Facilities Planners, no date. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C
259
Ibid.
81

Figure 4.27: An advertisement for different housing models in California City designed by Smith and Williams in
Report for California City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth,
Prepared by Community Facilities Planners, no date. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

A more detailed drawing of how “The Constance” and “The Geneva” plans fit with the Park-
Oriented neighborhood setting is seen in Figure 4.28 below. Though different sizes, the two
plans are integrated directly within the landscape, surrounded by trees and other landscaping.
Both include the essential patio element. Following are sketches of two different models set
within a lush, desert park environment (Figures 4.29 and 4.30).
82

Figure 4.28: Smith and Williams’ “The Geneva” plan (left) and “The Constance” plan (right) integrated into the
Park-Oriented neighborhood concept, scale 1”=20’, no date. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture
and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith
and Williams 770 California City, 46/1520 IV.D.

Figure 4.29: Stan Repp Sketch of “The Constance” model (1962) in Report for California City Development Co.:
“California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community Facilities Planners. Smith
& Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic
Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.
83

Figure 4.30: Stan Repp Sketch of “The Garda” or “The Geneva” model (1962) in Report for California City
Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community
Facilities Planners. Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3
Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

California City’s architectural boom in residential development lasted through the end of
the 1970s. During the first wave, which I’ve estimated to have been within California City’s first
five years as a community, at least three of Smith and Williams’ model home designs were
constructed for the masses, though the exact number remains unclear. Many of those exist today
in various neighborhoods (Figure 4.31).
84

Figure 4.31: Interior photo of “The Como” model built in “Fairway Estates,” photographer not listed, no date.
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara. Folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic
Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

Many can also be seen within the cul-de-sacs flanking Heather Avenue within Central Park. Also
in the mid-1960s, Smith and Williams designed a garden apartment complex called the Eastlake
Condominiums, their most realized version of a garden apartment. The Eastlake Condominiums
were to encompass the entire corner of N. Loop Boulevard and Randsburg Mojave Road,
reaching to the lakefront of California City’s Central Park Lake, reflecting the principles that
seemed to guide much of California City’s growth: bigger is better (Figures 4.32).
85

Figure 4.32: Smith and Williams’ Illustration of Eastlake Condominium, no date. Courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Photographs/Negatives; California City, City Plan, California City, CA (#770),
46/1519 IV.D. Edited by author.

Another wave can be seen in 1966, just after California City’s incorporation as a city. By this
point, U.S. Steel Homes had developed a tract just northwest of the intersection of California
City Boulevard and Neuralia Road.
260
While Smith and Williams and the Community Facilities
Planners were still involved with California City at this time, it is unclear if they had a hand in
designing the modest homes that can be seen in this tract and throughout the city. The same can
be said for the ranch homes seen in Applewood Estates, located just east of California City’s
Central Park off Randsburg-Mojave Road, which opened between 1969 and 1970. This appears
to be the end of cohesive residential development at the neighborhood scale.
The purpose of examining these residential ideas at such an intimate scale is to make it
easier to understand how they fit within a fully realized neighborhood. At the neighborhood scale,
a union between the different residential models designed by Smith and Williams was achieved,
at least on paper. The plan became the incubator in which all of the conceptual residential
designs were able to generate and evolve into realistic, livable spaces. For example, Figure 4.33
is a site plan for a neighborhood located just north of Central Park, bounded by North Loop

260
Stevenson, “Nat Mendelsohn.”
86

Boulevard on the south, Conklin Boulevard on the west, Mendiburu Road on the north and
Randsburg-Mojave Road on the east. Though speculation, this thesis will refer to this
neighborhood as Fairway Estates, a neighborhood where Smith and Williams actually built a
number of their model homes. This neighborhood mixed the Atrium (Walled Garden) house, the
Neighbor-Oriented house, and (undocumented) two-story houses.
261

Figure 4.33: Smith and Williams’ Site Plan for, presumably, the Fairway Estates neighborhood, scale 1”=600’, no
date. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1520 IV.D.

261
I found no evidence of any plans for two-story house designs by Smith and Williams, nor do I believe that any
were actually constructed.
87

In the plan, one sees how landscape and park space is used in the formation of the
neighborhood. Arguably, it is what is most apparent about the plan. A variety of planting was
used to delineate property lines or provide separation and privacy. The winding green patch
through the middle of the neighborhood, which is actually the location of a wash, served as its
“backbone,” and was packed with landscaping and green space. This reflected the “park as
backbone” Garden City principle that was adapted by Stein and Wright.
262
The use of cul-de-sacs
provided spaces for “neighborhood parks.” So while Smith and Williams, again, did not
completely separate vehicles from pedestrians as in the Garden City tradition, they compromised
by creating spaces where pedestrians could be safe and private from automobile traffic. Smith
and Williams made a great effort in designing these parklets, differentiating them and utilizing
them throughout the neighborhood (Figure 4.34).

Figure 4.34: Smith and Williams’ Diagrams for various parklet strategies in California City, no date. Courtesy of
the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University
of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1520 IV.D.

262
Architectural Resources Group, Garden Apartments, 14.
88

The duo intended the cul-de-sac parklets to be utilized as tot lots, but also realized that
using these in-between spaces rather than whole properties for park space would be more
economically beneficial to the city. They reasoned, “By eliminating certain through-streets and
replacing them with cul-de-sacs, a ‘tot-area’ can be created without loss of salable lots.” They
utilized this approach in residential intersections as well, which can be seen in the top left of
Figure 4.33. The team also designed a “mother’s area” that could be built around the “no-parking”
areas next to fire hydrants. This can be seen in both perspective and plan in the center of the
same figure. Perhaps used most often in the neighborhood site plan in Figure 4.32 were the
landscaping techniques seen in the bottom left and right corners of Figure 4.33 Known as the
“terminal vista,” the idea was a “combined architectural and planning device used throughout
this project. Here it is used with landscape forms to add a focal point to the neighborhood. Smith
and Williams argued that “focal points and ‘play-streets’ can be made by landscape techniques,
change in paving width and material.”
263
Subtle changes in the street layout resulted in a unique,
dynamic streetscape in which the Atrium and Neighbor-Oriented house designs could then be
placed.
This example of a typical neighborhood layout is only one way that Smith and Williams
envisioned California City’s neighborhoods to be. And while there is no documentation of other
housing plans and formations to this extent, a variety of other housing typologies were
anticipated, particularly in California City’s Older Adult Area. With Smith and Williams’
passion for recreation came a passion for including seniors in daily life. Therefore, the team took
extra consideration in designing the Older Adult Area, an all-inclusive community that included
housing, recreation, commercial and other institutional spaces.

4.5 Senior Citizens in California City
Planning for senior citizens deserves its own section within this chapter because it was an
essential part of California City’s original plan, one to which Smith and Williams paid extra
attention. Planning for senior citizens was being taken into consideration in many areas of the
United States, as seen in the development of age-restricted communities such as Sun City (1960)
in Phoenix, Arizona and Leisure World (1960) in Seal Beach, California. However, despite the

263
Smith and Williams’ Parklet sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum;
University of California, Santa Barbara.
89

development of these seniors-only communities, Mendelsohn argued that senior citizens didn’t
actually want to be segregated.
264
The older adult “should live close enough to make himself felt
in the vital life of the community.”
265
So, in enticing seniors to California City, Mendelsohn
promised that the city’s plan would aim to integrate them into the general community, not leave
them out.
266
“Policies for Planning the Boron Valley” did not include provisions for senior
planning, so it seems that California City’s senior community represented the personal visions of
Mendelsohn and Smith and Williams, who all shared similar views on senior living. They
enlisted the Retirement Home Planners of Pasadena to turn the ideas into reality.
267

In the mid-twentieth-century, planning principles typically advocated for senior-related
programming to be located in or around a community park, under the rationalization that “older
folks, senior citizens, have become more and more dependent upon the community for
recreational opportunities.”
268
This principle is followed in the siting of California City’s “Older
Adult Area,” which was to be located directly west of Central Park (Figure 4.35). With the park
nearby, senior citizens would be able to “reach the largest variety of facilities.”
269
The
Community Facilities Planners promised:
The lake with a variety of water recreation, the neighborhood shopping centers,
the cultural center, the crafts and hobby center, the church, all are within the older
adult area or adjoining it. All types of life-styles will be accommodated within the
center, from trailer living to luxury apartment, from single family homes to high-
rise residence hotels.
270

The amenities of the city’s Central Park were to be directly at the senior community’s disposal
where they could share them with “their younger fellow-citizens.”
271
They could also “enjoy the
quiet seclusion of their own residential area” with many features restricted to seniors only.
272

264
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1960.
265
“The Older Adult,” 1.
266
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
267
“The Older Adult,” 1.
268
Shivers and Hjelte, Planning Recreational Places, 263.
269
“Older Adult Area,” Report for California City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of
Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community Facilities Planners, Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design
Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and
Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.
270
“Older Adult Area.”
271
“The Older Adult,” 6.
272
Ibid.
90

Figure 4.35: Location of Older Adult Area west of Central Park Area, Smith and Williams. Report for California
City Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community
Facilities Planners courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California
City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

The “Older Adult Area” was all-inclusive for those that did not wish to venture outside
the community. For example, a system of “circulation parks” offered recreation specifically
geared to seniors. The “circulation parks” were envisioned as:

A system of pedestrian walks, bicycle and bridle paths and pathways restricted to
similar transportation methods [that] lead to all area-components in a cool and
shady landscaped environment. Along the paths are found such recreation
facilities as bowling on the green, shuffleboard, bocce, croquet and clock golf.
273

273
“Older Adult Area.”
91

The circulation park, which is illustrated by the dark winding form weaving its way through the
“Older Adult Area,” was intended to be the connector between three major park centers with
dedicated programming: the water center, the craft center and the village center (Figure 4.36).
Cars were not permitted within this area, though golf carts were encouraged.
274
In this sense, the
Older Adult Community was most in line with Garden City principles.

Figure 4.36: “California City’s Uniquely Planned Older Adult Area, in the Midst of Churches, Shops, Lake, Parks,
Golf Course, Medical Center, Craft Center, Varied Recreational Facilities.” Drawing courtesy of “What the Older
Adult Can Look Forward to In California City,” California City Sun, November 15 1961, 4-5, California City
Branch Vertical File: California City History 2, California City Branch, Kern County Library.

274
“The Older Adult,” 6.
92

Descriptions for the three centers are as follows:
• Water Center: “…a pleasantly landscaped park with cooling fountains playing over
shadded [sic] pools surrounded by benches and quiet activity areas. A bait and fly casting
pool is provided for the sportsman.”
• Craft Center: “…a complete hobby and crafts facility where recreation activity is both
consumed and produced. Here a retired craftsman may lend of his experience and gain
himself from his ability to ‘contribute.’”
• Village Center: “Set like the New England ‘common’ in a park meadow environment will
be the hub of daily shopping, exchange of news and visiting. Here also is found an
‘exchange’ for both volunteer and paid employment or activity seekers.”
275

Also seen within the illustration is the variety in housing typologies anticipated for seniors,
including multi-level apartments, single-family residences (predicted to be a mix of Atrium or
Park-Oriented housing), guesthouses, Ranch Estates, and garden apartments (Figure 4.37).
Seniors would even be able to live in a trailer park village. Single-family residences were “small
enough to make housekeeping easier” but “nevertheless large enough for gracious living (Figure
4.38).”
276
They also included features that would make living easy for older adults, such as grab-
rails.
277
These units were priced at a more affordable rate of $10,900.
278
For health related issues,
a nursing home was to be located on the perimeter of the community, providing medical and
therapeutic care and “supervised recovery of minor ailments.”
279

275
“Older Adult Area.”
276
“The Older Adult,” 5.
277
Ibid, 6.
278
Ibid, 5.
279
Ibid, 4-5.
93

Figure 4.37: Sketch for what appears to be a garden apartment, illustrator not listed, no date. Courtesy of the Smith
& Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1520 IV.D.

Figure 4.38: Smith and Williams’ Illustration of Older Adult Area as it was envisioned, illustrator not listed, no date.
Photo courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City,
Promotional Materials, 770, California City, CA (1961), 8/136 IV.C.
94

The “Older Adult Area” promised much to the potential senior citizens of California City.
Mendelsohn himself assured:
You can, if you like, retire to ‘the quiet life’ enjoying the benefits of a fine climate
and a pleasant ‘small town’ community life. Or, you can lead as active a life as
you ever have had. A life filled with a variety of recreational, social and cultural
pursuits in an air that is clear and friendly and a community that you will
love…
280

It was this type of inter-generational planning that made the California City unique and enticing
during the mid-twentieth century.

4.6 Industry
California City’s planners expected that industry and production would bring people and
money into the new town. While the desert location of the city boasted an existing boron
industry and military facilities like the Edwards Air Force Base, the city’s founders felt that other
industries could be introduced. The city’s 1960 Annual Report predicted that $20,000,000 of
industrial uses were planned or already constructed.
281
In response to increasing excitement
about the aircraft and aerospace industries, California City constructed an airport with promises
of jobs for its residents.
The enthusiasm about industry was prevalent across all of Boron Valley, so planning for
industrial districts was understandably taken into account in “Policies for Planning the Boron
Valley.” In the documents, industry was divided into three district types: Commercial-Industrial,
Limited Industrial, and General Industrial. While each type of district was configured to different
uses, planning principles sited the districts far enough away from residential areas to ensure they
wouldn’t be affected by harmful production, but close enough that they were easily accessible,
since it was assumed most every working resident in California City would be working in one of
the nearby industries. Distance to and from major transportation arteries was important. One
planning principle reads: “All districts should have maximum service from all forms of
transportation and utilities.” Similarly, the development of industrial districts was directly related
to transportation: “Districts should be compact to rationalize highway patterns and strengthen

280
“The Older Adult,” 6.
281
Mendelsohn, Annual Report, 1961.
95

public transit…” Nevertheless, design and layout were always taken into account, including
landscaping.
There were certain industries that Smith and Williams hoped would flourish in and
around California City. A list of these industries is seen in Table 4.1, along with notes reconciled
from “California City: A Planning Approach.” All of these major industries were located (or to
be located) in California City or in adjacent towns such as Mojave. The employment numbers
seen in the table were based on statistics from 1968, when Smith and Williams recorded them in
their planning documents. These industries considered “new” were those that were established
since California City’s founding in 1958. Those labeled “existing” were already established
before 1958.

96

Table 4.1. California City Industry, Smith and Williams, “California City: A Planning
Approach,” June 10, 1968

The map in Figure 4.39 illustrates where each industry was located in relation to California
City’s city center (cross-referenced to the Number/Map column in Table 4.1). Some of the most
important industries were Edwards Air Force Base (reflecting the major technological
advancements of the military post-World War II) and the U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation
(reminiscent of the Mojave’s historic connection to Borax mining in the 1800s). Mendelsohn’s
Number/Map Name Existing/New Notes
10 Edwards Air Force Base Existing Current employment –
12,000
9 U.S. Borax & Chemical
Company
Existing Borax mines
2 Johannesburg-Randsburg Existing Gold, tungsten and silver
mines
11 Great Lakes Carbon
Corporation
Unknown
6 Monolith Portland Cement
Company
Existing
7 California Portland Cement
Company
Existing
16 Los Angeles Water &
Power Station
Existing
3 Naval Ordnance Test
Station
Existing 10,000+ employment
8 Texas Aluminum
Company
New Built by California City
Development Co.; in
operation
13 Purdy Company New Large RR car salvage
operation
14 United Carbon Co. New In process of building a
$5,000,000 plant near
Mojave
15 American Potash and
Chemical Corp.
New Planned $15,000,000
plant between Mojave
and CA City
5 Kern County Airport #7
and industrial district
New Proposed 2,8000 acre site,
including 700,000 SF of
buildings
1 California City Airport and
Industrial Park
New
4 California City Recreation
- Land
New
12 National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Unknown
97

partner M. Penn Phillips claimed, “There is nearby the rapidly expanding Edwards Air Force
Base; the largest flight test center in the United States, which will be doubling its civilian work
force in the next ten years…”
282
He also noted that the borax site “has the world’s largest supply
of boron which is a vital factor in defense and missile development because of its use as an
ingredient in ‘exotic high energy fuel,” making a strong connection between two of California
City’s major industries.
283

Figure 4.39: Map of California City Industry in Report for California City Development Co.: “California City
Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community Facilities Planners. Courtesy of the Smith
& Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic
Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

282
“Missile Center,” Newspaper Clipping in California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 2.
California City Branch, Kern County Library.
283
Ibid.
98

What was arguably the most anticipated industry for the city was the California City
municipal airport, located just northwest of the city center, and especially Smith and Williams’
“Airpark Village” (Figures 4.40 and 4.41):
…a modern industrial complex, a well planned community airport, a graceful,
sheltered residential community, and an ultra modern recreational center, all as a
unified whole, yet separated, so that one does not intrude on the other.
284

The complex was expected be a major source of employment, while the park provided housing
so that employees were only steps from their work place. The actual airport facility, designed by
Smith and Williams in 1960, was only one portion of the airpark, serving corporate and private
aircrafts (Figures 4.42).
285
Just south of the airport the industrial village supported a residential
neighborhood, with both multi- and single-family housing. Under the supervision of the
California City Community Services District and the Airpark Village Association, an “airpark
village green” and recreational facilities were to be operated and maintained for residents.
286
An
advertisement compared the village common to the “quiet community parks found in the English
countryside.”
287
This residential area was also to include school and park sites so that working
families were not excluded.
288

284
“Airpark Village in California City.”
285
“Airpark Village in California City;” Don Downie, “The $1 Airport,” Airport World (1973): 24, California City
Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California City Branch, Kern County Library.
286
“Airpark Village in California City.”
287
Ibid.
288
Ibid.
99

Figure 4.40: Drawing of the proposed California City Airpark Village, original source unknown. Courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic
Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.

Figure 4.41: Aerial View of the Airpark Village, illustrator not listed, no date. Report for California City
Development Co.: “California City Story”: Three Short Years of Dynamic Growth, Prepared by Community
Facilities Planners. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder “Smith and Williams: Project Files: California
City 770; “3 Years of Dynamic Growth,” California City, CA 8/129 IV.C.
100

Figure 4.42: Smith and Williams’ elevation and sign for California City Municipal Airport (1966). Courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder 407 IV.E., Smith and Williams, California City Signs, California City, CA (1961).

One can see the processes by which Smith and Williams and the rest of the Community
Facilities Planners designed and laid out the city, from the neighborhood scale to the building
scale. The Airpark Village represents another plan-within-a-plan that the team hoped would one
day become commonplace within the city boundaries. The plan of neighborhoods or districts was
always the first element to be conceived; the construction of individual buildings came later.
Then, each piece would evolve to become a cohesive part of the larger city whole. The next
section will show how commercial areas, such as the city’s Central Business District, fit into the
overall plan for the city.

4.7 Commercial Districts
In planning for Boron Valley, commerce was considered one of the main areas where
conflict between pedestrians and automobiles could be avoided. Again, compromises were made
in this relationship, due to the necessity of cars. However, planners were aware that “the mere
separation of traffic and commerce…can reduce the barnstorming method of site location and
design, and eliminate the jammed debris character of traffic movement;” they made this their
goal. Additionally, commercial areas presented prime opportunities to plan ahead for parking and
101

landscaping, so that both existed in a happy medium. Initial planning designated a large Central
Business District adjacent to both Central Park and the Older Adult Area. Local Commercial
Centers were planned for the rest of the city.
In “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley,” much focus was put on including pedestrian
circulation within commercial areas like the Central Business District, with parking and traffic
on the peripheries of these spaces. Principle Five described an acceptable site plan for this area
as one “…based on peripheral parking, and internal pedestrian moved [sic] (except possibly for
service vehicles) with malls, plazas and structures arranged according to advanced principals of
architecture and landscape design.” Parking, structures, and “landscaping and pedestrian” was
regulated by the “ration of space allocation,” which advised a 3:2:1 ratio, respectively. “Unified
Use Areas” characterized the programming of the Central Business District. Initially, a small
area (30 acres) of the overall district was to be used as “General Commercial.” As the city grew,
it was expected that the uses of the Central Business District would change as well. Boron’s
planning documents made provisions for this, stating “after the first area is outgrown, further
development should be guided into relatively more specialized use areas.” These areas included
retail, auto, business and financial, medical, civic, cultural and travel and entertainment. Each
use started off with an initial amount of acreage; when it outgrew its space, it was allotted an
additional amount. Therefore, the total initial size of the Central Business District was predicted
as 270 acres. Once the district grew, it was predicted to be 530 acres.
Local commercial centers, like the one built at the intersection of California City
Boulevard and Neuralia Road, were expected to be either fifteen to thirty acres, and offer a wide
range of goods and professional services to 25,000 and 40,000 persons. Though smaller and
more widespread than the Central Business District, these centers were nevertheless expected to
minimize conflict between automobiles and pedestrians. They were also to be pleasantly
landscaped spaces. California City’s Aspen Mall is the only built example of a commercial
center. Constructed in 1970 and opened to the public in 1971, this ¼ mile commercial strip
reflected Boron Valley’s original planning principles for commercial spaces (Figure 4.43).
289
All
parking was restricted to the front of the mall, while the buildings were spaced out so that
landscaped areas could fill in-between.

289
“History Marked by Gains.”
102

Figure 4.43: California City’s first commercial center, Aspen Mall, May 1, 1962. Photo from USC Libraries Special
Collection; filename CHS-45208 (http://
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll65/id/7500/rec/21).

In planning for California City, no stone was left unturned, including the design that went
into the city’s smallest elements, such as signage. With a clear idea of where everything was to
be placed within the general plan for the city, the small “accessories” are reminders of the
creative minds that believed in California City’s growth and success.

4.8 Ancillary Features
It does not appear that there were any principles guiding design for small community
elements at the Valley level. Instead, it seems that Smith and Williams had fun being creative
with the details of the city such as signage. They took full advantage of having complete design
control, designing everything from simple wooden signposts to a sign for the historic Twenty
103

Mule Team Trail. Everything had a place and a purpose, rounding out Mendelsohn’s “social
architecture” dream.
The subtle design differences seen in the drawings above emphasize the original concept
Smith and Williams had for California City, in which a modern day city springs from an old,
pioneering landscape. For example, one shopping center sign shows a simple, sleek design, most
likely to have been placed at the Aspen Mall commercial center (Figure 4.45). Figures 4.45 and
4.46 were likely designed for the less urban areas, injecting a rustic country feel into the city. No
detail was overlooked; in fact, the team even spent time experimenting with fonts for official
California City signage.

Figure 4.44: Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (1963). Courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder 407 IV.E., Smith and Williams, California City Signs, California City, CA (1961).
104

Figure 4.45: Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (1966). Courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder 407 IV.E., Smith and Williams, California City Signs, California City, CA (1961).

Figure 4.46: Smith and Williams’ Elevation for California City signage (1966). Courtesy of the Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara, folder 407 IV.E., Smith and Williams, California City Signs, California City, CA (1961).
105

Smith and Williams also designed certain elements to adapt to the city’s landscape as it
evolved over time. For example, a wash runs throughout California City, and the team planned
for residential and commercial infrastructure on both sides of it. Recognizing that the wash
would collect water over time and potentially widen, the duo pictured how the landscape might
evolve with it. They predicted that eventually, infrastructure would be needed so that people
could still get around those parts of the city that bordered the wash. The sketch in Figure 4.47
shows how this might have happened. By 1980, it was likely that simple bridges would need to
be placed throughout the city along the wash.

Figure 4.47: Smith and Williams’ Diagram of the evolution of California City’s wash, no date. Courtesy of the
Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and Williams 770 California City, 46/1517 I.V.D.

4.9 Landscape Features
Because Garden City principles played such a large part in the planning for California
City, it is important to take a brief, but closer, look at some of the landscaped community
features Smith and Williams had planned for the city. Many of these landscapes have already
106

been discussed as features of residential or recreational spaces. However, an element that has yet
to be discussed is the series of landscaped medians that were intended for major vehicular
connectors around the city. Because of the high number of residents expected within the city, the
Community Facilities Planners planned thoroughly for increased traffic patterns, and ways to
safely accommodate them. Therefore, they intentionally separated lanes of traffic with heavily
landscaped medians, as seen in Figure 4.48.

Figure 4.48: Illustration of California City built-out. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and
Williams 770 California City, 46/1517 I.V.D.

This kind of strategic planning, attention to detail, and ambition for safe but visually pleasing
assets within the community is characteristic of the Community Facilities Planners’ work
throughout California City.
This chapter unveils a better understanding of the design and planning processes that
Smith and Williams and the Community Facilities Planners went through in creating California
City. The plan for California City reveals itself to be the product of modern day Garden City
planning principles and recreational planning, in which open, green space and major areas of
107

recreation were achieved. Furthermore, it became the canvas in which Smith and Williams was
able to create some of their most unique and experimental designs at an unprecedented city scale.

108

5. CALIFORNIA CITY: THEN AND NOW

What is left of the original vision and realization of California City? What new
development has occurred? The answers to these questions are important because they determine
whether or not the city’s plan, in and of itself, is worth preserving. Most of California City’s
infrastructure and urban fabric did not develop, in any way, shape, or form. But what did develop,
in the central portion of the city and within Galileo Park, can provide clues about the city’s
present landscape and how it relates to Smith and Williams’ original city plan. The investigation
includes individual elements of the built infrastructure, like houses and parks, as well as those
that are spread over the broader landscape, such as circulation and large, programmed districts. Is
the “social architecture,” as Nat K. Mendelsohn once envisioned, expressed today? How does the
current image compare to his original one? Can any part of this history be saved, and if so, how?
A number of new questions need to be answered in order to understand the full extent to
which California City’s “social architecture” – the master plan and all that remains within –
came to fruition. These questions apply to all sections within this chapter, divided into the same
themes discussed in Chapter Four, because each theme is a remnant of the intended legacy for
California City. They include:
• Are the original goals of this theme maintained? If so, to what extent and in what ways?
• Is this theme contributing to or strengthening the existing form and function of the
original city plan?
It is also necessary to establish what can be considered California City’s “original” build-out
versus recent development.
290
Because it appears that Smith and Williams and the Community
Facilities Planners were involved with the project for at least ten years, infrastructure is
considered “original” if it was built or conceived between 1958 (the city’s founding year) and
1970 (the year one of the last major housing developments was constructed). Smith and Williams
designed many of California City’s buildings between 1961 and 1968, so these years in
particular are significant within California City’s history.

290
I refrain from calling this a period of significance, simply because I have not yet proven whether California
City’s resources are significant.
109

In the twenty-first century, California City official approved a new general plan, which
outlines the vision and goals for the city from 2009 to 2028.
291
Whatever is uncovered from the
analysis of California City’s “original” infrastructure is a critical component in understanding
what the city has planned for the future. Perhaps adherence to the original Smith and Williams
plan would benefit the future development of the city, guiding new growth within the original
structure of the plan while allowing flexibility in developing a new sense of place. Whether or
not parts of California City are determined to be intact and significant enough to protect, it is
essential to evaluate the city’s master plan in its entirety, both past and present.
292

5.1 General and Schematic Land Use Plans
California City did not develop into seven satellite cities as planned. Instead, the central
city’s road and utility infrastructure and buildings and open spaces were constructed, newcomers
trickled in and settled down, and growth dwindled to a sluggish pace. Instead of a bustling urban
core of 85,000, California City currently has only 14,120 citizens. Because of this, there is more
built infrastructure than there are people to use it, and the “scatteration” that Boron Valley’s
planners once feared is widespread. Nevertheless, the city’s development is comparable to what
was expected of the city during its first decade. So, with a comprehensive understanding of the
city today, larger-scale redevelopment could be prevented, and scatteration corrected, while
preserving the city’s original elements.
This is reflected in the city’s vision for land use from its new general plan, which states
that the overall goal is to:
Promote land use distribution which provides for safe residential neighborhoods,
bolsters’ economic prosperity, protects property value, preserves open space and
natural resources, allows for recreational opportunities, and enhances the overall
quality of life in California City.

While less specific in concept than Smith and Williams’ satellite cities, many goals remain
similar: safety for residents, recreational opportunities, and a connection to the city’s unique
desert landscape. However, unlike Smith and Williams, the city understands that future
development must be concentrated in the central core. It can no longer afford to spread itself thin

291
California City City Council, California City Master General Plan 2009-2028 (California City, CA: California
City Planning Department, 2009), PDF, http://www.californiacity.com/20092028ccfinalgeneralplan.pdf. Any
information pertaining to the Master Plan within this chapter comes from this document, unless noted otherwise.
292
A list of extant buildings within California City constructed no later than 1970 can be seen in Appendix B.
110

throughout its 82,000 acres. Instead, the urban core is given high priority, as well as “contiguity
with existing development.”
Because California City is so expansive, the city introduced nine planning sub-areas to
manage future growth. Planning Sub-Area 1 is the central core of the developed city, and will be
the main focus of the analysis in this chapter. Recalling Smith and Williams’ original master plan,
the central city was designed to accommodate specific city uses (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: General Plan overlay on Google Aerial map highlighting California City’s central core, giving a general
idea of where original programming was meant to occur compared to the landscape today. California City, CA
[map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Figure 5.2 shows a portion of the original General Plan (the central city) overlaid with a Google
Aerial View of the same area. This illustrates how the original placement of city functions
compares to the current fabric of the central city. The legend uses the same characters from the
original master plan to convey programming:
• Orange oval – Medium-density residential
• Green circle – Park/golf course
• Pink-and-white square – Commercial center
• Green-and-white square – School
• Green-and-white triangle – Neighborhood/Community Park
• Green-and-blue stripes – Industrial area
111

Figure 5.2: California City program today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps.
Google. Edited by author.

Most of the developed neighborhoods within California City are medium-density
residential, as previously planned. Those neighborhoods occur mainly adjacent to schools,
commercial centers or parks. Most commercial centers occur along California City Boulevard,
the city’s main street, which was originally envisioned as a commercial and recreational
thoroughfare. Recreation within California City has mainly evolved around or within Central
Park. Multiple schools now exist within the area, though only two of the four are adjacent to a
community or neighborhood park. Industrial areas occur around the perimeter of the central city,
as intended. In a two-dimensional analysis, the cityscape looks very similar to that foreseen by
California City’s creators.
The city’s new general plan ensures that similar development will continue to occur. That
is because the plan’s principles for the existing central core are intent on creating a cohesive,
sustainable community:
• Preserve existing residential neighborhoods whose identity is
characterized by the quality and maintenance of existing construction,
stability, and reputation as a “special” place in the community;
• In-fill vacant parcels at densities that are consistent with existing land
uses, and utilize sustainable principles;
112

• Provide for redevelopment and the intensification of areas which are
physically or economically depressed; and
• Provide linkages, where feasible, to open space areas and recreational
opportunities.

In reference to general land use, it becomes clear that there is an acute awareness and
acknowledgement of working with the existing environment at the local municipal level. This is
further emphasized in one of the city’s overall policies: to “preserve existing significant sound
residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial areas.” The criteria for
understanding the city’s definition of significance (likely different from a preservationist’s
definition) remains to be seen.
This vision also becomes clear in the city’s list of goals for sustainability, the creation of
jobs, and urban development, which include (but are not limited to):
• Accommodate new development which is compatible with and
complements existing land uses within the General Plan planning area.
• Accommodate new development which is sensitive to and capitalizes on
the General Plan planning area’s natural environmental setting.

A connection to the city’s built infrastructure, as well as its physical landscape, is a constant
theme throughout its new master plan.
In relation to California City’s original plan, this focus is promising. That is because
three-dimensional elements were always considered just as important as those that appear in the
second-dimension, a prime characteristic of Nat Mendelsohn’s “social architecture.”
Unobstructed arteries, views and vistas are some examples of essential elements that need to be
protected, and that may be if the city adheres to its new planning principles. In designing
California City, Smith & Williams made clear the importance of having visual connections
between different parts of the city as well as a visual connection to the desert landscape (Figure
5.3).
113

Figure 5.3: Desert views in California City, 2015. Photo by author.

Along with the street pattern, these visual cues have also been maintained, however unintentional
this may have been. Currently, these visual connections have occurred because plots of land
remain empty. Neighbors can see each other’s homes simply because another person failed to
build next door or across the street. Similarly, some of the city’s major thoroughfares highlight
views of the desert landscape (Figure 5.4). Because California City is so undeveloped, many of
these views are maintained. So, “scatteration” may inadvertently create opportunities for the
future. Protection of the plan’s three-dimensional qualities could encourage growth while
ensuring visual connections to the city’s surroundings. As a crucial component of the Smith and
Williams’ original mater plan, a focus on preserving these visual connections should be a critical
goal of the new general plan.
114

Figure 5.4: California City Boulevard directing views east toward desert buttes, 2015. Photo by author.

Circulation is also one of the longest enduring remnants of Smith and Williams’
“California City: A Planning Approach” and Kern County’s “Policies for Planning the Boron
Valley.” It was one of the first elements of California City’s General and Schematic Plans to be
physically carved into the desert landscape. While freeways surrounding the city were never
constructed, collector and residential streets were graded and paved in full. Today, the central
city has fully developed circulation patterns as seen in Figure 5.5.
115

Figure 5.5: Local street patterns in California City. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google
Maps. Google.

While the central city roads continue to be maintained, those extending to undeveloped
parts within the city boundaries are deteriorating. Nevertheless, ghosts of these roads still convey
the community traffic patterns conceptualized by Smith and Williams, as discussed in Chapter
Four. This concept, which created a grid-like pattern within intra-urban areas and a free-flow
pattern within inter-open spaces, can be seen in below, albeit absent of homes or businesses
(Figure 5.6).
293

293

Inter-open and Intra-urban spaces are explained in more detail in Chapter Four.

116

Figure 5.6: Local street patterns in undeveloped areas of California City illustrating the concepts in Smith and
Williams’ Traffic Diagram. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google.

The grid-like patterns on the left and right sides of the photo indicate residential areas of,
presumably, two different satellite communities (intra-urban areas). The curvilinear streets in the
center signify the boundary between these communities (inter-open space). These would have
been low-density, in-between areas intended for citizens of each community to view their
neighboring towns. Similarly, the desert landscape would be readily apparent, maintaining the
sense of the city’s placement within its natural environment. Clearly, many of these streets are no
longer in use. In fact, much of these outlying areas have been allocated as other uses, such as
natural wildlife preserves, recreational off highway vehicle (OHV) parks, and even religious
pilgrimage sites. Before long, these residual streets may no longer be able to communicate Smith
and Williams’ original concept, due to overuse by vehicles combined with a lack of maintenance.
Fortunately, circulation is also a big concern for the city today. Per the new master plan,
the overall goal of current and future circulation is to “provide a balanced circulation system to
meet the needs of the residents, business, and visitors to California City.” The city hopes to
accomplish this by providing “adequate vehicle capacity,” creating a multi-modal transportation
117

system, and making it easier for citizens to access regional transportation systems. In its master
plan, it has used existing circulation patterns as a starting point to accomplishing these goals.
Despite underwhelming growth, the city has come to realize the importance and value of
its open land. It is attempting to create defined edges of the central core, so vacant land is
protected as the central city continues to develop. Views and vistas of the natural landscape is
not enough to protect it. Instead, the new master plan stresses that “open space is an irreplaceable
resource and one of the most valuable assets within the General Plan Planning Area…once it has
been committed to urban development, it will not be recoverable as open space.” Although
emphasizing the same ideals primarily in regards to recreation spaces, Smith and Williams
nevertheless also understood the value of open space in an urban city.

5.2 Recreational Parks and Centers
Recreation continues to be an important theme in California City. In fact, both Central
Park and Galileo Park continue to function in their original capacities as recreation centers. They
also maintain the same landscapes and infrastructures that they were originally designed to have.
While new buildings have been constructed, different management has taken over, or certain
areas have expanded or changed use, the original concepts behind both parks remain in place.
Similarly, neighborhood parks cater to more modern recreational activities such as those related
to off-roading vehicles. The city hopes “to promote development of land uses which would
enhance California City’s potential appeal as a ‘destination recreational community,” just as the
city’s creators had always hoped for.
118

Table 5.1: Summary of Recreation Parks in California City
Park Name General Location Original Park
Type
Present-Day
Features
Size (acres)
Central Park Central city –
intersection of
California City
Boulevard and Conklin
Boulevard
Golf course,
recreational facility
Community
center; tennis,
basketball,
volleyball,
handball courts;
swimming pool;
baseball fields;
BBQ pits
82.90
18-hole
PGA Golf
Course
Central city –
intersection of
California City
Boulevard and Conklin
Boulevard
Golf course,
recreational facility
Golf course 157.61
Galileo Hill
and Park “J”
Northeast of central city
– off 20 Mule Team
Parkway between
Rutgers Road and
Bucknell Road
Golf course,
recreational facility
Commercial radio
broadcasting site;
not open to public
187.3
Balsitis
Park
Central city – off
California City
Boulevard between
Yerba Boulevard and
Isabelle Boulevard
Between
Neighborhood Park
and Community
Park
Baseball, softball,
soccer fields;
basketball,
volleyball courts;
BBQ pits
15.01
California
City
Memorial
Park (Public
Cemetery)
Randsburg-Mojave
Road heading out of
Central city
Between
Neighborhood Park
and Community
Park
Public cemetery 10
Kiosk Park

Central city edge –
intersection of
Randsburg-Mojave
Road and 20 Mule
Team Parkway
Neighborhood Park Recreational
vehicle waste
disposal; picnic
area
3.34
Borax Bill
Park
Northeast of central city
– off 20 Mule Team
Parkway just past
Rudnick Boulevard
Community Park Recreational
vehicle parking;
picnic area
31.59
Cal City
MX Park
Northeast of central city
– off 20 Mule Team
Parkway and Chrysler
Drive
Between
Neighborhood Park
and Community
Park
Motocross track 10.59
119

Today, California City’s Central Park is mainly a space for golf, picnicking, sports,
swimming, fishing, community activities and general relaxation. Many of the park’s most
popular attractions, like the waterfall, once aggressively marketed and promoted, have fallen into
disrepair. The remains of other recreational spaces, such as the boat docks and the sports center,
are completely gone. Surprisingly enough, the lake pavilion, with Smith and Williams’ winged
parasols, remain an intact memento of the past (Figures 5.7-5.11 below).

Figure 5.7: Central Park pavilion and winged parasols, 2014. Photo by author.
120

Figure 5.8: Central Park waterfall and bridge connecting waterfall to site of (demolished) sports center, 2014. Photo
by author.

Figure 5.9: Another bridge in Central Park near the fishing pond, 2014. Photo by author.
121

Figure 5.10: Central Park bath house, 2014, recently closed due to fire. Photo by author.

Figure 5.11: Central Park Lake and new recreation center, 2015. Photo by author.
122

Below are two diagrams depicting existing infrastructure versus new infrastructure, and
how Smith and Williams’ original plans for the park compare to how it exists today. The overlay
of their drawing on a Google Aerial View shows that the evolution of the park appears to be very
cohesive with the original plan (Figures 5.12 and 5.13). It is through this lens that we gain a
better understanding of what is still held together by the plan. It is not only the built structures,
such as the bridges or the residential communities. The lake, the golf course, the fishing pond,
and the waterfall remain as well. These are all a part of the original image for Central Park from
California City’s visionaries. While the site retains its role as a place for recreation, it also
contains physical elements that enable it to carry out this role. The new development, such as the
recreation building, does not detract from this. No matter its aesthetic value, it actually
strengthens the role of the park as a recreation center.

Figure 5.12: California City Central Park program in 2015. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.
123

Figure 5.13: Overlay of original Smith and Williams’ drawing for Central Park onto Google Maps Aerial View of
the park. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google and Smith & Williams
records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa
Barbara. Edited by author.

Galileo Park, now known as Silver Saddle Ranch is now a private, resort community that
offers family friendly recreation to visitors. While some of the land around the park is still
owned by California City, Silver Saddle itself is not (see map in Appendix C).
294
Per its website,
it is described as:

294
CA City Master General Plan 2009-2028, p. 119,
http://www.californiacity.com/20092028ccfinalgeneralplan.pdf.; The map in Appendix C appears to show that a
portion of the park area that reflects Smith and Williams’ design is the portion still owned by the City, while newer
hotel construction to the north is what is privately owned by Silver Saddle.
124

…A wonderful getaway experience for everyone from families looking for some
together time to groups needing a retreat space, couples wanting a unique
weekend away and individuals looking for solitude. From cool, grassy, park-like
settings to rugged desert trails, Silver Saddle Ranch has something for
everybody.
295

A closer analysis of Galileo Park/Silver Saddle Ranch shows how close in design and plan the
park is to Smith and Williams’ original plan. Though it appears that the park’s current owners
believe otherwise, Galileo Park was always designed to have the rustic, southwestern theme it
retains today. The buildings and layout that exist today, products of Smith and Williams,
maintain the original themes. It is clear that the original plan has heavily influenced future
development both directly and indirectly. The clear presence of the original plan for the park, as
well as many of its original buildings, makes the preservation of this plan all the more necessary.
Figures 5.14 and 5.15 below show how Smith and Williams’ drawn plan for Galileo Park
compares with a Google Aerial view of what is seen at the property today.

Figure 5.14 Galileo Park Site Plan Detail (1961), number 770 182A. Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records,
Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara,
folder 394 IV.E, Smith and Williams, California City, Galileo Hill Development, California City, CA (1961) #770.

295
“About Silver Saddle Ranch & Club,” Silver Saddle Ranch and Club, accessed March 11, 2015,
http://www.silversaddle.com/about-ssr.htm.
125

Figure 5.15 Aerial photo of Galileo Park, 2015. California
City,
CA
[map].
2015.
Scale
undetermined;
Google

Maps.
Google.
.
Not surprisingly, the drawn plan is almost an exact outline of how the park now functions. While
much of the housing that was envisioned to surround the park never developed, the central area
of the park – where the rustic-themed recreational activity was to occur – remains almost exactly
as it was first designed, albeit with an expanded grounds and some change in programming. A
road leading up to an observation tower at the peak of the hill, the location where Mendelsohn
once stood and surveyed his new city, can be seen at the bottom center of the overlay.
296

It is important to note that in Galileo Park, complex street layouts and circulation patterns
have not been retained as they have been within the rest of the city. Over the years, egress and
ingress into the park changed in order to accommodate Silver Saddle Ranch. Streets have been
rerouted or don’t exist as intended at all. However, Figure 5.16 clearly shows that much of the
programming and original buildings still exist as proposed by Smith and Williams. While certain

296
David Colker, “California City—A Dream in Progress,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 1990, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times, VYB3,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1467083561?accountid=1474
9.

126

areas have evolved, such as the campgrounds, the infrastructure of how this place was visualized
is still very apparent.

Figure 5.16: Labeled Smith and Williams’ Galileo Park detail of original layout, circa 1961. Courtesy of the Smith
& Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara, folder 394 IV.E, Smith and Williams, California City, Galileo Hill Development,
California City, CA (1961) #770. Edited by author.

Many of the key functions that were originally anticipated continue to uphold and complement
the theme of Silver Saddle Ranch as it is known today. In the area just north of what is seen in
Figure 5.17, the park has expanded to include a hotel, a lake and other recreational activities.
However, it was the original vision of a barn, stables, rodeo ring, campgrounds, etc. that set the
precedent for the rustic, country-like atmosphere of the park over fifty years ago.
127

Figure 5.17: Galileo Park detail of current layout, 2015 (excludes new development in northern section of park).
California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

So what has changed of the built infrastructure within the park? How do all the pieces
compare to the overall whole? Today, an equestrian center, one of the main attractions of the
park, is extant, offering an original barn, stables and rodeo ring (Figure 5.18). A contact zoo and
campgrounds exist as well (Figures 5.19 and 5.20). The administration building appears to be
somewhat altered, but its form reflects Smith and Williams’ main idea for the management
headquarters (Figures 5.21 and 5.22). Most significantly, the cantilever the building once had
looks as though it has been made into additional, useable space. Nevertheless, this building is
one of the few that Smith and Williams’ originally designed for California City.
128

Figure 5.18: Galileo Park barns, 2015. Photo by author.

Figure 5.19: Galileo Park petting zoo, 2015, Photo by author.
129

Figure 5.20: Galileo Park tipi in campgrounds, 2015. Photo by author.
130

Figure 5.21: Galileo Park administration building, 2015. Photo by author.

Figure 5.22: Smith and Williams’ south elevation of Galileo Park administration building, circa 1961.
Courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder 394 IV.E, Smith and Williams, California City, Galileo
Hill Development, California City, CA (1961) #770.
131

At the top of the hill, though difficult to access, is the observation tower (Figure 5.23). Today, it
functions as a communications tower and is closed to the general public.
297
Alongside it are the
remains of a performance stage, no doubt another activity offered to visitors at some point during
the park’s history (Figure 5.24). While it is unclear when this stage was constructed, the rest of
the buildings discussed were designed and built before 1970.

Figure 5.23: Galileo Park observation tower, 2014. Photo by author.

297
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, March 13, 2015.
132

Figure 5.24: Galileo Park hilltop stage remnants, 2014. Photo by author.

Since these original developments, new parks have evolved, such as Balsitis Park, a
neighborhood park that consists of a series of baseball fields located on the western edge of the
central city. There is also Borax Bill Park, located northeast of the central city along 20 Mule
Team Parkway. Borax Bill Park has become the check-in spot for the off highway vehicles
(OHV) that frequent the city’s abandoned country roads.
298
Borax Bill has adapted its space for
the recreational activities popular today, while Balsitis Park is more representative of the
neighborhood park typology defined in “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley.” Kiosk Par and
California Memorial Park are a couple others that round out the city’s collection. However, even
the city believes that “park facilities (particularly neighborhood parks) have not been developed
in the existing urban core.” Creating new parks “for active and passive recreation to meet the
needs of existing and future residents” has since become another primary goal in the city’s new
master plan. The policy “that public parks provide a diversity of recreational uses, including a
mix of active athletic facilities and passive open space uses” echoes some of Smith and Williams’
most fervent recreation ideals.

298
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, March 13, 2015.
133

While Central Park and Galileo Park anchor the city geographically within the Mojave
Desert, existing neighborhood parks, and those that will hopefully be created within the city in
the next two decades, will be the strongest channels that the city has in fulfilling its recreational
goals. But the original parks have gained another role as well. They have become a direct
connection to the city’s past –a link into the minds of the city’s designers and what they believed
was necessary for their city’s residents. The particular resiliency of Central Park and Galileo
Park’s plans through decades of (subtle) change, confirms how a strong idea can continue to
nurture its original features while naturally guiding future development.

5.3 Schools and Other Institutional Spaces
Only one school, Robert P. Ulrich (RPU) Elementary, was designed and constructed
before 1970, California City’s early, flourishing years. Since then, RPU has been joined by
California City Middle School (1992), Hacienda Elementary School (2007), and California City
High School (2007). Though these three schools opened decades after RPU, educational
infrastructure was always a high priority of the original city master plan. The fact that three
schools have been added to the system despite low growth of the city overall is a testament to the
importance of education in California City. Presently, the city has also identified many
opportunities to “entice educational institutions to come to the area.”
While the drive to develop educational facilities has remained strong, their sense of
placement within the city has been lost. The three newer schools were not constructed in any of
the originally institutional sites identified in Smith and Williams’ master plan. What even further
differentiates these sites from Robert P. Ulrich Elementary is that they are placed on the
perimeters of the developed portion of the city, rather than within residential neighborhoods.
Mayor Jennifer Wood explained that this was likely in response to more availability of large land
parcels on the periphery of the city.
299
Therefore, students must cross multiple intersections
when walking to and from school, and the idea of safety in travel to school is nearly lost.
Additionally, none of the schools appear to have a relationship to any of the existing parks,
negating the original idea that two different programs could share infrastructure. As such, Smith
and Williams and the rest of the Community Facilities Planners would likely consider this an
unwise use of available space today, at least within a Garden City context. Because the schools

299
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, February 9, 2015.
134

are spread out from each other, and are located peripherally around the city, they essentially lose
significance as a part of the city image as Smith and Williams’ visualized it.
A survivor of Smith and Williams’ original collection of work, Robert P. Elementary
School is structurally intact and heavily used. A simple, mid-century modern building with
angular detailing, it nevertheless has become a precedent in school design in California City
(Figures 5.25 and 5.26). While the three newer schools deviate from the original policies for
choosing school sites, their designs are perhaps the most unique of any contemporary
architecture in California City today (Figures 5.27).

Figure 5.25: Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School overhang detail, 2015. Photo by author.
135

Figure 5.26: Robert P. Ulrich Elementary School sunshade, 2015. Photo by author.

Figure 5.27: Hacienda Elementary School, 2015. Photo by author.
136

The fact that California City has found different sites for schools than those originally
chosen during its first decade does not mean that the choices made were wrong. It would be
difficult for any city to implement every policy for city infrastructure determined over half a
century before. Three recent, fully functioning schools within a city with only 14,000 residents is
an accomplishment. Furthermore, the city has made it a priority to “encourage the development
of institutions of higher education and adjacent areas for education…” in their new general plan.
So while the site standards established for schools in “Policies for Planning the Boron Valley”
were not met, the social and educational goals are essentially maintained. All those who worked
on California City within its first decade believed in and encouraged a thriving educational
system, especially as the complementary function to the city’s ultimate goal: recreation. In this,
they succeeded. Now, only time will tell how the city will attempt to make these institutional
spaces safe and protected for the students using them, in the same manner as RPU.
Development for churches has occurred in much the same way. In California City’s first
ten years, church architecture was perhaps more important to Smith and Williams than the
location standards established by Kern County. California City Congregational Church was one
of the firm’s most architecturally unique designs in California City, and arguably within their
entire body of work. The central location of this church not only provided easy access to the
religious center for seniors and other residents, it became a symbol within the city: that anything
could be created here. Today, all that is left of the church is a small, detached wooden structure,
as seen in Figure 5.28 below. While the winged parasols and stone walls of the original church
were demolished for the construction of the church that stands today, the simple mid-century
modern structure continues to be reminiscent of the vernacular architecture that Smith and
Williams designed for the city.
300

300
Rev. Dr. Ron Sparks, “Community Church of California City: 1959-2012—A ‘Comfort Zone’ of Love,
Acceptance and Healing,” Connecting Voices United in Common Concerns, October 10, 2012,
http://www.scncucc.org/voices/2012/10/ucc-conference-church-life/community-church-of-california-city-1959-
%E2%80%93-2012-%E2%80%93-a-%E2%80%9Ccomfort-zone%E2%80%9D-of-love-acceptance-and-healing/.
137

Figure 5.28: Remnant of California City Congregational Church, 2014. Photo by author.

This remnant lies on a lot now occupied by the newer California City Community Church, at the
northwest corner of California City and Conklin Boulevards. Having been constructed in the late
1980s or early 1990s, the building is completely different in scale, design and materiality.
301
Just
south lies the older but equally sizable Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, founded in
1969.
302

The churches built in place of the original California City Congregational Church are
modest in design compared to Smith and Williams’ original work (Figures 5.29 and 5.30). And
while a small connection to the original building remains, the unprecedented architectural design
has been lost. Proof that California City was once a place of unique, experimental architecture is
slowly diminishing. Nevertheless, the continued use of this major city intersection for two

301
Sparks, “Community Church of California City.”
302
“Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,” ParishesOnline.com, accessed March 20, 2015,
http://www.parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/Org.asp?ID=20489.
138

churches preserves the purpose of the site as a religious center. “Policies for Planning the Boron
Valley” instructed the city’s designers to locate churches near trafficways that easily serve their
respective areas. They also encouraged these locations to be adjacent to schools and parks. The
California City Community Church and Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church continue to
accomplish these goals.

Figure 5.29: California City Community Church, 2014 – the remaining Smith and Williams structure lies directly
behind this building. Photo by author.
139

Figure 5.30: Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, 2014, just south of California City Community Church. Photo
by author.

At least eighteen other churches have been built on various lots throughout the central
portion of the city. The table below shows how each conforms or deters from the planning
principles established for Boron Valley. It appears that most every church follows at least one of
the standards for location of church sites established in the “Policies for Planning the Boron
Valley.” However, church development does not seem to have occurred in the intended pattern.

140

Table 5.2: Church sites compared against the church location criteria outlined in “Policies for
Planning the Boron Valley.”
Church Name Address Defined by Major
Traffic Ways
Adjacent to School
or Park
New Life 21924 Calhoun Drive X -
First Baptist Church 8770 Lupine Loop Drive X -
Solid Rock Missionary 21232 Kenniston Street - X
Victory Baptist Church 10173 S. Loop Blvd. - X
High Desert 10441 S. Loop Blvd. - -
Our Lady of Lourdes 9970 California City Blvd. - X
Emmanuel Christian
Center
21009 Conklin Blvd. - X
California City Church of
Christ
20546 Lehigh Street - X
Christian Outreach
Ministries Holiness
19261 97
th
Street X -
Trinity Christian Church 10160 Redwood Blvd. X -
Desert Song Four Square 20849 Hacienda Blvd. X X
The Lord’s Missionary
Christian Ministry
8131 Aspen Mall - -
Community Church 21001 Conklin Blvd. - X
Kingdom Hall 19649 Airway Blvd. - -

Even those buildings that may be considered vernacular by architectural standards follow the
original criteria for placement throughout city. For that reason alone, the contributions these
buildings make to the original plan may one day be considered significant. In preserving Smith
and Williams’ original plan, the city can ensure that it preserves both the institutional nature of
California City’s original religious center at California City Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard
and any designed elements that have contributed to this purpose, such as Smith and Williams’
original church remnant.

141

5.4 Residential Design
California City’s failure to develop as planned has led to its notably sparse residential
development. The majority of subdivided tracts remain vacant, and there is hardly a street where
every lot is filled by a house. This is partially the result of the city’s strategy for quick growth.
Lots could be purchased independent of the home models offered by Smith and Williams. This
meant that a resident could purchase a lot, and never build a home. A relevant example is that of
the private Sierra-View Estates neighborhood, located south of the central city. Advertised as
“ranch estates” in 1961, those interested were encouraged to buy the two-and-one-half acre
parcels fast, as only twenty-eight remained at the time.
303
Ads such as this implied that many lots
in California City were selling quickly, but that didn’t mean they actually had anything
constructed on them. Case in point is the neighborhood today, seen below in Figure 5.31.

Figure 5.31: The ghost of the Sierra-View Estates community. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale
undetermined; Google Maps. Google.

303
“Display Ad 341,” Los Angeles Times, August 27 1961, O9, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles
Times,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/167891031?accountid=1474
9.

142

Per the same advertisement, “These ranch estates, like 10 city lots, provide you and your family
with an important stake in California’s future…”
304
The future that resulted is a far cry from that
envisioned in 1961.
It would be difficult to reason that any of California City’s residential neighborhoods
formed into the unified and integrated communities that they were meant to be. Furthermore,
very few have clearly defined boundaries or vary in density and housing type. Most importantly,
at least within the context of California City as a Garden City, almost none take advantage of the
parklets and open green areas provided to them through Smith and Williams’ distinctive
approaches. However, via its master plan, the city has acknowledged that some neighborhoods
have character worth maintaining. As California City continues to develop, it hopes to
“encourage maintenance of the residential character of specially identified neighborhoods
through such mechanisms as architectural design, use of xeriscaping…and property setbacks.”
They also hope to “retain existing residential neighborhoods and allow for the in-fill of
residential land uses which are compatible with density, scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood.” Perhaps most importantly, the city wants new residential projects to
“accommodate the recreational needs of there [sic] residents through the provision of parks and
recreational amenities.” While the plan doesn’t specifically state these “specially identified
neighborhoods,” they are presumably more architecturally cohesive developments such as
Applewood Estates. However, at least one original Smith and Williams’ neighborhood still
contains the “ghosts of planning past” and should also be considered in this policy for protecting
residential character. This neighborhood is Fairway Estates.
305

Fairway Estates was the community discussed in Chapter Four, understood through
Smith and Williams’ diagram of street and landscape patterns, parklet sites, house types, and
existing and planned locations for residential construction within the neighborhood (Figure 5.32).
An aerial of the community today is seen in Figure 5.33.

304
“Display Ad 341.”
305
The location of Fairway Estates is speculation. While there is proof that a neighborhood called “Fairway Estates”
was developed, I have not been able to confirm exactly where that neighborhood is. I can only speculate based on
the neighborhoods that I know contain original Smith and Williams model homes.
143

Figure 5.32: Smith and Williams’ Site Plan for the Fairway Estates neighborhood. Photo courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara.

Figure 5.33: Fairway Estates today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google.
144

Today, the neighborhood is zoned to accommodate both high-density and low-density residential
development, though this is not readily apparent. However, the overall function of the
neighborhood has remained residential since the 1950s. To get a better idea of how the
neighborhood form has changed, we must look at the defining neighborhood characteristics of
Fairway Estates, such as the existing street patterns, any extant Smith and Williams homes, and
the use of individual lots. Though it would be overly cumbersome to analyze every
neighborhood in the city in this manner in this thesis, this approach could be used to evaluate
how “specially identified neighborhoods” can help guide future residential development, so that
neighborhoods remain visually and spatially cohesive, as identified in the new city master plan.
The street plan for this neighborhood originally had subtle, yet noteworthy, features that
were likely anticipated as a constant motif throughout the city. The use of cul-de-sacs is fairly
obvious from the diagram; Smith and Williams chose to utilize the parcels in between two
abutting cul-de-sacs as parklets and tot lots, rather than as lots for homes. These spaces were
intended as safe havens for residents away from the streets. Unfortunately, they were never
brought to fruition. Many of the spaces remain empty, while some were eventually used as
residential lots (Figures 5.34 and 5.35).
145

Figure 5.34: Unused parklet spaces in Fairway Estates. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Figure 5.35: Parklet spaces used as residential lots in Fairway Estates. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale
undetermined; Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.
146

Where these parklet spaces have been left untouched, there remain opportunities to utilize them.
Though zoned for residential uses, many liberties can be taken on what that actually means.
Community recreation facilities, gardens, parks and playgrounds are all viable options.
306
So
while the original purposes for these spaces may no longer be relevant to this community, the
areas could still be used to benefit the people of California City today. The original plan of this
neighborhood continues to suggest other opportunities for these spaces.
In another instance within the neighborhood, Smith and Williams created a small barrier
between the main residential road and the driveways of adjacent homes (Figure 5.36). This was
called a “play-street”, and was intended as both a landscaping technique and focal point of the
neighborhood. Presumably, it was also a safety measure – an attempt to separate cars and
pedestrians (it is unclear why this is the only street in the neighborhood that was to have this
feature).

306
Kern County Zoning Ordinance, §19.45, (revised July 2012), www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/KCZOJul12.pdf.
147

Figure 5.36: Example of a “play street” in Fairway Estates. Detail of Figure 5.32 Photo courtesy of the Smith &
Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara.

Today, there are virtually no traces of this unique detail. The most that can be seen is from an
aerial view of the street (Figure 5.37). Looking closely, one can see the faint outline of an arched
cut-out on both sides of the street. What is even more telling are the stunted driveways which
would have met the street had it still retained its original shape. Some residents have since
attempted to extend their driveways, but the nature of the original driveway setbacks remains
clear. Though this element is barely legible, close examination shows that at the very least it
reinforces the idea that original plan can still be present, despite constant change over decades of
use.
148

Figure 5.37: Presence of “play street” today in Fairways Estates. The islands illustrated in Figure 5.35 are no longer
extant, but the cutout within the streetscape is still present. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Finally, circulation patterns such as pedestrian walkways are still visible within the
neighborhood plan. First documented in 1963 tract maps, these pedestrian walkways allow
pedestrians to cross over the wash that winds its way through the neighborhood (Figure 5.38).
149

Figure 5.38: Tract map showing wash with pedestrian walkway highlighted, California Tract Map No. 2252, July
21, 1960. Drawing courtesy of Kern County Assessor’s Office, Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services.
Permission pending. Edited by author.
150

Per Smith and Williams’ diagram of the area, it seems as though they were attempting to take
advantage of the wash as a landscaped element (Figure 5.39).

Figure 5.39: Wash and pedestrian walkway. Drawing courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and
Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. Edited by author.
151

Though the wash remains a natural feature of the entire city and is seen in many other
neighborhoods, the landscaping intended to flank the portion of the wash in Fairway Estates is
almost non-existent. However, the pedestrian pathway itself is extant and appears to be in use
(Figures 5.40 and 5.41). Though seemingly arbitrary or insignificant, it is the smallest of details
that tell the story of the original plan. Evaluation of a city plan should take into account less how
something was meant to look, and more of how it was meant to function in reality. This brings
the significance of a plan from a two-dimensional understanding to a three-dimensional one.

Figure 5.40: Pedestrian walkway across wash today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google
Maps. Google. Edited by author.
152

Figure 5.41: Pedestrian walkway across wash today. Photo by author.

While certain Garden City elements like parklets, greenbelts and other pedestrian-
vehicular buffers did not develop, the city recognizes that there is a need for safety features in
residential neighborhoods. One overall policy for the city states, “uses are sited to take advantage
of pedestrian green belts, recreational amenities, and natural environmental resources.” A
Mojave Desert News article about California City’s future goals goes into even further detail:
A primary recommendation is the establishment of “greenbelts” and “buffers”
which would be created between development projects along arterial roads and
undeveloped section lines…Additionally, fencing and landscaping requirements
would be reviewed and updated for developments within a mile of residential
neighborhoods…
307

A renewed interest in these features reflects the original intent of Smith and Williams for
California City. With a series of Garden City strategies already created for them over fifty years

307
Joyce Grant, “Projects, Involvement moving California City Forward,” Mojave Desert News, March 28, 2015,
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_9b8b4524-d414-11e4-a5b9-5f88440f37a1.html.

153

ago, the city could easily and efficiently implement these types of open spaces once again, but
perhaps in a more sustainable manner.
There are approximately fourteen existing Smith and Williams home models in Fairway
Estates (more information on these homes is included in Appendix B). Smith and Williams
diagram of Fairway Estates (which is the only available document in which to analyze the
original neighborhood) shows that fourteen homes had already been constructed, probably
sometime around the mid-1960s. Presumably, further development never managed to get beyond
that point. The homes were designed in the atrium and neighbor-oriented house typologies, such
as the Como model, seen below (Figure 5.42).

Figure 5.42: Two Como home models. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps.
Google.

These homes are direct links to the past. Again, the form or changes they’ve undertaken are less
important than the fact that they’ve survived the last half-century, when odds were stacked
against them. If an original Smith and Williams home is understood as a defining feature of the
plan, rather than as a historical resource in and of itself, the plan becomes the significant element
in which both past and present resources exist together. Future development within this
neighborhood could complement the scale and character of these original buildings, while
bringing in a new phase of architectural design. This would follow the city’s new master
planning principles for residential development, while preserving the city’s most long-standing
features.
One element that never came to fruition was the two-story house, indicated in the legend
of the diagram. I found no other documentation or marketing for two-story homes during
California City’s first decade. It appears that at some point multi-level homes were anticipated,
whether requested by clients who purchased lots in the neighborhood, or as part of Smith and
Williams’ vision for the completed outcome. Today, there is no indication that the lots chosen
154

for two-story homes influenced those who ultimately purchased and built upon them. While
some of the dedicated lots did experience two-story construction, others have one-story homes
on them. Similarly, two-story homes were constructed on various lots that were meant for one-
story buildings (Figures 5.43 and 5.44).

Figure 5.43: Detail of Fairway Estates neighborhood plan (Figure 5.32) showing anticipated locations of two-story
houses, represented by black squares. Photo courtesy of the Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design
Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
155

Figure 5.44: Two-story houses in Fairway Estates today, represented by red circles. There appears no pattern of
construction matching what was originally intended. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google
Maps. Google. Edited by author.

With the right resources, many of California City’s other neighborhoods, such as those
constructed by U.S. Steel or the Applewood Estates, could be evaluated in a similar manner.
Again, the evaluation would compare the neighborhood design today to its original plan and
determine what goals were met through both existing infrastructure and program. This in turn
would be a guide for how residential development could proceed in the future. In Fairway
Estates, it seems that residential infrastructure is generally evolving as expected. Clearly, the
recreational open spaces that were intended are lacking. However, the original vision for this
neighborhood remains present to this day. It has the potential to come back to life with the proper
care and implementation of the principles from the City’s new master plan. California City does
not have to be frozen in time to honor the original master plan. Instead, consciously adapting the
plan to today’s needs and standards are what will revive the connection to the city’s past.
156

Smith and Williams also designed a multi-family condominium community called
Eastlake Condominiums. Today, this community is known as the Lakeshore Condominiums.
While the name has changed, much of the physical fabric remains the same, though now the
Lakeshore Condominiums takes up only a small portion of the lakefront (Figures 5.45 and 5.46).

Figure 5.45: Lakeshore/Eastlake Condominiums location today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale
undetermined; Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.
157

Figure 5.46: Lakeshore/Eastlake Condominiums site aerial detail. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale
undetermined; Google Maps. Google.

This community appears to be influenced by the Garden Apartment movement of post-
World War II. Its residents enjoy large greens both separate and integrated with the buildings
themselves. Building entrances face courtyards, rather than streets, and vehicular circulation and
storage is confined to garage courts (Figures 5.47). The buildings now appear somewhat
dilapidated, but the materials imitate the rustic, earthy appearance common to Smith and
Williams’ other work in California City (Figure 5.48). Documentation for this community
reveals little about the specific design details, unlike the sketches and diagrams for Fairway
Estates. However, it is clear that the retention of green open spaces throughout reinforces the
original Garden City principles on which the town was founded, and strengthens the
community’s relationship to Central Park.
158

Figure 5.47: Lakeshore Condominiums parkway today. Photo by author.
159

Figure 5.48: Lakeshore Condominiums. Photo by Author.

There is no doubt that the Lakeshore Condominiums is a more fully realized Smith and
Williams community than Fairway Estates and remains a clear vision of the multi-family
communities envisioned for California City in the 1960s. Next door to the Lakeshore
Condominiums is the newer California Terrace Apartments, which continue this identity. These
communities are continuing the idea of the city as a “plan-within-a-plan.” That is, a plan that in
itself remains a strong tie to the past, but also contributes to the original social, recreational and
architectural ideas of the master plan at the citywide scale.

5.5 Senior Citizens in California City
The most unrealized theme of California City is the Older Adult Area. While some
development dedicated to seniors transpired, such as a senior residential community and a senior
160

center, none of it occurred within the area of the original plan that was dedicated to older adults.
Today, a small section is mixed use, while the rest remains almost entirely vacant (Figure 5.49).

Figure 5:49: Programming in Older Adult Area today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Currently, this portion of the city is zoned for both medium-density and high-density residential,
community medical, neighborhood commercial and government. In the southwest corner lies the
city’s civic center, containing a city hall, a post office and a library, all constructed in the 1960s.
It also contains a more recently developed police station. A small medical center resides in the
northwest corner of the block, soon to be joined by a city museum. A small residential
neighborhood is located in the southeast corner. While there is sure to be development within
this area due to its location along California City Boulevard and adjacency to Central Park, there
is no indication that this part of the city was once designated for senior citizens.
Instead, housing for senior citizens has developed in other areas of the city. The Desert
Jade senior community lies just west of the original Older Adult Area, while The Legends senior
community is adjacent to the Lakeshore Condominiums. Additionally, a senior center exists
within the heart of Central Park, home to activities organized by the Senior Citizen Association
of California City. Lunch programs, game nights and annual senior appreciation days are
161

planned on a regular basis for the seniors of California City.
308
Even though seniors only
comprised approximately 9% of California City’s population, they are treated as a major
component of the city’s social and physical infrastructure.
309
So while senior facilities are not
located exactly where Smith and Williams had originally intended, the fact that current senior
housing and programs are conveniently located in proximity to recreational offerings is a strong
reminder of the passion the firm had for senior activity and integration within the community.
Should the plan be determined to hold any power in future development, there are ample
opportunities to dedicate to senior citizen activity.

5.6 Industry
Industry is a driving force behind California City’s continued growth and development.
Both Edwards Air Force Base and U.S. Borax (now the Rio Tinto Mine) remain two of the city’s
most thriving industries. In more recent years, the California City Correctional Center and the
Hyundai/Kia Automotive Test Facility, both located within the city boundaries but outside the
city center, have become strong suppliers of jobs and have advanced economic development as
well.
310
Most industrial enterprises are sited on the periphery of the city, a safe distance from the
developed city center (Figure 5.50). Today, one of the city’s most important goals is to “retain
and attract manufacturing and industrial uses within designated areas.

308
Senior Citizen Association of California City Mable Davis Senior Center Newsletter 16, issue 19 (2011),
www.californiacity.com/0911seniornewsletter.pdf.
309
U.S. Census Bureau, “California City, California Population: Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map,
Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts,” Census Viewer, accessed March 20 2015,
www.censusviewer.com/city/CA/California%20City.
310
California City Planning Department, City History and City Facts: Informational Guide, accessed March 20,
2015, www.californiacity.com/cchistfacts.pdf.
162

Figure 5.50: Current major California City industries. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined;
Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Some of these designated industrial zones actually occur near the city center, such as the
California City Municipal airport and the accompanying business park (Figure 5.51). Though not
the bustling center it was once meant to be, the California City Municipal Airport is still very
much in use, particularly as a recreational airfield. The airport, located on the original property as
designated in 1958, became the site of a popular skydive center, and continues to be used for the
takeoff and landing of gliders and small airplanes. It also offers a variety of aviation facilities
and amenities including aviation fuel, oxygen service, aircraft parking and maintenance, and
flight training.
311
Surrounding the airport are a number of functioning businesses such as Cal-
Aero and U-Store City.

311
“California City Municipal Airport,” AirNav.com, information effective March 5, 2015,
www.airnave.com/airport/L71/A.
163

Figure 5.51: California City Municipal Airport and Industrial Park today. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale
undetermined; Google Maps. Google.

Unfortunately, the distinctive airport building designed by Smith and Williams’ was replaced by
a new facility at an unknown date. Figure 5.52 is a photo of the California City Municipal
Airport building as it appears today. Though different in style, the airport remains the anchor of
the industrial airpark.
164

Figure 5.52: California City Municipal Airport. Photo by author.

What never did come to fruition was the Airpark Village, described in Chapter Four. Its
residential streets are scattered with a few houses here and there, but mostly, the area has
succumbed to the natural desert environment. It is interesting that the entire area, the airport,
industrial park and “airpark village,” retain almost the exact zoning requirements as predicted by
Smith and Williams. Looking at California City’s zoning map, one may never guess that the area
isn’t entirely as developed as hoped. The airport and its surroundings continue to be zoned for
light industry, while the airpark is zoned for medium-density and high-density residential in the
single-family home locations and apartment locations, respectively. The original business park is
appropriately zoned, but in present day, California City has expanded the commercial areas
within the park, reducing some of the residential areas originally planned. That being said, much
of California City is zoned for certain land uses, without there actually being future plans for
developing those uses. But the framework and physical infrastructure for this area is strong
enough to warrant controlled development, similar to what was originally planned for the area.
This industrial hub again has the potential for economic life close to the central city.
165

5.7 Commercial Districts
California City’s commercial districts, at both the neighborhood and citywide scales,
have naturally accrued along the city’s main thoroughfare, California City Boulevard, rather than
in a designated Central Business District, as originally planned (Figure 5.53).

Figure 5.53: California City Boulevard commercial districts/centers. California City, CA [map]. 2015.
Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google. Edited by author.

Local commercial centers scattered throughout the city are present, but minimal. The City hopes
to correct this through its new master plan, by encouraging “the clustering of commercial
development in compact areas” and allowing “for the development of a low density ‘village-like’
center…in the central core area.” This is reminiscent of Smith and Williams’ master plan, which
created a series of neighborhood centers at different scales throughout the city, and one Central
Business District in the central core. This original Central Business District did not come to
fruition; rather commercial development is spread along California City Boulevard. Similarly,
the policies originally in place to separate and protect pedestrians from vehicles and created
aesthetically enjoyable spaces don’t appear to have been met. Again, this is something that the
city’s new plan hopes to correct by requiring that “commercial development provide design
features…between the boundaries of adjacent residential land uses designation so as to reduce
impacts on residents” and ensuring that “new commercial uses adjacent to existing commercial
uses…be of compatible height, setback, color and materials.” The plan also hopes to enhance
“pedestrian activity in principal activity centers within the planning sub-areas.”
One of the main reasons California City Boulevard has become commercialized, other
than the logical reason that commercial centers would want to establish themselves on the city’s
most heavily utilized street, is that it has since been rezoned for commercial activity.
312
This has

312
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, March 13, 2015.
166

resulted in various strip malls and individual commercial buildings located along the boulevard.
In the city’s first years of development, portions of the boulevard were actually zoned for
residential, which is why some of California City’s first residential neighborhoods, such as the
one completed by U.S. Steel in the mid-1960s on the northeast corner of California City
Boulevard and Neuralia Road, were developed directly abutting the boulevard, save for a narrow
frontage road. Today, one sees many homes along California City Boulevard due to this
allowance, integrated with neighborhood commercial, community commercial,
commercial/office, service commercial and regional commercial uses. The residences that exist
along the boulevard are exempt from these new zoning designations, as long as they remain
residential in use. Should any change of ownership occur, the building must transition into a
commercial use. This policy results in interesting mixed-use development. As of now, California
City’s new zoning goals and perimeters are not consistent with the goals of the master plan. In
order to limit California City Boulevard’s commercial activities, and instead concentrate them
within smaller, scattered clusters, both the zoning code and the master plan will need to become
compatible.
California’s City’s first local commercial center, the Aspen Mall, currently exists in an
altered, but somewhat legible, state. Much of its original wood architecture has been covered in
stucco, and the spaces intentionally left in between buildings filled in. If one looks close enough,
or ventures to the alley behind the mall, original structural elements peek out from underneath
years of stucco and layers of paint (Figures 5.54 and 5.55).
167

Figure 5.54: Aspen Mall, 2014. Photo by author.

Figure 5.55: Back alley of Aspen Mall, 2014. Photo by author.
168

The only portion of the mall that appears to be nearly untouched is at the mall’s western end
(Figure 5.56). These simple, mid-century modern buildings demonstrate the vernacular,
commercial architecture designed by Smith and Williams, though with a few recent facelifts. It is
unclear why they have been kept in their original states. However, should the design policies in
the city’s new general plan be implemented, any new commercial development should be
considerate of these original Smith and Williams’ buildings. It is unclear if the City understands
the potential significance of the Smith and Williams designs specifically, but at very least, it
appears that it wants to take measures in protecting what it believes is part of the original built
environment.

Figure 5.56: Office in Aspen Mall, 2014. Photo by author.

California’s City’s Central Business District, located along California City Boulevard just
south of Central Park, while not completely devoid of commercial properties, is not yet the
bustling commercial center it was originally meant to be (Figure 5.57). Just south of the city’s
169

new civic center (once designated for the Older Adult Area), it is currently home to a Rite Aid
and a McDonalds. At the northeastern corner of the district at the intersection of California City
Boulevard and Conklin Boulevard is a church, while the western edge houses the city’s original
fire department building (Figure 5.58). The area gets more use due to the fact that the Central
Park golf course has extended into the district. Some residential development fills the space
along the golf course, though much of the area remains vacant. At some point within the next
decade, the city has plans to construct a community college on the northeast corner of the
original Central Business District.
313

Figure 5.57: Area originally dedicated to the California City Central Business District. California City, CA [map].
2015. Scale undetermined; Google Maps. Google.

313
Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, February 9, 2015.
170

Figure 5.58: California City Fire Department, 2014. Photo by author.

Today the area is zoned for medium-density residential, with community and regional
commercial centers located on the peripheries and edges because commercial business has
naturally gravitated towards California City Boulevard and major intersections. Additionally, the
residential street layout, though dictated by the golf course, no longer reflects the intentions of
the Smith and Williams’ era. However, if the City truly does want to create a more centralized
“village-like” commercial center, as stated in their master plan, this area could still be the place
where that might occur. This district is a clear representation of how the city has had to adapt to
changing conditions, but is also an obvious opportunity for future commercial development.

5.8 Ancillary Features
California City’s smaller designed elements, such as signage, almost appear to be
obsolete, until something pops up unexpectedly and transports you to a simpler time, in this case,
171

when Smith and Williams were designing the city. The firm had a very clear aesthetic for the city,
which is not so apparent today. However, California City’s new master plan, like that of Smith
and Williams’, wants to again “develop a distinctive identity for California City which
differentiates it as a unique place in the region.” They hope to do this by coordinating “a
consistent design vocabulary for all signage, including fixture type, lettering, colors, symbols,
and logos” and encouraging “the use of creative and distinctive signage which establishes a
distinctive image for planning sub-areas and identifies principal entries to the City, unique
districts, neighborhoods, and locations.” Arguably, the city has had a unique identity since 1958,
and, perhaps unknowingly, still has a detailed design vocabulary documented through Smith and
Williams’ original drawings and sketches. While it is unclear how many physical remnants of
signage still exist in California City, there is a vast portfolio of what could have been (Figures
5.59 and 5.60).

Figure 5.59: Originally Galileo Park signage, 2014. Photo by author.
172

Figure 5.60: Likely original apartment signage, 2014. Photo by author.

Even if the city wants a different identity than what was originally planned, they could utilize
original design documents to help them in the process of deciding what that identity might be.
However, this does not necessarily appear to be the case (Figure 5.61 and 5.62).
173

Figure 5.61: Recent city entrance signage, 2015. Photo by author.

Figure 5.62: Recent Central Park signage, 2014. It appears that the city made a conscious effort to give the signage
a rustic theme similar to existing signage. Photo by author.
174

5.9 Landscape Features
Like the previously discussed parklets, “play streets,” and green belts, most smaller
designed landscape features were never completed, or failed to stand the test of time. While
California City Boulevard now has a landscaped median running along its center, the
Community Facilities’ Planners’ vision for fully separated lanes on heavily used roads never
came to fruition. But again, like many features throughout California City, the ghosts of the
original plans remain, and now serve as confusing remnants of the past. For example, Mendiburu
Road just north of Fairway Estates shows the grading and paving for a four-lane road, assumed
to be separated by medians. However, no landscaping actually exists (Figure 5.65).

Figure 5.63: Mendiburu Road at Randsburg-Mojave Road showing the remnants of what should have been
vehicular lanes separated by landscaped medians. California City, CA [map]. 2015. Scale undetermined; Google
Maps. Google.
175

Per a conversation with Mayor Wood, it seems that the city does not know quite what do with
these areas. But while this may seem like a hindrance for some, California City actually has an
opportunity to utilize these spaces as once intended, making traffic safer (there are currently no
stop signs or other safety features on the dirt areas of the road) and more visually appealing.
Again, it is these small elements that bring the “big idea” of California City’s master plan down
to an understandable and relatable human scale. In assessing them, it appears that both old and
new elements are significant to the overall plan of the city. That is because together, they provide
an identity for the city that was first created in 1958, and that is being reintroduced once again.

5.10 Evaluation of California City’s Resources
California City’s master plan is difficult to evaluate as a historic resource, partially
because of the size and scale to which it was conceived and developed, and perhaps most
importantly because it was never finished. Within the contexts presented in this thesis – Garden
City planning, recreational planning, senior planning, and the post-World War II landscape in
Southern California—the original “big idea” of California City developed by Smith and
Williams could be considered significant. Additionally, the fact that the city itself was Smith and
Williams only master planned city is a significant aspect.
However, the city today is a far cry from what was conceived by the firm. It is only
through a very focused lens that one begins to see what still remains from the city’s first decade
of development. Some areas, like Central Park, Galileo Park, Fairway Estates, and the California
City Airport and industrial park, can still relay the city’s history through their uses, circulation
patterns and architecture. Additionally, almost every local and main vehicular thoroughfare
remains the same, views of the surrounding landscape have been maintained through low-scale
development, and new city zoning is similar to that of the original General Plan.
But what is most telling is the fact that written into California City’s new general plan
(meant to service the city from 2009 until 2028) are land use, circulation and programming
principles that are not only very similar to the vision that Smith and Williams had for the city,
but that also aim to protect parts of the original built infrastructure. So while the built
infrastructure many not be significant enough to warrant protection on its own, it is undeniable
that California City has developed in a very similar way and has a new master plan that shares
goals of the original plan. This adds a new layer to what significance of the plan actually means.
176

Preserving the original plan could be the key to protecting parts of California City’s built
infrastructure, while providing an opportunity for the city to develop more efficiently because the
ideas, concepts and strategies for development are already in place.

177

6. PRESERVING CALIFORNIA CITY’S PLAN, TODAY

6.1 Opportunities for Plan Protection
The idea of preserving a city’s master plan, rather than individual buildings or a portion
of a city, is a relatively novel idea. The United States has countless historic districts, many found
significant for the community planning principles in which they were first created. However, due
to size, scale and other intricacies of a city, preserving a master plan is nearly unprecedented,
save for a few unique instances. In the specific case of California City, in which there is not
necessarily enough original and significant built infrastructure to warrant protection, but whose
plan is still intact, classification as a historic district or individual resource as understood by
preservationists today may not be the best approach. There are a number of other opportunities to
protect California City’s plan, which include designating the city’s actual master plan as
significant, classifying it as a planning district, or even applying a “master plan overlay.” No
matter how this occurs, it is clear that California City’s unique circumstances warrant an entirely
new strategy for protection—perhaps even a mixture of the tools preservationists already use. In
this, preservationists may find that as cities grow older, and the concept of significance continues
to evolve, there will be a greater need for different ways to protect historic and cultural resources.
One of the tools currently available for preserving a city’s master plan is the actual
designation of the plan itself as a historic resource. One of the only instances in which this occurs
in the United States is the designation of the L’Enfant and McMillan Plan for Washington D.C.
The plan is nominated under three National Register Criteria: A, for its relationship with the
creation of the new United States of America and its capital city; B, because of its relation to
Pierre L’Enfant and other persons and groups related to its design; and C, as a “well-preserved,
comprehensive, Baroque plan with Beaux Arts modifications.”
314
A brief statement of
significance is described as:
The historic plan of Washington, District of Columbia – the nation’s capital –
designed by Pierre L’Enfant in 1791 as the site of the Federal City, represents the
sole American example of a comprehensive baroque city plan with a coordinated
system of radiating avenues, parks and vistas laid over an orthogonal system.
315

314
National Register of Historic Places, L’Enfant Plan for the City of Washington, District of Columbia,
Washington, District of Columbia, National Register #97000332, 35.
315
National Register of Historic Places, L’Enfant Plan, 34-35.
178

The designation goes on to interpret the plan as a three-dimensional entity, rather than a two-
dimensional one. Among the contributing elements in the plan are vistas, defined as “the area
between the farthest points on a straight alignment,” which are perhaps the most significant in
propelling the plan designation into the third-dimension.
316
The radiating avenues that extend
across the orthogonal city grid create these unique vistas intended by L’Enfant. The plan is not
only made up of streets and landscapes; it also encompasses tangible, three-dimensional objects,
like buildings, and intangible, three-dimensional elements, like views and open space. For
example, the nomination includes the protection of open space above city streets, because of
height limits enacted in the Height of Buildings Act of 1899 and the extension of the act in
1910.
317
Per the nomination, the legal height limit “has preserved the broad, horizontal baroque
nature of the city, allowing light and air to reach the pedestrian level…”
318
The restrictions on
open space above buildings ensure that modern intrusions or obstructions are not detrimental to
the city plan. In this sense, the city plan is a living, breathing organism that organizes the city
spatially into what we experience today.
This brief description of Washington D.C.’s nomination is included to unveil the little
known possibility of plan designation, and to show how the nominators went about doing so. The
nomination concludes:
Within an international context, [Washington, D.C.] is the only completely
planned national capital that physically and politically has been sustained and
preserved during the continual history as a federal headquarters. The
commemorative and symbolic location of buildings, structures, and vistas
collectively establish the historic Federal city as the singular American example
of an urban core that from inception has physically expressed its political role as a
designed national capital using baroque design principles. The L’Enfant-
McMillan plan reflects significance in the interwoven areas of community
planning, landscape architecture, transportation, and community planning,
landscape architecture, transportation, and politics/government.
319

The nomination and designation reveals a very thorough and well-rounded argument for the
significance of the plan, unprecedented at that time. However, the question remains: what does

316
Ibid, 7.
317
Ibid, 8.
318
Ibid, 7.
319
National Register of Historic Places, L’Enfant Plan, 35.
179

the protection of a city’s plan mean in the historic preservation environment of today, nearly
twenty years later?
In a paper entitled “The Vision of Pierre L’Enfant” for Georgetown University Law
Center, author Glen Worthington explores the preservation efforts of the original plan and offers
other ideas to help protect the plan in the future. While his analysis offers up his own personal
solutions, his exploration of current preservation efforts actually shows that current legislation
used to protect individual resources or districts can be used in much the same way to protect the
city plan, which at its most basic form is simply the “big idea” of those who created it. Current
legislation that could impact L’Enfant’s plan designation includes the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Department of Transportation Act, and the D.C. Historic Landmark and
Historic District Protection Act of 1978, among others.
320
The ideas he proposes (specifically for
the protection of L’Enfant’s plan) include “continued professionalization of historic preservation
efforts,” “increased documentation of the plan’s significance,” “growing public awareness of
L’Enfant’s brilliance including a growing realization of the plan’s modern day benefits,” and
“increased political vigilance.”
321
Worthington explains that by listing the plan in the National
Register, it guarantees that associated agencies will “…at least consider the ramifications of
alterations to the plan prior to government development of reservations and government
occupation of right-of-ways.”
322
He continues: “[Section 106] has a substantive effect: the more
the L’Enfant plan is considered, the more it will become part of the public consciousness and the
more difficult it will be for politically accountable bodies to alter the plan.” A more specific
example could be the use of easements for plan protection. Worthington explains that “…the
government of a preservation group would only need to hold an easement against one large
structure on at-risk city blocks,” in order to prevent blockbuster structures that would affect the
integrity of the plan.
323
This proves that in special cases, at the most basic level, current
legislation can protect plans and the larger implications they may have by ensuring that certain

320
Glen Worthington, “The Vision of Pierre L’Enfant: A City to Inspire, A Plan to Preserve” (Historic Preservation
Seminar, Georgetown University Law Center, 2005), 7.
321
Ibid, 7.
322
Ibid, 43.
323
Worthington, “The Vision of Pierre L’Enfant,” 46; This kind of protection would only occur if there were a
historic property on each block that qualified for an easement; similarly, plan designation would apply only to
specific cases as well. This illustrates how different strategies work under different circumstances in preservation.
180

character defining features are not affected, much like how these laws apply to individual
historic resources.
This interpretation comes in response to what is perhaps the most insightful and
intriguing argument of the paper, which is that “…preserving the plan is more than preserving a
mere roadmap. Rather, when speaking of preserving the L’Enfant plan, it is best to speak of
preserving L’Enfant’s vision for what a capital city should be.”
324
In broader terms, Worthington
is arguing that city plan designation is more focused on preserving the “big idea”—the
foundation on which the planners or designers intended the city to grow and be perceived. This is
especially important to remember in plan designation, since many elements, as noted previously
in the examination of D.C.’s nomination, are intangible. In California City, the “big idea” is
perhaps one of the biggest “character-defining features” of the plan, which is why plan
designation is a viable option for protection. Furthermore, incorporating the original “big idea”
into the city’s new master plan in order to more efficiently develop the city would be benefitted
by the plan’s designation as a historic or cultural resource.
However, the history that accompanies California City’s plan cannot be compared in any
way to that of Washington D.C., except in the abstract. The state of the built infrastructure and
the plan itself is also nowhere near as unaltered as the L’Enfant Plan. It is difficult to say if the
plan would be eligible for nomination at any municipal level for these reasons. Nevertheless, the
National Register nomination for D.C.’s plan brings up many applicable criteria and evaluative
tools that could be used to protect California City’s plan, in whatever form that may occur. For
example, vistas and views are a major character-defining feature of the city’s plan, due to the
original nature of the plan intended by Smith and Williams, which still exist today. A visual
connection to the expansive desert and scattered buttes was essential in maintaining the city’s
place within the landscape. In preserving the city’s plan, any future development would have to
be sensitive to this. Additionally, the city’s unique street layout would need to be protected both
at the city-wide scale and at the neighborhood scale. Concepts like intra-urban and inter-open
circulation patterns (Chapter Four) have helped define the identity of the city today. Even at the
smallest of scales, protection of street layouts—cul-de-sacs and ghosts of tot lots or play streets –
would be important. Because programming and zoning was such a specific requirement of the
original plan, one that the city is attempting to reinforce today, actions would need to be taken to

324
Worthington, “The Vision of Pierre L’Enfant,” 5.
181

protect recreation, commercial, institutional, and residential districts as well. In terms of the
context in which the plan was conceived, it is arguably significant as a result of post-World War
II population growth and planning principles in Southern California. However, one potential
hindrance to this method is that a nationally designated resource would trigger CEQA, a
California policy that requires disclosure to the public of any potential effects that any project
conducted or approved by a state public agency may have on the existing environment.
325

Historic resources that are nationally designated are considered part of the environment, and are
therefore subject to review under this policy.
326
If an entire city plan were designated as historic
resources on the National Register, any change to any contributing element of the resource
would, presumably, trigger CEQA; essentially, the city would constantly be under state review.
Another tool for protection of the city’s master plan is to classify it as a kind of “planning
district.” This term is taken from Los Angeles’ city-wide historic and cultural resource survey,
SurveyLA, though the concept is used in a variety of ways across the country (at times referred
to as “conservation districts” or “zones”). Per SurveyLA,
Planning Districts are areas that are related geographically and by theme, but do
not meet eligibility standards for designation. This is generally because the
majority of the contributing features have been altered, resulting in a cumulative
impact on the overall integrity of the area that makes it ineligible as a Historic
District…These areas have consistent planning features – such as height, massing,
setbacks, and street trees – which warrant consideration in the local planning
process.
327

The significance of planning districts, more commonly known as “conservation districts” in
other parts of the country, is evaluated in a similar process to that of individual historic resources
or historic districts. That is because in a planning district, the themes in which the area was
developed are somehow significant within the context of Los Angeles. But unlike historic or
potentially historic resources, changes to the physical fabric are readily apparent, and usually
irreversible. An evaluation of the Los Angeles neighborhood Cheviot Hills warranted the
following conclusion:

325

“CEQA Basics,” California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation, accessed May 5, 2015,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21721.

326

Ibid.

327
Field Survey Results Master Report, SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, City of Los Angeles,
Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, accessed April 3, 2015,
http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/SurveyLA_Cover%20Report_Final_0.pdf.
182

Many of the original properties in Cheviot Hills have been entirely replaced or are
extensively altered, often through expansion including an additional story that
radically changes the massing of the houses. Therefore, the overall integrity of the
neighborhood has been compromised such that it does not appear to be eligible
for listing as a historic district. However, an essential characteristic of the
neighborhood has always been its lack of homogeneity, as reflected in its varied
topography, irregular street patterns, and the diversity of architectural styles, all of
which contribute to the district’s Old World charm. Due to these aspects of the
district’s overall character, it may warrant special consideration in the local
planning process.
328

California City’s existing resources can be evaluated in much the same way.
This survey tool is particularly applicable to California City’s central core, and even
Galileo Park. The analysis of the city has proven that it is lacking in historic infrastructure that
would render it eligible for designation. However, the analysis has also shown that California
City’s plan has led to certain design features and programming that contribute to the character of
the central core. This includes its street layout and the retention of certain neighborhoods as
envisioned by Smith and Williams. In California City, the plan becomes a reminder of the
principles that were once established for the city, and a guide for the new planning principles that
the city wants to follow in the future. Determining the city as a planning or conservation district
could ensure that these planning principles remain a part of the city’s decision making in the
future, while also protecting any extant resources from the city’s first decade. Furthermore, this
kind of local designation would not trigger review by CEQA. Local designation, such as a
planning district, would only trigger whatever local reviews are currently in place, forgoing the
CEQA process. This issue is something California City would have to address and continue to
regulate. However, designating the city as a planning district also results in a familiar issue,
which is that this method has rarely (if ever) been used to designate an entire city plan. How
would a planning district apply to a complete city plan, where multiple elements, including the
physical plan, are significant? Again, this definition would need to be customized to California
City’s unique circumstances, rendering it ineligible as the only option that can be used to protect
the plan.

328
Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Historic Resources Survey Report, West Los Angeles Community Plan Area,
SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of
Historic Resources, August 2012, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Districts_Final.pdf.
183

Because California City has been reworking its general plan and zoning code, another
option for protection of the plan would be some kind of zoning overlay. This would adapt zoning
regulations for particular parts of the plan to ensure that those areas stay protected in the future.
An example of this method is already in use in Los Angeles, and is known as the Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) program:
An [HPOZ] is an area of the city which is designated as containing structures,
landscaping, natural features or sites having historic, architectural, cultural or
aesthetic significance. To receive such designation, areas must be adopted as an
HPOZ by the City Planning Commission and the City Council through a zone
change procedure…Once designated, areas have an HPOZ overlay added to their
zoning, and are subject to special regulations under…the Los Angeles Municipal
Code.
329

Similar to traditional historic district designation, properties within an HPOZ are subject to city
review anytime change is proposed, to ensure all development is compatible with the historic
character of the district. While to some this may seem stifling, it aims to ensure that these
districts retain an “enhanced sense of community,” and makes them eligible for tax reductions
and preservation expertise from the city.
330

HPOZs are specific to Los Angeles and are the City’s way of designating and regulating
historic districts. The advantage of zoning overlays is that they can be customized to fit a city’s
particular needs, and therefore do not need to be applied specifically to historic resources. Should
California City find that it only has the capacity to protect certain areas of the city—perhaps
those that most reflect the original principles shared in their new general plan—they could create
zoning overlays for those areas. They could choose to protect certain elements by customizing
overlay zones; for examples spaces originally designated for parklets or tot lots can be protected
as “open space overlay zones”, street circulation patterns as “circulation overlay zones”, and
even larger areas of land such as the proposed Central Business district from Smith and Williams’
as “commercial district overlay zones.” By first identifying those resources and areas that may be
considered significant in the context of the city’s history, the city will gain a better sense of what
areas may be most benefitted by a zoning overlay. Thus, rather than being forgotten, these areas
will help guide future city development as the city enters a new era of growth.

329
“About the HPOZ Program,” Office of Historic Resources, Los Angeles City Department of City Planning,
accessed April 4, 2015, http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/homepage/about-hpoz-program.
330
“About the HPOZ Program.”
184

6.2 Plan Preservation as a Tool for Development
Once a strategy for protecting the city’s original plan is in place, California City can
adapt and modernize it to meet current need. The city is already attempting to do that with the
implementation of the California City Master Plan 2009-2028. However, in order to more
efficiently use its limited resources, it would be wise for the city to more fully integrate the
original planning principles with those that are similar in the current master plan. This resulting
hybrid-plan ensures the original plan’s protection, but does not limit future development that
would benefit city residents. Additionally, the city could also incorporate certain development
tools that will help the city grow sustainably. This includes the implementation of a city vision
statement and strategic plan known as Vision 360, and the establishment of sustainable
development strategies such as an urban growth boundary around the city’s central core,
promoting the city’s valuable land assets through the use of land banking, and regulating
rightsizing of blighted areas.
Over the past couple of years, former California City councilwoman and current
California City mayor Jennifer Wood has been advocating for Vision 360. Wood finds that
creating and establishing Vision 360 is incredibly important for the city’s future growth and
well-being because it would ultimately prioritize the city’s development goals and provide a
roadmap towards accomplishing them. Said Mayor Wood,
We are experiencing a resurgence of investment in the community by small local
business owners, business and industry at the Airport, as well as new retail
outlets that bring more sales tax and choices for the consumer…Home ownership
is also making a modest return.

The City is positioned to realize continued growth and development. What we
are lacking is a Vision of what we hope California City will look like in 5, 10,
15, 20 and 25 years from now…

With this vision, we will be in a better position to attract the types of businesses
and job producing industries that we need. We also need to develop a healthy
community that will attract more families, homeowners and retail to our City.
331

More simply, Vision 360 attempts to answer the questions, “Where are we going and how do we
get there?”
332
While the current city master plan documents the most detailed aspects of the city’s

331
Council Member [Jennifer] Wood to Mayor and City Council, March 18, 2014, City Council Staff Report,
California City, CA.
185

planning and zoning guidelines, Vision 360 has pulled from it those goals that are most
important and most feasible to getting the city back on track to enhanced growth and
development. Vision 360 also prioritizes those goals so that they are accomplished efficiently.
At a presentation of Vision 360 to the Mojave Chamber of Commerce in 2014, Wood
presented findings, strengths, weaknesses, challenges and areas for opportunity within California
City. Through this exercise, modeled after the vision statement and plan for Hesperia, the city
found that it could prioritize its development goals.
333
Vision 360’s first challenge was to create a
list of California City’s main identities, which helped to establish future goals. The city found
that they most identified as a bedroom community, a retirement community, a recreation
destination, and an ideal location for industry, warehousing and manufacturing.
334
While there
are many opportunities for development within each of these areas (not coincidentally the same
identities that Nat Mendelsohn, Smith and Williams, and the Community Facilities Planners first
sought for the city), the city must first overcome the weaknesses and challenges that impede its
growth, including
335
:
• City resources need to be better managed
• Multiple infrastructure issues
• City government not accountable
• Limited workforce, no motivation, limited education
• Problem with overall community conservation
• Lack of community pride
Similarly, the city faces a number of threats, such as
336
:
• Economic base declining
• Cal [sic] City going bankrupt
• Empty and half built homes

332
Joyce Grant, “California City’s ‘Vision 360’ Presented at Mojave Chamber,” Mojave Desert News, August 2,
2014, accessed March 30, 2016, http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_76533e20-199c-11e4-a9b3-
0019bb2963f4.html.
333
Coincidentally, Hesperia was also developed by California City’s founders, Nat K. Mendelsohn and M. Penn
Phillips. This was not the reason the city chose to model their vision statement after Hesperia’s, as Mayor Jennifer
Wood did not know the two cities shared the same developers.
334
“Vision 360 Mojave Chamber Presentation,” (presentation, Mojave Chamber of Commerce, Mojave, CA, July 24,
2014).
335
Ibid.
336
Ibid.
186

• Silly spending
• Too many agendas
• Business to restricted and stifles growth
• Not operating on a clear budget
It is clear that California City wants to grow, without the threat of growth being stifled. The first
step in recognizing the obstacles it faces is crucial to prioritizing the goals that are most
important to the city.
However, the City has not yet recognized how to utilize its existing resources, such as the
planning documents for the city’s initial growth. Incorporating those documents, as well as the
information presented in this thesis, into Vision 360 will help the city accomplish its goals more
efficiently. That is because many of the goals Vision 360 has identified are parallel to those first
identified in the initial phases of planning for the city. This includes enhancing recreation spaces
(currently this is for modern recreation activities such as OHV and skydiving), enticing
“educational institutions to come to the area,” developing the airport and industrial park, and
growing a relationship with Silver Saddle.
337
Because Silver Saddle is privately owned, this last
goal is especially important because of the history the two areas share. Capitalizing on this
history is only one of the many opportunities for the city to enhance community pride, and
promote stronger involvement by the city’s residents.
Vision 360 is still a work in progress, but its creation is a step in the right direction for
identifying the areas with the most potential for growth. However, efficiency will be determined
if and how the city decides to incorporate the numerous existing planning, design, and
infrastructure resources at its disposal. Protection of the city’s master plan is one way to identify
overlapping goals of California City’s early years and those of today. Instead of inhibiting
growth by classifying everything as historic or significant, the concept of “significance” is
redefined as those areas that can be most improved using original planning principles and
infrastructure. Then, these become the priorities of California City’s new Vision 360.
In narrowing down the scope of development in California City, certain sustainable tools
may be needed to ensure targeted growth. This includes further emphasizing an urban growth
boundary, taking note of Silver Saddle’s land banking enterprise and restructuring the city’s

337
“Mojave Chamber Presentation.”
187

approach to rightsizing. All of these strategies can be accomplished more efficiently by first
preserving the city’s original master plan, and incorporating it into its new vision.
Because California City has fallen victim to one of its original fears, “scatteration,” it
would be wise for the city to enforce an urban growth boundary around the central core.
Described as part of a master planning process, urban growth boundaries,
…are planning tools that promote more efficient, orderly, and compact
development. For communities adopting them, they are…designed to uphold
community character, protect water and other natural resources, promote efficient
development and use of public infrastructure, stimulate community and economic
development, and impart long term, comprehensive thinking about the
community’s future.
338

Urban growth boundaries can be used to protect assets valuable to a specific city, whether that is
natural resources or infrastructure already existing within a developed core. In California City,
both of these examples would apply. An urban growth boundary can also be used simultaneously
with the preservation of Smith and Williams’ master plan, as an urban growth boundary is an
adjustable, customizable approach to targeted growth.
Another tool that may be useful to California City is landbanking. In preservation and
sustainability, the concept of landbanking occurs when land is acquired by an institution known
as a land bank, which then “transfers property to a new owner in a way that supports community
needs and priorities.”
339
It is used in managing vacant properties and viewing them as assets,
rather than hindrances.
340
Similarly, “landbanking is an effective way to unlock the potential of
vacant urban land.”
341
This same concept can easily be applied to California City, where vast
amounts of land should be seen as valuable, rather than unmanageable. Silver Saddle Ranch &
Club is currently using this system to manage its 1,020 acres of developable land around their
resort.
342
. Per Silver Saddle’s website,

338
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services et al., “Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Service
District,” in Innovative Land Use and Planning Techniques: A Handbook for Sustainable Development, ed. Eric
Williams (Concord, NH, 2008),
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/repp/documents/ilupt_chpt_1.8.pdf, 119.
339
“Land Banking,” Smart Growth America, accessed April 3, 2015,
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/issues/revitalization/land-banking/.
340
Ibid.
341
Ibid.
342
“LandBanking—The Real Estate Tool,” SSR LandBanking Plus, accessed April 3, 2015,
http://www.silversaddlelandbanking.com/landbanking.htm.
188

LandBanking and The Galileo Project at Silver Saddle Ranch & Club provide an
opportune real estate investment vehicle for those smaller investors who would
like to participate in the area’s growth. The Galileo Project surrounds the Silver
Saddle Ranch & Club which, with its 130-acre resort oasis, provides the ideal
anchor for adjacent real estate development opportunities.
343

Essentially, Silver Saddle is encouraging the investment of smaller dollar amounts into a parcel
of land, with the expectation that the investors will have a say in how the land is developed.
Because the land already has public infrastructure and zoning codes in place, the area can
accumulate a mix of both smaller residential investors who hope to take advantage of amenities
the resort has to offer, and major industry investors that see the value of expansive amounts of
land.
344
California City could benefit from this smart growth tool as well. By first preserving the
master plan, then establishing an urban growth boundary around the central city to increase
density and grow the economy, the surrounding land becomes more valuable. Through this
strategy, the city can more confidently justify the value of its vacant land.
Landbanking is similar in concept to “rightsizing,” another practice that can benefit cities
whose footprints have become unmanageable. It is defined as a response to,
…sustained population loss by demolishing vacant and abandoned property and
curtailing services in neighborhoods beyond redemption, to concentrate
investment in other neighborhoods through rehabilitation and new construction.
345

At times, rightsizing can be a concern to preservationists, because vacant properties that are
determined historic are in danger of being demolished, especially those whose significance is not
readily apparent. In preservation, rightsizing is a strategic process that involves choosing and
rehabilitating “the best neighborhoods—those with solid and once attractive housing and other
amenities – and by letting going of lesser areas to concentrate resources…”
346
Protection of the
original master plan is an effective way to evaluate significance and integrity of certain
neighborhoods. Incorporating the protection of these neighborhoods into the city’s new general
plan helps to identify and prioritize “the “best neighborhoods” for rehabilitation and
development. Furthermore, protecting the master plan first could ensure that whatever resources

343
“LandBanking Plus+ & Silver Saddle Ranch Real Estate, SSR LandBanking Plus, accessed April 3, 2015,
http://www.silversaddlelandbanking.com/.
344
Ibid.
345
Priya Chhaya, “What is Rightsizing Anyway,” PreservationNation Blog, May 6, 2011,
http://blog.preservationnation.org/2011/05/06/what-is-rightsizing-anyway/#.VSL5pGTF8wg.
346
Ibid.
189

are deemed historic are also protected from redevelopment. In California City, where the city
never experienced a significant population loss because it was always under populated and has
many areas with similar developmental issues, this method is should be used as a tool for
determining which neighborhoods need the most investment right now. Rightsizing need not be
an intimidating approach; rather, it should be redefined as a way to target growth towards the
central city while continuing to protect the city’s significant resources.

190

7. CONCLUSION

Plan preservation is a tool that can be used to protect historic and cultural resources in the
preservation field. California City may not be the model community in which to preserve, but at
the very least, the analysis of the city has proven that the preservation of a city plan is a
complicated concept, and is probably most effective if customized to a particular city. There will
be cities, like Washington D.C., where the significance of the city’s history and its character-
defining features are undeniable. Others, like California City, may have histories and origins that,
while no less significant, are not be as easily visible today. Mid-century, master planned
communities in particular played such a huge role in our country’s history. While young in
preservation years, their significance will continue to grow and must not be discounted. There
will likely never be another endeavor at the scale California City, yet its story tells us so much
about California’s history in design, war, housing and planning. In this, the city and its plan are
priceless.
I cannot ignore the undeniable possibility that the original intentions for California City
ultimately failed, due to a variety of different circumstances. Because of this, the original master
plan may not be worth preserving at all. And even if it were, the city’s modern condition is not
entirely conducive to sustainable development today. Preserving the City’s plan would be
incredibly complicated, and perhaps not entirely appropriate. However, this study of California
City has shown how, in general, preservation of a city plan can actually be used as an efficient
and resourceful tool for development. Preservationists often advocate for reuse or rehabilitation
of a building as a more sustainable way to develop cities, and preservation of a city plan is no
different. The roads, neighborhood layouts, recreation centers, and even areas reserved for
parklets and greenbelts are still visible throughout the California City. Furthermore, most all of
the original design documents exist in the archives at the University of California, Santa Barbara
and are available to California City. A study of the City’s new master plan has proven the
similarities between its new vision and that of the city-founder, Nat K. Mendelsohn. Therefore,
the City need only take advantage of original design documents, and the remnants of the original
city, to build upon their community today. While rehabilitation is more commonly used on a
singular building or structure, the rehabilitation of a city plan can become a useful tool in modern
city planning, and help the preservation field shed its reputation for being an expensive,
inefficient, or selective practice.
191

As a preservation tool, there is still much to learn about the extents and limitations of
plan preservation. However, if used appropriately, those resources that are unable to fit within
current preservation confines may be protected in the future. Further research of this subject will
need to more closely analyze each of the plan preservation strategies presented in this thesis.
That could be accomplished by preparing an eligibility study for California City or any other city
that hopes to preserve its city character but faces many development obstacles. What eligibility
criteria would the city be significant under? What would its designation include? Do the same
rules apply for evaluating its integrity? The scale of California City’s original is almost
unfathomable compared to the city landscape of today. It has become clear through this thesis
that plan preservation may be more successful if limited to the central city, where development
has actually occurred. In this instance, it will be important to understand the flexibility of plan
preservation, should the City ever want to expand and develop outside the central city boundaries.
There are many opportunities for further research of plan preservation outside California
City as well. Because of the abundance of master planned communities (particularly within
Southern California) that will soon be reaching the fifty year mark, and therefore “historic,” there
will also be ample opportunities to experiment with plan preservation. For example, how can
plan preservation be applied to large scale communities like Ross Cortese’s Leisure Worlds? Or
to the countless master planned suburb communities scattered throughout Southern California, in
response to housing needs? How will significance be determined, when so many of the
communities have a shared history? Other master planned cities, such as Irvine, appear to be
slowly developing, and are already following their original master plans. In those cases, will
there ever be a need for plan preservation? It will be interesting to see how plan preservation can
be applied to these different (yet similar) communities, and if a standard for the tool will ever
develop.
Protection of a city master plan is a preservation tool proven to work given the right
circumstances. But because it is not widely used, the extent to which it works is understandably
limited. Because of D.C.’s rich, historic city fabric, designation of the plan ensures that
L’Enfant’s original vision remains in place for many years to come. In California City, where
historic infrastructure is scarce, preservation of the plan can instead become a tool for future
development. It also has the potential to protect the intangible nature of “the big idea,”
something that preservationists continue to struggle with. Furthermore, it becomes a catalyst for
192

old and new ideas to exist in harmony. With a deeper understanding of protecting city master
plans, the opportunities for preservation of any type of resource become increasingly limitless.

193

BIBLIOGRAPHY
“12-year California City History Marked by Gains.” Bakersfield Californian. July 8, 1970.
California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1. California City Branch,
Kern County Library.

20 Mule Team Borax. “History.” Accessed April 15, 2015. www.borax.com/about-borax/history.

“About the HPOZ Program.” Office of Historic Resources, Los Angeles City Department of City
Planning. Accessed April 4, 2015. http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/homepage/about-
hpoz-program.

“About Silver Saddle Ranch & Club.” Silver Saddle Ranch and Club. Accessed March 11, 2015.
http://www.silversaddle.com/about-ssr.htm.

AirNav.com. “California City Municipal Airport.” Information effective March 5, 2015.
www.airnave.com/airport/L71/A.

Alagona, Peter S. and Smith, Clinton F. “Mirage in the Making: Mojave Dreams.” Boom: A
Journal of California (Fall 2012): 2-3. Doi: 10.1525/boom.2012.2.3.25.

Anton, Mike. “A Desert City that Didn’t Fan Out.” Los Angeles Times. April 14, 2010.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/local/la-me-cal-city-20100814.

Architectural Resources Group. Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement,
October 2012.

“Artificial Lake at Desert Development Being Filled.” Los Angeles Times. April 9 1961. J28.
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/16
7829183?accountid=14749.

“A New Vista in the American West: Opening the Desert Living.” Life Magazine, March 23
1962.

“A Plan for the City of Tomorrow.” Los Angeles Examiner. January 22, 1961. California City
Branch Vertical File: California City History 2. California City Branch, Kern County
Library.

Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2001.

Bickett, Damian Blasé. “Evolution of Water Marketing in California: Formal vs. Informal
Property Rights.” PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2011. ProQest (UMI
3498768).

194

Breisch, Kenneth. Class Lecture, Architecture 553: History of American Architecture and
Urbanism, USC, Los Angeles, November 24, 2014.

California City.“All About California City.” Accessed December 15, 2014.
http://californiacity.com/about.html.

California City in Beautiful Boron Valley, Brochure, Jack Maguire Local History Room, Beale
Memorial Library, Kern County Library.

California City Chamber of Commerce. Community Economic Profile for California City, Kern
County, California. October 5, 1982. Jack Maguire Local History Room, Beale Memorial
Library, Kern County Library.

California City City Council. California City Master General Plan 2009-2028. California City,
CA: California City Planning Department, 2009. PDF,
http://www.californiacity.com/20092028ccfinalgeneralplan.pdf.

“California City Plans for 1963 Announced.” Los Angeles Times. January 13, 1963.

California City Planning Department. City History and City Facts: Informational Guide.
Accessed March 20, 2015. www.californiacity.com/cchistfacts.pdf.

Cameron, Tom. “Desert City Planned for Southland Growth.” Los Angeles Times. May 20, 1962.

Chang-Moo, Lee and Ahn, Kun-Hyuck. “Is Kentlands Better Than Radburn? The American
Garden City and the New Urbanist Paradigms.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 69 (2003): 50-71.

Chute, Mahlon W.L. All Strange Away. “Wonderlands: Theme Parks, Fairs, and Urban Visions
from the Smith and Williams Architectural Archives.” Accessed March 15, 2014.
http://www.allstrangeaway.com/webpageexhibit.htm.

City of Palmdale: A Place to Call Home. “Demographics.” Accessed February 18, 2015,
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/Your-City-Hall/Demographics.

Colker, David. “California City—A Dream in Progress.” Los Angeles Times. February 11, 1990.
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/14
67083561?accountid=14749.

Davis, Clark. “From Oasis to Metropolis: Southern California and the Changing Context of
American Leisure.” Pacific Historical Review 61, no. 3, (1992): 357-386.

Derry, Anne H., Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull, Jan Thorman, and Patricia L. Parker. Guidelines for
Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C.: National Register of
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1985 (revised 1985 by P. Parker).
195

Dinius, Oliver J. and Angela Vergara. Company Towns in the Americas: An Introduction. In
Company Towns in the Americas: Landscape, Power and Working-Class Communities
(Oliver J. Dinius and Angela Vergara, editors), pp.1-20. Athens: University of Georgia Press,
2011.

“Display Ad 8.” Los Angeles Times. March 29. 1963.

“Display Ad 11.” Los Angeles Times. September 3, 1968.

“Display Ad 13.” Los Angeles Times. October 10, 1961.

“Display Ad 15.” Los Angeles Times. August 22, 1962.

“Display Ad 19.” Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1960.

“Display Ad 26.” Los Angeles Times. September 10, 1971.

“Display Ad 76.” Los Angeles Times. November 6, 1968.

“Display Ad 109.” Los Angeles Times. June 25, 1961.

“Display Ad 131.” Los Angeles Times. July 21, 1963.

“Display Ad 164.” Los Angeles Times. March 3, 1963.

“Display Ad 281.” Los Angeles Times. June 24, 1962.

“Display Ad 341.” Los Angeles Times. August 27 1961. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los
Angeles Times.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/16
7891031?accountid=14749.

Downie, Don. “The $1 Airport.” Airport World (1973): 24. California City Branch Vertical File:
California City History 1. California City Branch, Kern County Library.

East Kern Historical Museum Society. “California City Early Years: 1958-1959.” Accessed
April 15, 2015. http://ekhms.weebly.com/1958---1959.html.

East Kern Historical Museum Society. “M & R Ranch.” Accessed June 1, 2015.
http://ekhms.weebly.com/m--r-ranch.html.

East Kern Historical Museum Society. “Timeline.” Accessed June 1, 2015.
http://ekhms.weebly.com/timeline.html.

196

Edwards Air Force Base. “Edwards’ History.” Accessed April 15, 2015.
www.edwards.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10346.

“Edwards Air Force Base High Desert Birthplace of the Jet Age.” Los Angeles Times, November
24 1993. Valley Edition. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-24/local/me-
60482_1_edwards-air-force-base.

Field Survey Results Master Report. SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey. City of
Los Angeles. Department of City Planning. Office of Historic Resources. Accessed April
3. 2015.
http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/SurveyLA_Cover%20Report_Final_0.pdf.

Garner, John S. (editor). The Company Town: Architecture and Society in the Early Industrial
Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Gibbs, Jocelyn. “Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Williams.” In Outside In: The
Architecture of Smith and Williams, edited by Jocelyn Gibbs, 11-88. Santa Barbara, CA:
Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, 2014.

Ginold, Howard. “Realty Promoters Cash in as Desert Lures Thousands.” Los Angeles Times.
June 8, 1961. California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1, California
City Branch, Kern County Library.

Gonzalez, Manuel. “Future Scenarios of Land Use in the California Mojave Desert.” PhD diss.,
Utah State University, 2001. http://cnr.usu.edu/quinney/htm/whatwehave/theses-
dissertations/publication=10936.

Grant, Joyce. “California City’s ‘Vision 360’ Presented at Mojave Chamber.” Mojave Desert
News. August 2, 2014. Accessed March 30, 2015.
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_76533e20-199c-11e4-a9b3-0019bb2963f4.html.

Grant, Joyce. “ Projects, Involvement moving California City Forward.” Mojave Desert News.
March 28, 2015. http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_9b8b4524-d414-11e4-a5b9-
5f88440f37a1.html.

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce, “Community Profile,” Accessed April 10,
2015. www.sanfernandovalleychamber.com/live/profile.asp.

Handsake, Morrison. “The Postwar Labor Market in Southern California.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 222 (1942): 162-167.

Hise, Greg. Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth—Century Metropolis. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Houk, Rose. Mojave Desert. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, 2000.

197

Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Reprint, London: Faber and Faber, 1946.

Howell-Ardila, Debi. “The USC Connection: Origins and Context in the Work of Whitney R.
Smith.” In Outside In: The Architecture of Smith and Williams, edited by Jocelyn Gibbs,
89-106. Santa Barbara, CA: Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of
California, 2014.

Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Architecture View: Clarence Stein—The Champion of the
Neighborhood.” New York Times, January 16, 1977.

Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, February 9, 2015.

Jennifer Wood, meeting with author in California City, March 13, 2015.

Jennifer Wood, City Council Staff Report, March 18, 2014, California City, CA.

Jensen, Peter. “San Diego’s Vision Quest.” Planning (1997): 63.3.

“Kern County GIS Tax Parcels (Land) 2013 Final.” Kern County Assessor’s Office, Mapping
Section. Last Modified June 29, 2013. 2013 Final Edition. http://esps.kerndsa.com/gis.

Kern County Planning Commission. Policies for Planning the Boron Valley. Bakersfield,
California, 1958. California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1.
California City Branch, Kern County Library.

Kern County Zoning Ordinance. §19.45. Revised July 2012.
www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/KCZOJul12.pdf.

Kinchen, David M. “California City in New Try for Viable Plan.” Los Angeles Times. January 30,
1977.

Koppel, M & E. “The Dream that Became California City.” California City Branch Vertical File:
California City History 1. California City Branch, Kern County Library.

Lancaster, California. “History of Lancaster.” Accessed February 18, 2015,
http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/index.aspx?page=218.

LoCascio, John. “A Different Kind of Eden: Gay Men, Modernism, and the Rebirth of Palm
Springs.” Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 2013. ProQuest:
Dissertations and Thesis @ University of Southern California (1459216958).

Lotchin, Roger W. “World War II and Urban California: City Planning and The Transformation
Hypothesis.” Pacific Historical Review 62, no. 2 (1993): 143-171.

198

Lubell, Sam. “Exploring Modern Ruins in Southern California.” New York Times. March 19,
2014. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/travel/exploring-modern-ruins-in-southern-
california.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0&referrer=.

MacKean, Molly Timmins. “Greenbelt America: A New Deal Vision for Suburban Public
Housing. PhD Diss., Northwestern University, 2013.

Mandelker, Daniel R. Designing Planned Communities. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, Inc., 2010.
http://landuselaw.wustl.edu/BookDPC/Designing%20Planned%20Communities.pdf.

McLellan, Dennis. “Whitney Smith, 91; Pioneer Modernist Architecture.” Los Angeles Times.
April 28, 2002. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/28/local/me-smith28.

McMahon, Bob. “Planned Community of ‘20s an Anomaly in N.J. Suburbs; Radburn’s
‘Superblock’ Has Few Imitators.” The Washington Post. September 24, 1988.

Mendelsohn, N. K. Annual Report to California City Residents and Property Owners. August 10,
1960. California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 1. California City
Branch, Kern County Library.

Mendelsohn, N. K. Annual Report to California City Residents and Property Owners. December
1, 1961. California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 3. California City
Branch, Kern County Library.

National Park Service. “Historic Preservation Planning Program.” Accessed December 15, 2014.
http://www.nps.gov/preservation-planning/.

National Register of Historic Places, L’Enfant Plan for the City of Washington, District of
Columbia, Washington, District of Columbia, National Register #97000332.

Nelson, Howard J. “The Spread of an Artificial Landscape over Southern California.” Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 49, no. 3, part 2 (1959): 80-99.

Robert P. Ulrich Photograph Caption. Newspaper Clipping in California City Branch Vertical
File: California City History 1. California City Branch, Kern County Library.

“Missile Center.” Newspaper Clipping in California City Branch Vertical File: California City
History 2. California City Branch, Kern County Library.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, New Hampshire Association of
Regional Planning Commissions, New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, New
Hampshire Local Government Center. “Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Service
District” In Innovative Land Use and Planning Techniques: A Handbook for Sustainable
Development, edited by Eric Williams, 119-133. Concord, NH, 2008.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/repp/documents/ilupt_chpt_1.8.pdf.

199

Noland, Claire. “Award Winning Architect Left Imprint Across the Southland.” Los Angeles
Times. December 9, 2007.

Nolen, John. City planning: a series of papers presenting the essential elements of a city plan.
New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1916.

“Quicknotes: Understanding Planned Unit Development.” American Planning Association, no.
22. Accessed December 15, 2014.
https://www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/pdf/QN22.pdf.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. “Introduction.” In City planning: a series of papers presenting the
essential elements of a city plan, edited by John Nolen, 1-18. New York: D. Appleton and
Company, 1929.

Ovnick, Merry. Los Angeles: The End of the Rainbow. Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 1994.

Owens, Larkin Minnie. “In Search of a “Genuine” Southern California Park: Evaluating the
Early Cultural Landscapes of Ralph Cornell For Today.” Master’s thesis, University of
Southern California, May 2010.

ParishesOnline.com. “Our Lady of Lourdes Parish.” Accessed March 20, 2015.
http://www.parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/Org.asp?ID=20489.

Parsons, Kermit C. “Clarence Stein’s Variations on the Garden City Theme by Ebenezer
Howard.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (1988): 129-130.

Parsons, Kermit C. “Collaborative Genius: The Regional Planning Association of America.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (1994): 462-482.

Phillips, M. Penn. “Huge Land Dev. Told: Boron Valley Tract Includes 77,000 Acres.” Boron
Enterprise, February 27, 1958.

“Photo Standalone 9.” Los Angeles Times. October 24, 1971.

PreservationNation Blog. http://blog.preservationnation.org/2011/05/06/what-is-rightsizing-
anyway/#.VSL5pGTF8wg.

Radburn: A Town for the Motor Age.” Introduction. Accessed November 28, 2014.
http://www.radburn.org/.

Richert, Evan D. and Lapping, Mark B. “Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 64 (1988): 125-127.

Ringhoff, Mary. “Life and Work in the Ryan District, Death Valley, California, 1914—1930: A
Historic Context for a Borax Mining Community.” Master’s Thesis, University of
200

Southern California, 2012. ProQuest: Dissertations and Thesis @ University of Southern
California (1027922795).

Salzman, Michael. “New Water.” In New Water for a Thirsty World, written by Michael
Salzman, 33-71. Science Foundation Press: 1960.

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Historic Resources Survey Report, West Los Angeles Community
Plan Area. SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey. City of Los Angeles.
Department of City Planning. Office of Historic Resources. August 2012.
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Districts_Final.pdf.

Scott, Allen J. and Mattingly, Doreen J. “Aircraft and Parts Industry in Southern California.”
Economic Geography 65, no. 1 (1989), 48-71.

Seidenbaum, Art. “The Next Noise You Hear May be Your Last.” Los Angeles Times. January
29, 1967. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/15
5638994?accountid=14749.

Senior Citizen Association of California City Mable Davis Senior Center Newsletter 16, issue 19
(2011), www.californiacity.com/0911seniornewsletter.pdf.

Shivers, Jay Sanford and Hjelte, George. Planning Recreational Places. Rutherford: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1971.

Smart Growth America. “Land Banking.” Accessed April 3, 2015.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/issues/revitalization/land-banking/.

Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.

“Smith and Williams, Architects.” Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). Accessed
March 15, 2014. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/architect/partners/322/.

Smith and Williams, Architects and Engineers, California City: A Planning Approach, June 10,
1968, Smith & Williams records, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara, folder Smith and
Williams 770 California City, 8/138 IV.C.

Smith and Williams. “Atrium (Walled Garden) Homes” sketch. Architecture and Design
Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.

Smith and Williams, “Neighbor-Oriented” sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art,
Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.

201

Smith and Williams, “Park-Oriented” sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.

Smith and Williams’ Parklet sketch, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design &
Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.

Southworth, Michael and Ben-Joseph, Eran. “Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 1 (1995): 65-82.

Sparks, Rev. Dr. Ron. “Community Church of California City: 1959-2012—A ‘Comfort Zone’
of Love, Acceptance and Healing.” Connecting Voices United in Common Concerns.
October 10, 2012. http://www.scncucc.org/voices/2012/10/ucc-conference-church-
life/community-church-of-california-city-1959-%E2%80%93-2012-%E2%80%93-a-
%E2%80%9Ccomfort-zone%E2%80%9D-of-love-acceptance-and-healing/.

SSR LandBanking Plus. “LandBanking—The Real Estate Tool.” Accessed April 3, 2015.
http://www.silversaddlelandbanking.com/landbanking.htm.

Stein, Clarence S. “Radburn, Town for the Motor Age, 1965.”

Stein, Clarence S. “Toward New Towns for America.” The Town Planning Review 20, no. 3
(1949): 203-282.

Stein, Clarence S. The Writings of Clarence S. Stein: Architect of the Planned Community.
Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Stetson Engineers, Inc. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources in California City. December
2008. http://californiacity.com/2008ccgroundwaterresourcesevaluation.pdf.

Stetson, Thomas M. Review of Water Supply and Water Quality, California City Area, Kern
County, California. February 17, 1971.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/beacon/documents/other/2010-03-
04_California_City_Groundwater_Data_TN-55732.PDF.

Stevenson, Glenn, East Kern Historical Museum Society. “Nat Mendelsohn.” Accessed June 1,
2015. http://ekhms.weebly.com/m--r-ranch.html.

Swisher, John M. The Mojave Desert. South Carolina: Arcadia, 1999.

“The California City Development Company Proudly Presents the What, the Where and the Why
of California City.” Los Angeles Times. March 11, 1962.

Thompson, Willard. “Edwards Air Force Base: $100 Million Industry in a 301,000-Acre ‘City.’”
Los Angeles Times, April 10 1964. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/16
8567648?accountid=14749.
202

Trolander, Judith Ann. From Sun Cities to the Villages: A History of Active Adult, Age-
Restricted Communities. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2011.

“Twenty-Mule Team Here Next Friday: Borax Bill to Tool Charges Through City Traffic.” Los
Angeles Times. January 14, 1917.

U.S. Census Bureau. “California City, California Population: Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive
Map, Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts.” Census Viewer.
www.censusviewer.com/city/CA/California%20City. Accessed March 20 2015.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “Education and Training.” Accessed February 17, 2015.
http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp.

“Vision 360 Mojave Chamber Presentation,” (presentation, Mojave Chamber of Commerce,
Mojave, CA, July 24, 2014).

Von Eckardt, Wolf. “Architect Left Humanist Monuments: Clarence Stein Spent His Life
Designing Livable Communities.” Los Angeles Times. December 9, 1976.

“What the Older Adult Can Look Forward to In California City.” California City Sun. November
15 1961. California City Branch Vertical File: California City History 2. California City
Branch, Kern County Library.

Williams, Wayne R. Recreation Places. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1967.

“Wiser Planning in Town Building.” New York Times. July 23, 1933.

Womesely, J. Lewis. “Some Housing Experiments on Radburn Principles.” The Town Planning
Review 25, no. 3 (1954): 182-194.

Worthington, Glen. “The Vision of Pierre L’Enfant: A City to Inspire, A Plan to Preserve.”
Historic Preservation Seminar, Georgetown University Law Center, 2005.
203

Appendix A: Shortened Timeline of Design Endeavors by Whitney Smith and the Smith
and Williams firm
347

This extremely shortened timeline of projects envisioned and completed by Whitney Smith
individually, Smith and Williams together, and Smith and Williams with the Community
Facilities Planners shows the breadth of experience held by all parties. It also speculates on what
types of projects may have been precedents or inspiration for the Smith and Williams’ designs
seen in California City. The majority of the single-family residences that the firm worked on are
left out of this table.

Year Name Location Architect Notes
1942 Linda Vista
Shopping Center
Linda Vista, CA Whitney Smith Experience with
large-scale
commercial
1945 Case Study House
5 (unbuilt)
La Canada
Flintridge, CA
Whitney Smith
1946 – Wayne R. Williams joins Whitney Smith in his private practice.
1946 Barr Lumber
Company Garden
Wall House
(unbuilt)
Whitney Smith
1946 Case Study House
12 (unbuilt)
La Canada
Flintridge, CA
Whitney Smith
1947 Mutual Housing
Association,
Incorporated,
Crestwood Hills
housing tract
Los Angeles, CA Whitney Smith, A.
Quincy Jones,
Edgardo Contini w/
Wayne Williams and
Jim Charlton
Experience with
planning for housing
tracts
1948 Neighborhood
Church, Nursery
School building
Pasadena, CA Whitney Smith Experience with
institutional
development
1948 Wayne Williams
house
Los Angeles, CA Whitney Smith
1949 – Wayne R. Williams becomes a partner with Whitney Smith to form the architecture firm of Smith and
Williams.
1949 W. C. Phillips
house, model house
for tract
development
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
1950 United States Navy,
Ordinance Test
Station
Inyokern, CA Smith and Williams
1951 Mrs. S. C.
Armstrong garden
house
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
1951 Neighborhood
Church master plan
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams

347

“Selected Projects of Whitney R. Smtih and Smith and Williams, 1936-1973,” in Outside In: The Architecture of
Smith and Williams, ed. Jocelyn Gibbs (Santa Barbara, CA: Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of
California, 2014), 181-188.

204

1952-53 Blue Ribbon
Construction
Company (Myron
Aiches tract
housing)
Reseda, CA Smith and Williams
1953 Adult Recreation
and Day Care Center
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams Experience with
recreational
development,
particularly geared
towards seniors
1953 Children’s Chapel
for Neighborhood
Church
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
1953 Mr. and Mrs.
William Dunn
house, extensive
remodel of Greene
& Greene James
Culbertson house
(1902)
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
1953 City of Needles
riverfront
recreational
development
Needles, CA Smith and Williams
1954 Better Homes and
Gardens model
house “Five Start
Plan No. 2409”
(unbuilt)
Smith and Williams
1954 Crawford’s Country
Market
Los Angeles, CA Smith and Williams
1954 Local 770 Retail
Clerks Home for the
Aged
Los Angeles, CA Smith and Williams
1954 W. R. McCloskey
apartments
Unknown location Smith and Williams
1955 – Smith and Williams work on at least seven different tract housing projects
1956 City of Lakewood
recreational
development and
designs for Mayfair
Park and youth
center
Lakewood, CA Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners

1956 Richard Roe and
Associates, Charter
Oaks Shopping
Center
Charter Oak, CA Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners

1957 City of Arcadia,
Wilderness Park,
Santa Anita Canyon
Arcadia Smith and Williams
1957 Buena Park Civic
Center
Buena Park Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners

1957 Community
Facilities Planners
South Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
w/ Community

205

office Facilities Planners
1957 Dr. and Mrs. Paul
Hoagland garden
room house
Pasadena, CA Smith and Williams
1958 – California City Founded
1958 Los Angeles
Department of Parks
and Recreation,
Panorama
Playground and
clubhouse
Los Angeles, CA Smith and Williams
1958 Mrs. Louis Miler,
the Glades Swim
Park
Los Angeles County,
CA
Smith and Williams
1958 Scripps College
swimming pool and
bath house
Claremont, CA Smith and Williams
1959 City of San Diego,
Mission Bay
Development master
plan
San Diego, CA Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners
One of first master-
planned projects
1960-61 Hathaway Home for
Children recreational
building
Los Angeles, CA Smith and Williams
1961 Morro Bay Land
Investment
Development
Company,
commercial and
recreational
development
Morro Bay, CA Smith and Williams
1961-68 – California City Development Company master plan, housing designs, church and recreational planning
w/ Community Facilities Planners
1961 Costa Mesa Park and
Recreation District
Costa Mesa Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners

1961 Old Sacramento
Redevelopment (w/
N.K. Mendelsohn),
historic district
planning
Sacramento, CA Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners
Continued working
with Nat K.
Mendelsohn on
other projects while
working on
California City
1962 Omo Motel California City, CA Smith and Williams
1962 Twenty Mule Team
Parkway System
road improvements
California City, CA Smith and Williams
1963-64 Capital Company,
Camelback
residential
development
Phoenix, AZ Smith and Williams Working on other
desert community
projects
1963 Pyramid Lake
Marine Center
recreational
development
Washoe County, NV Smith and Williams
w/ Community
Facilities Planners

1964 N.K. Mendelsohn Colorado City, CO Smith and Williams Nat Mendelsohn was
206

Residence apparently splitting
his time between
California and
Colorado
1964 Thunderbird-
Capistrano Company
recreation and
residential
development
Dana Point, CA Smith and Williams
1966-68 California State
Exposition and Fair,
various recreational
buildings
Sacramento, CA Smith and Williams
1967 N.K. Mendelsohn
Colorado City
planning and
development for
subdivision
Colorado City, CO Smith and Williams
1969 Kern County Land
Company, California
State College,
Bakersfield
Bakersfield, CA Smith and Williams
1970 N. K. Mendelsohn,
North American
Towns Incorporated,
urban development
plan
Lake Texoco and
Netzahualcoyotl,
Mexico
Smith and Williams Continued to work
with Nat
Mendelsohn after
work in California
City; Mendelsohn
continued to work
on large-scale urban
plans despite
California City’s
failure
1971 N.K. Mendelsohn,
North American
Towns Incorporated,
Battlecreek Park
Redding and
Cottonwood
Smith and Williams

207

Appendix B: Existing
Smith
and
Williams
Resources
in
California
City

Type Name Address Photo Notes
Residences 21200 Bancroft Court

Character defining features of some
homes are driveways
21160 Bancroft Court

21148 Bancroft Court

21136 Bancroft Court

21124 Bancroft Court

21307 Bancroft Court

May be original
21313 Bancroft Court

May be original
208

21319 Bancroft Court

21331 Bancroft Court

21324 Bancroft Court

May be original
21318 Bancroft Court

21325 Heather Place

21330 Heather Place

21306 Heather Place

May be original
21300 Heather Place

May be original
209

21319 Heather Place

10011 Achilles Court

10029 Achilles Court

21621 Adler Drive

21630 Adler Drive

21760 Adler Drive

21739 Bancroft Drive

21681 Bancroft Drive

210

10249 Rea Avenue

10243 Rea Avenue

10225 Rea Avenue

10231 Rea Avenue

10236 Rea Avenue

May be original
10244 Rea Avenue

May have been replaced
10218 Rea Avenue

211

Mobile Home Park

Institutiona
l
21009 Conklin Blvd.

Original church demolished; ancillary
building still exists
Robert P. Ulrich
Elementary School
9124 Catalpa Avenue

Central Park
(formerly
Wonderland Park)

Original features include the lake
pavilion, bathhouse, swimming pool,
waterfall, and multiple bridges. Also
original and extant is the layout of the
park.
Galileo Park
Observation Tower

Galileo Park
Administration
Building

212

California City Fire
Department
20890 Hacienda Blvd.

http://www.calcityfire.us/about/ccfd-
history
Commercia
l
Aspen Mall 20908 Neuralia Road

Aspen Mall 20906 Neuralia Road

Aspen Mall 8016 California City
Blvd.

Aspen Mall California City Blvd.
between Neuralia
Road and 82
nd
Street

Car Wash 8217 California City
Blvd.

Appears to be similar in style to many
other Smith and Williams designs for
California City

213

Appendix C: Galileo Park Map from California City’s Final General Plan 2009-2028

This map shows the California City-owned portion of the Galileo Park area as compared to the
Silver Saddle owned portion of the park. It sheds some light on what areas have been kept intact
by the city and what portions have been changed by Silver Saddle’s owners, explained in further
detail in Chapter Five.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Preserving street names in Los Angeles, California

PDF

Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

PDF

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

PDF

Building on the hillside: community planner and architect Franz Herding (1887–1927)

PDF

Sawtelle reexamined: a preservation study for a historic California Japantown

PDF

Would community design overlay (CDO) be a tool for revitalizing Los Angeles Chinatown?

PDF

Mapping heritage justice in the city of Los Angeles

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

Beyond significance: integrity analysis considerations for modern residential tracts of the San Fernando Valley

PDF

Historic preservation in the United States Air Force: exploring new frontiers

PDF

Empowering communities through historic rehabilitation: creating a maintenance plan for public housing developments in Los Angeles

PDF

Legacy business program implementation in American urban immigrant neighborhoods: a case study of Little Tokyo and Chinatown, Los Angeles

PDF

Defining the City of Gardens: the conservation of Pasadena's bungalow courts

PDF

Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley

PDF

Reconstruction right now: conserving vernacular heritage in Beaufort, South Carolina as an act of reconstructing preservation practice

PDF

Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

PDF

Being a part of the narrative: how can we preserve Black heritage in the U.S. South while mitigating violence and facilitating change?

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

Asset Metadata

Creator Torres-Gil, Micaela Cortez (author)

Core Title Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 07/14/2015

Defense Date 06/14/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag city plan,conservation,desert,Garden City,master‐plan,Mojave,OAI-PMH Harvest,preservation,Recreation,Smith and Williams,Wayne R. Williams,Whitney Smith

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Horak, Kathryn (committee member), Platt, Jay (committee member)

Creator Email mickietg@gmail.com,torresgi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-593484

Unique identifier UC11300186

Identifier etd-TorresGilM-3598.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-593484 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TorresGilM-3598.pdf

Dmrecord 593484

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Torres-Gil, Micaela Cortez

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA