• About JacobBarlow.com
  • Cemeteries in Utah
  • D.U.P. Markers
  • Doors
  • Exploring Utah Email List
  • Geocaching
  • Historic Marker Map
  • Links
  • Movie/TV Show Filming Locations
  • Oldest in Utah
  • Other Travels
  • Photos Then and Now
  • S.U.P. Markers
  • U.P.T.L.A. Markers
  • Utah Cities and Places.
  • Utah Homes for Sale
  • Utah Treasure Hunt

JacobBarlow.com

~ Exploring with Jacob Barlow

JacobBarlow.com

Tag Archives: Historic Districts

Willard Historic District

28 Saturday Dec 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

box elder, Box Elder County, Historic Districts, utah

Willard Historic District

Willard, located forty-five miles north of Salt Lake City, was settled in 1851. Of these original settlers one home, the Lyman Wells Home, was constructed in the early 1850’s, The original settlement was called Willow Creek because of the numerous willows along the stream which flowed from the steep mountain canyon just east of the settlement westward into the Great Salt Lake. Later, the town was renamed Willard in honor of Willard Richards an apostle of the Mormon Church.

Willard reflected Brigham Young’s concern about Indian attack and on his advice s constructed one of the largest forts in any Utah village. It measured half a mile in length and a quarter mile in width and had walls twelve feet high and two feet thick at the top. The fort proved unnecessary and as the settlers grew more convinced they were at last at their permanent homesite, they disassembled the fort and used many of its rocks in homes nearby and in the foundation for the L.D.S. Meeting House beginning in the 1880’s.

The Willard Historic District is one of Utah’s Historic Districts and is bounded by 200 W, 200 N, 100 E and 200 S in Willard, Utah. It was added to the National Historic Register (#74001933) on June 25, 1974. The text on this page is from the national register’s nomination form.

As the pioneers expanded beyond the confines of the fort, Willard began ;o take on the form of a typical Mormon agricultural village. In many other frontier communities, the move from the fort was to dispersed farmsteads (a pattern encouraged by the Federal Land Acts such as the Homestead Act of 1862) but the Mormons maintained a closely-knit farm-village pattern, Willard’s plan resembled that of the Plan for the City of Zion drawn by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the following respects:

  • All of the people lived in the town, an area approximately one mile square.
  • The grid pattern was strictly north-south, east-west.
  • Blocks were large and those in the center of town were larger than others and set aside for church, school and public use.
  • Houses were set back from the streets at least twenty-five feet and the streets were wide, intersecting each other at right angles.

Other important distinguishing characteristics of a Mormon village manifested in Willard are the presence of barns, granaries, sheds, corrals, and fences in the village proper and the predominance of earth tones in the color of building materials. The abundance of pioneer stone architecture in Willard sets it apart from most other villages not only in terms of sheer numbers but in styles ranging from Gothic to Greek. The ingenuity of the settlers in making such harmonious use of natural stone is uniquely demonstrated in the craftsmanship of the towns’ master-builder, Shadrach Jones, A native of Wales, Shadrach was converted to Mormonism in 1850. After emigrating to Utah, he made his home in Willard. As a stone mason, his work reflects the style of the houses in his native Wales. In 1083, Shadrach was called by L.D.S. Church authorities to return to his homeland as a missionary. He died June 24, 1883 at Swansea, Wales after a three week bout with pneumonia.

The Willard Historic District illustrates several significant facts relating to America’s and Utah’s history and heritage, as follows:

  • The concentration of rock homes reflecting the influence and use of European house styles on the Mormon frontier.
  • The craftsmanship of Shadrach Jones and his helpers who used their tremendous skills with a minimum of hand tools to create some of the most beautiful structures still standing.
  • The Mormon philosophy of building as permanently and beautifully as their resources would allow.
  • The adaptability of these settlers to their environment. Rocks were used in the homes because of their abundance and the ability of the settlers to work with them. In other parts of the Mormon territory adobe and bricks were used in constructing much the same styles of homes.
  • Willard still reflects, in large measure, the design and composition of the typical Mormon agricultural village.

It is believed that Willard’s rock buildings were designed from memories of Wales, since the master stonemason credited with their construction came directly to Willard from Wales. Although northern Utah is endowed with many pioneer rock structures, the greatest concentration existed in Willard. Also, certain features of Willard’s homes differ from those found elsewhere. For example, the rock homes built in Willard between 1861-1881 did not have fireplaces. Although many communities along the Wasatch front had ready access to rocks, the extent and success of this material’s use is especially pronounced in Willard.

The settlers and early residents of Willard were as substantial as their architecture. One of Shadrach Jones apprentices, Evan Stephens, nurtured his musical talents in Willard then went on to direct the famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Robert Bell Baird, another accomplished musician, composed many hymns still used in L.D.S. Churches today. John L. Edwards was one of northern Utah’s most prominent cattlemen and entertained Lei and Stanford and Brigham Young in his home. George Mason was a well-todo dairyman and George and Charles Harding were prominent ranchers. Matthew Dalton had the first sailboat on Great Salt Lake and set out the first orchard in northern Utah. It is believed that more residents of Willard per capita achieved college educations than from any other town in Utah. Willard was (and still is) a hub of fruit-growing activity. Some associate Willard most clearly with the devastating floods of 1923 and 1936.

Several Willard residents interested in the protection and enhancement of their heritage have formed a non-profit, educational organization called Historic Willard. They are participating in workshops directed by outstanding restoration architects, landscape architects and planners and legal consultant Their goal is to learn how to preserve and restore their individually-owned buildings at the same time they become advocates for compatible community development. These citizens were instrumental in securing zoning for Willard last year. They are sponsoring educational activities, e.g. the collection of photographs to document Willard’s early history. They are also studying the long range effects of major planning considerations, e.g. curb and gutter, sewer, etc. They hope to influence public opinion on the latter to provide what is considered appropriate for Willard.

Price Main Street Historic District

08 Sunday Dec 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Carbon County, Historic Districts, NRHP, Price, utah

Price Main Street Historic District is a historic district covering Main Street from 100 West to approximately 215 East.

Related:

  • Price Main Street Historic District
  • Price, Utah

The text below is from the nomination form (#08000383) to the National Historic Register.

The City of Price is the county seat of Carbon County in east-central Utah, and is approximately 120 miles southeast of Salt Lake City. The Price Main Street Historic District, with a period of significance dating from 1910 to 1960, contains the greatest concentration of commercial buildings in the city and is the de facto commercial center for both Carbon and Emery counties. In addition, the City of Price is a key regional transportation hub, with the Denver & Rio Grande Western (now merged with the Union Pacific Railroad), US Highway 6 and State Highway 10 all converging in town. Due to its geographic location and influx of immigrants, early development in Price did not follow the pattern established by the early LDS (Mormon) colonies, principally along the Wasatch Front. Consequently, Price is unique in Utah for its early association with the railroad and coal industries and for its sectarian history.

The town of Price did not develop as most early Utah communities had; its growth was not due to an influx of Mormon settlers but was largely the result of industrial development in the region, specifically from the coal and railroad industries. The arrival of European immigrants, especially from Greece and Italy, accounted for much of the community’s early population growth. The earliest commercial district in Price, representing the early period of settlement and growth, from 1877 to 1910, was centered on the railroad yards at the west end of town. The Main Street Historic District began to develop as businesses moved away from the railroad district and concentrated to the east along Main Street, from 200 West to 100 East. These later businesses were often owned or managed by immigrant settlers, and to the present day many of the Main Street buildings and businesses bear the names of their immigrant founders, such as Silvagni, Oliveto, and Georgides.

The Price Main Street Historic District is a concentration of historic buildings on Main Street that are representative of the commercial prosperity and growth that characterized the town of Price through the first half of the 20th century. The district is bounded by 100 West and 200 East, and also includes the United Methodist Church at the northeast corner of Main Street and 200 East. The Price Municipal Building and the Carbon County Courthouse, together with the United Methodist Church , define the eastern end of an otherwise largely commercial district. West of 100 West the early commercial buildings have either been demolished or no longer retain their integrity; East of 200 East the concentration of commercial buildings is far less than the concentration within the district boundaries and includes few buildings from the historic period. The streets immediately north and south of Main Street never experienced the kind of commercial growth that sets apart Main Street. The district boundaries, therefore, include the two blocks with the largest concentration of extant historic commercial buildings in Price, together with the two most substantial public buildings, and an historic church.

Period of Significance 1910-1960

No buildings from the earliest period of development remain on Main Street (1877-1909). Some of these early buildings were destroyed by fire; others were demolished to make way for the structures that we see today. The Period of Significance ( 1910-1960) began with rapid growth and development on Main Street. Although it was destroyed by fire in 1965, the Savoy Hotel, constructed in 1910 at the southwest corner of 100 West and Main Street was representative of this rapid growth. The years from 1910 to about 1915 also saw the construction of many other extant buildings within the district (historic names are given if known):

  • Paternoster Building, 5 East Main (c. 1910),
  • 5 West Main (1912),
  • Eko Theater. 34 West Main (1912),
  • Parker & Weeter Block, 85 West Main (1913),
  • Franks Building (Oliveto’s Furniture), 48 East Main (c. 1913),
  • 63 East Main (c. 1915),
  • 9-17 East Main ( c. 1915),
  • 36 West Main ( c. 1915),
  • 40 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 44 West Main ( c. 1910),
  • 60 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 70 West Main ( c. 1915),
  • 75 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 69 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 67 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 63 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 41-47 West Main (c. 1915),
  • 39 West Main (c. 1915),
  • Boecker Electric Store (Eastern Utah Electric Company), 11 West Main (c. 1915),
  • Silvagni Building, 4-14 East Main (c. 1915).

These 20 buildings account for nearly one-half of the buildings within the district that date from the period of significance.

Based on the Utah SHPO criteria, of the 46 buildings within the district ~ the Price Main Street Historic District contains 28 contributing resources ( 60 percent) and 18 noncontributing resources ( 40 percent). Of the contributing resources, three are individually listed in the National Register. These are:

  • Price Municipal Building (Price City Hall), listing number 78002652 (2/17/1978);
  • Star Theatre, listing number 82004116 (8/9/1982);
  • Parker & Weeter Block/Mahleres-Siampenos Building, listing number 82004115 (3/9/1982).

individual building s within the district consist mainly of a variety of commercial structures, from boarding houses and hotels with ground-floor business or retail space to single-story commercial blocks. The district includes three non-commercial buildings: the United Methodist Church , Carbon County Courthouse , and Price Municipal Building (City Hall), all three of which are significant, contributing resources within the district.

As exterior “windshield” visual survey results only, RLS criteria address the age and historic integrity of the Main Street façade, and do not address other criteria such as structural condition or integrity of historic interiors. A number of resources that date from the period of significance have been remodeled, such as the Silvagni Building , con structed about 1915. The existing aluminum “skin” was applied c. 1960 and has gained significance in its own right. Similarly, exterior alterations such as those on the Elk Theater (Crown Theater) date from the period of significance such that these buildings represent very different styles and dates of construction, yet still retain integrity as examples of the perpetual adaptation of commercial buildings with regard to use and style. The district includes only one out-of-period intrusions, the building at 6 W. Main.

Survey results indicate a variety of styles and periods of construction, from late 19th century varieties to mid- 20th century styles. A handful of earlier buildings show elements of late Victorian eclectic styles, with decorative brickwork , decorative trim and deep, classically adorned cornices. The most common style in the district is also eclectic: early 20th century commercial style with varying degrees of decorative elements and vernacular interpretations of popular styles of the day. These buildings may include Prairie Style influences, Arts and Crafts and/or Art Nouveau influences, or other fanciful or eclectic details However, only where a given style is dominant has the building been indicated as having a given style. The relevant periods , approximate dates of construction and architectural styles include those shown below, have the number of contributing resource s within the district representative of each period /date/style (approximate dates are indicative of the buildings within the district and not necessarily representative of the style itself). A few representative buildings of each style are shown below. Those that are both stylistically significant and retain their historic character are indicated with an asterisk(*):

Victorian Period, Beaux Arts Style:

  • *40 West Main

Victorian Period, Eclectic/Commercial Style:

  • *70 West Main

Revival Period, English Tudor Style:

  • *United Methodist Church, 10 North 200 East

Revival Period, Italian Renaissance Style:

  • *Star Theatre, 20 East Main
  • *Boecker Electric Store (Eastern Utah Electric Company), 11 West Main

Revival Period, Spanish Colonial Revival Style:

  • *Eko Theater, 34 West Main

20th Century Period, Commercial/Eclectic Style:

  • 63 East Main
  • 29-43 East Main
  • 82 West Main
  • *Parker & Weeter Block, 87 West Main
  • 41-47 West Main
  • Redd Building, 21 West Main
  • *Paternoster Building, 5 West Main
  • Franks Building (Oliveto’s Furniture), 48 East Main

Modern Period, Art Deco Style:

  • Price Theater, 30 East Main
  • Lewis Jewelry, 46 East Main

Modern Period, WPA Moderne Style:

  • *Price Municipal Building, 185 East Main

Post WWII Period, Other/undifined Style:

  • *82 West Main
  • *J.C. Penney Company, 78 East Main

Late 20th Century Period, Other/undifined Style:

  • *Carbon County Courthouse, 120 East Main

As indicated above, the Price Main Street Historic District also includes a number of altered, non-contributing resources (17) and one out-of-period building (1).

The estimated date of construction of the earliest building from the period of significance, at 5 East Main Street, is 1910. The earliest buildings with actual documented dates of construction include the Paternoster Building, 5 West Main (1912), Eko Theater, 34 West Main (1912), and the Parker & Weeter Block, 85 West Main (1913).

While 1910 is an estimate for the building at 5 East Main, this year is nonetheless chosen as the beginning date for the period of significance. Additionally, in December, 1910, a successful election was held to upgrade Price’s standing to a third class city. Thus, 1910 was a symbolic end to the period of early settlement and growth that began in 1877 and also heralded the establishment of Price as the comn1ercial center of a larger region.

Narrative Statement of Significance

The Price Main Street Historic District is locally significant under criterion A, and ”is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history.” The historic resources within the Price Main Street Historic District represent a period of local economic growth and prosperity that paralleled the expansion of the region’s coal and railroad industries. As described below, under criterion A, the development of Utah’s coal and railroad industries and their relationship to the growth of the city of Price are a significant regional and national historical development of which Price’s Main Street commercial district is an integral part.

The District is also architecturally significant under criterion C. Of the forty six (46) buildings within the district boundaries, twenty eighty (28), or 60 percent, are contributing. At least a dozen of the extant buildings are important examples of distinct architectural periods and styles, including the three that are already listed in the National Register: Price Municipal Building/Price City Hall, listing number 78002652 (2/17/1978); Star Theatre, listing number 82004]] 6 (8/9/1982); Parker & Weeter Block/Mahleres-Siampenos Building, listing number 82004115 (3/9/1982). In addition, under criterion C, the physical development of Price’s Main Street and the types and styles of individual buildings within the district embody the spirit of growth and prosperity that were largely a consequence of the region’s growth and industrial development.

The period from 1910 to 1960 is chosen as the period of significance. Not only is 1910 the estimated date of the earliest building in the district, it was also the date of the establishment of Price as a third class city that commenced a couple of decades of rapid growth, as represented by the commercial buildings on Main Street. This period also saw relatively consistent prosperity for Price, even as other communities in the region suffered through economic downturns such as the Great Depression. Not until the decline of the coal mining industry and railroad traffic in the early 1960s did Price experience any significant corresponding economic decline. This period ended with the construction of the most significant “modern” building within the district, the Carbon County Courthouse, constructed 1958-60.

The commercial sector of Main Street included within the historic district boundaries is the best representation of the growth, both commercially and architecturally, of Price during the early to mid twentieth century. The character and setting of the district retain a high degree of integrity and contribute to the history of Price.

Price Early Settlement and Growth: 1877-1910

The first permanent Anglo settlers in the Great Basin region of the Intermountain West were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons), who first arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake in July of 1847. The early leaders and members of the church considered this region their “Zion” and began organized colonization efforts immediately after their arrival. The first settlements were founded along the north-south corridor of the Wasatch Front, but soon communities were established in regions in the central and southern areas of the territory, as well.

As a largely agrarian culture, the LDS settlers preferred areas that were well-watered and advantageous for raising food crops and livestock. The Wasatch Front and central valleys of the territory, such as the Sanpete and Sevier valleys, met these criteria, and early settlements were established in these fertile areas. “Missions” or settlements were also established in less favorable environments, such as the desert southwest comer of the territory and the Uinta Basin to the east, but not until the 1870’s did Mormon pioneers begin settling eastern Utah in relatively large numbers. By the time of the death of the LDS prophet and colonizer Brigham Young, in 1877, the more fertile parts of the territory had been colonized, and the systematic pattern of settlement established by Brigham Young had largely run its course.

For territory residents or later immigrants seeking land or less-crowded conditions than the earlier settlements afforded, opportunities existed mainly in the less-favored regions, and thus it was that some of these adventurous individuals settled in the Price River Valley, beginning in 1877. In contrast to the well-planned grid-like town planning of the earlier Mormon communities, early Price-area residents settled along the Price River, where water could be readily obtained for crops. Within only two years, however, the completion of the first railroad in Carbon County altered the character of the region, and instead of an isolated farming community, Price quickly became a planned community with regular streets, and rapidly rose to also become the dominant commercial center in the area.

The discovery of coal in the mountains north, east and west of Price prompted the construction of the first railroads in the region. The Utah and Pleasant Valley Railroad, organized in 1875 and completed in 1879, connected Utah Valley with Pleasant Valley, northwest of Price. In 1881, the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad proposed to construct a line through the area to connect Denver with Salt Lake and Ogden. Consequently, the D&RGW purchased the Utah and Pleasant Valley Railroad, and in May, 1883 arrived in Price with much fanfare. The railroad made the extraction and transportation of coal from the region commercially viable, and Castle Valley Junction, as Price was then known, experienced its first economic boom as an important regional transportation hub. The railroad and coal-mining industries significantly shaped the development of Price as a community, from the early settlement years into the latter half of the 20th century.

With the coal mines and railroad came immigrants from many countries, particularly Italy and Greece. While most lived and worked in the mining towns, or “coal camps,” some became merchants and businessmen and established themselves in Price. Early immigrants also included a number of French, who were mainly sheepherders and wool growers. The business district was the center of activity for railroad workers, coal miners, and other transient inhabitants, most of whom were not Mormons, while the more permanent residents tended to be Morn1on fanners and ranchers. However, the two groups learned very early to tolerate one another, and cooperation became a hallmark of Mormon and non-Mormon relations in Price.

Another early influence in the commercial development of Price was the freighting, or “forwarding” business, as Price residents called it. In 1886 a road through Nine Mile Canyon east of Price was completed, connecting the town to Fort Duchesne, about 60 miles to the northeast, and the lucrative hauling of freight between Price and the Fort began. Prior to 1886 only four general merchandising businesses were known in Price, while by 1888 town businesses included two contractors, four mercantile or general merchandising establishments, a blacksmith, a hotel, two saloons, a butcher, a baker and a restaurant.

Early commercial activities in Price in essence created two distinct communities. The industrial and business district was centered on the railroad yards and depot at the west end of town and also included hotels and saloons, while four blocks to the east were the church, school and town government buildings. As commercial and business activity increased, business interests began to expand west from the railroad district to the east along Main Street, toward the civic and religious center near 200 East. Sanborn insurance maps clearly show this pattern of growth. In 1908 commercial interests were clustered on either side of the railroad tracks and the densest grouping of buildings occurred on Main Street between 100 and 200 West. By 1924 wall-to-wall commercial buildings had been extended along Main Street almost as far as 100 East.

Price residents organized in 1892 to create a town government. By then, the population of Price had grown to 245, with businesses that included an attorney, a bank, two blacksmiths, a butcher, three hotels, two saloons, a livery and stable, four mercantile businesses, and a publisher.

Price was clearly becoming the dominant commercial center in the region, and shortly after the organization of the town, residents tried to have the Emery County seat moved from Castle Dale to Price. Although this attempt failed, the effort helped persuade residents that they should separate themselves from Emery County. With a more diverse population and a very different economy in the northern po11ion of the county, the proposal seemed to make sense, although residents in some communities, sucl1 as Huntington, opposed the plan. Subsequently, petitions were circulated among the communities in the northern part of Emery County to convince the territorial legislature to create a new county. In spite of some opposition, the petition was finally delivered to the legislature, which enacted a bill on February 17, 1894 to create the new county. Territorial Governor Caleb B. West signed the bill into law on March 8, and Carbon County officially came into being, with Price as the new county seat.

As noted above, early business establishments were largely clustered around the railroad depot and yards. In 1892 these included the Mathis Hotel, the Oasis Saloon, the Emery County Mercantile Institution, Price Trading Company and tl1e D.J. Williams General Merchandise. Early Main Street businesses were also located near the railroad, mostly between 100 West and 200 West. By 1908 these included a saloon, office, grocer, printer, cobbler, barber, and the Price Cooperative Mercantile Institution on the north side of the street, and a saloon, general store, drugstore, restaurant. barber and billiards on the south side. The Price Cooperative Mercantile Institution had relocated to Main Street, in 1906, from a building nearer to the railroad. Its relocation was indicative of the growing tendency for businesses during this period to locate on Main Street rather than in the railroad district. The J C. Weeter Lumber Company, located on the opposite corner of 100 West and Main Street, a bank across the street from it to the north and the Price Cooperative Mercantile Institution anchored what was then the east end of the Main Street business district. Three blocks away, at the northwest corner of 200 East and Main Street was the City Hall.

The growing importance of the community and the substantial business and retail activity “downtown” led to improvements in the construction and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, utilities and other community services. Street were at first graded, and then graveled to accommodate horses, wagons, and a gr wing number of automobiles. The 1912-1913 Polk Business Directory predicted that Price would soon have paved streets. By October, 1910, the town had even constructed its own electric power plant, and had extended electric service to both businesses and residences, a major undertaking for a town of only 1,000 residents.

The progressive spirit demonstrated by the settlers and early residents of Price was firmly established in the developing community, and its residents determined to become a third class city. (Third class cities could assess more taxes and could also provide more services.) An election was held in December, 1910, and the measure to change Price’s status easily passed. Price’s residents celebrated its new standing on March 24, 1911.

Main Street Period of Significance: 1910-1960

ln the early years of the period of significance, building construction, especially along Main Street, continued to increase. Although no longer existing, 1910 saw the construction of the Price Commercial and Savings Bank and the First National Bank, both on the north side of Main Street near 100 West. The following year, the Miles Building was completed, and one of the early merchants near the railroad, Louis Lowenstein, relocated to a new business building and hotel, the Savoy, at the southwest comer of 100 West and Main Street. These, too, have since been demolished. Other important Main Street businesses established during this period of growth included the Eastern Utah Telephone Company. Established in 1905, the telephone company constructed its new building in about 1912. On the southeast comer of Carbon Avenue and Main Street, Pietro Silvagni constructed a substantial office building, in 1913. Across the street to the west, the Paternoster Building, consisting of a drugstore and hotel, was constructed, about 1916. All three of these early buildings still exist as contributing resources within the district. Besides the new banks, stores, hotels and office buildings, new businesses also included amusement and entertainment establishments. such as the Eko Theater, at 32 West Main Street, built in 1912 and still standing.

Main Street expansion was not limited to business growth, alone. At the east end of Main Street, near the city hall, the LDS Church built a new tabernacle at 100 East and Main Street; the Methodist Church constructed a new church building across the street east of City Hall; and, a new County Courthouse was built, across the street to the south of the tabernacle. All of this construction had been completed by 1914. 1914 also saw the establishment of a chamber of commerce, organized by about 40 businessmen. Membership applications soon reached nearly one hundred.

The first automobile took to the highway in the United States in 1893. Within just twenty years, even in remote Utah there was a growing need for improved roads to handle automobile traffic. In 1913 the Utah legislature authorized the construction of the Midland Trail, a new highway intended to extend west from the Colorado state line through Cisco and Green River, thence north through Price, Colton, Spanish Fork and Salt Lake City, and finally extend to Brigham City and around the north end of the Great Salt Lake to Nevada. This road was completed through Price the following year. As the railroad had a generation earlier, this automobile link to the north and other regional communities to the south and west enhanced Price’s significance and economic control in the area.

The First World War seems to have barely slowed the consistent and continued growth of Price and its Main Street business district . The 1918-1919 Polk Directory reported a population of 2,000, and noted Price’s importance as “the center of a large livestock, coal mining, agricultural and fruit raising section.” The Directory also provides a glimpse at the cultural diversity for which Price had become known. Surnames in the directory include “foreign-sounding” names (at least to the more established Mormon and Protestant settlers with northeastern U.S., British, and Scandinavian ancestry) such as Bonacci, Broeker, Dragates, Grosso, Klapaki, Kopf, Nakagawa, Pappas, Viglia, Yukawa, and numerous others. Many of these immigrants bad become managers of local businesses or business owners themselves.

By the mid 1920s, Price’s Main Street could boast additional banks and numerous small business buildings. 1924 Sanborn maps show that commercial buildings bad been completed along Main Street to 100 East, with few empty lots in between. The Polk Directory of the same year complemented Price’s business community: “Because Price is the commercial center for a vast territory the business section would do credit to a town of more than twice its size in population.” The Directory also noted that Price had ‘”three good banks… sixteen hotels and a number of practically all kinds of retail business firms.” Buildings of note completed during this time include the Redd Building, at 21 West Main, which John Redd completed in 1921 then leased to the J.C. Penney Company for its first location in Price, and the national-register-listed Star Theatre, built by Angelo, Peter and George Georgides in 1923, which was a popular venue for vaudeville, music, lectures and motion pictures.

The economic collapse of the late 1920s and the Great Depression both had a great impact on Carbon County and Price. As the economic center of the region, Price business, perhaps suffered less, but all were affected. Workers who did not lose their jobs often had their wages and/or hours reduced, anyway, and the effect rippled through the business community. For Price businesses, the result was often a merger of like companies. Businesses that survived this way included the Redd Motor Company, which acquired the Chevrolet Motor Agency in 1928, and the two local newspapers, the Sun and News Advocate, which together became the Sun Advocate, in 1932. In 1932 the Carbon Bank of Price and Emery Bank of Castle Dale also merged, and the bank in Price took over all business of the two for both Emery and Carbon counties. (None of these buildings still exists.)

Even through the Depression, some Price businesses prospered, largely due to its economic dominance of the region. Construction of some private and public projects also helped alleviate the effects of the Depression on the local economy. The most significant of these projects was the replacement of the aging city hall building at the northeast corner of 200 East and Main Street with a new facility, the Price Municipal Building (Price City Hall–individually listed in the National Register). The Work Projects Administration (WPA) funded about one half of the projected cost of $200,000. In November of 1938 the city’s offices moved into the new building and the mayor and city council held their first meeting there. The project also included a new auditorium attached to City Hall, which was completed in February, 1939, and a new gymnasium, finished some time later.

World War II brought new prosperity to Price. Because of the increased need for coal to help fuel the war effort, output at the region’s mines increased, and of course, so did railroad traffic. Improvements in local roads and regional highways contributed to a corresponding increase in automobile traffic, which also brought new business to Price. In 1941 the increased automobile traffic led to the installation or a new semaphore at Carbon Avenue and Main Street, with caution lights at a number of lesser intersections.

Perhaps the most significant change during the war and immediately afterward was the construction of new businesses on the blocks west of the tabernacle and county courthouse as the few remaining empty lots were filled in. The largest of these was a new J.C. Penney store, at 78 East Main Street, Opened in 1947. Some newer buildings replaced older structures, such as the new First National Bank at100 West and Main Street, also completed after the war.

The years after World War II through the end of the historic period also saw the period of greatest economic prosperity for Price. The post-war economic expansion benefited Price, and Main Street thrived. The eastward expansion of the Main Street business district that began during the community’s early years continued, with some businesses also being constructed east of the historic district. Prosperous miners in the area, among others, continued to bring their business to Price, and its importance as the dominant regional commercial/retail/business center was reinforced.

In addition to some new construction, many Main Street businesses changed hands or were otherwise remodeled during this prosperous era. As Ronald Watt recounts:

“From 1948 to 1965 the Price commercial district continued to expand eastward along Main Street. The First National Bank reconstructed its building on the corner of Main and First West. The Eastern Utah Electric Company remodeled its store, forcing Ross Boyack, who had a small shop within it, to move his men’s clothing store to another location. He purchased a lot on Main Street between Carbon Avenue and First East and built a new store that would serve Price for almost half a century. In 1950 the Mahleres and Siampenos block [national-register-listed Parker & Weeter Block] and the Larcher building (which included Houston Furniture, the Price Hotel, and the Walnut Bar) were also remodeled. The old Utah Theater building was thoroughly remodeled both inside and out with new lighting, ventilation, and heating systems. It reopened as the Crown Theater. Mode-O-Day opened a women’s apparel shop on Main Street, and in November 1954 a Brigham City man, Max A. Creer, held a grand opening for Sonoma’s, another women’s clothing store. The J.C. Penney store also remodeled, adding a basement level.” [Of the building cited, the Eastern Utah Electric Cmpany, Mahleres and Siarnpenos Block, Crown Theater and J.C. Penney’s are all extant, contributing resources in the Price Main Street Historic District.]

Besides J.C. Penney’s, other national chains found homes in Price. Both Safeway and Woolworth opened stores in Price, with Woolworth’s opening in 1958 at 100 East and Main Street, and Safeway on Carbon Avenue, one block north of the historic district.

As if to mark the end of the historic period, in 1958 the original county courthouse, completed in 1912, was demolished to make way for a new county complex. Its replacement had been contemplated since the end of the war, but not until 1958 did construction begin on a new building on the site of the original. The new building was completed in 1960, retains its character as a contributing resource, and marks the end of the period of significance for the historic district.

Economic Decline and Recovery: 1961 – Present

In the early 1960s, the fortunes of Price, its residents, and its Main Street district began to decline with the closure of many of the region’s mines. The economic engine that had largely driven Price’s prosperity for 80 years slowed and Main Street businesses suffered. At first, mine closures related more to the accessibility of the coal and/or the economic viability of the mining operations, but this was also combined with a general recession. With the loss of jobs, the population of Price declined by about 4,000 persons. The low point for the community occurred during the middle of the decade, punctuated by the unrelated destruction of the Savoy Hotel, by fire in 1965. During this time, the opening of small industries in Price took up some of the slack so that the declining prosperity was not a death-blow for Main Street.

Concerted efforts by Price’s political and business leaders during the latter half of the 1960s and later were rewarded with additional industries and businesses locating in Price. The energy crisis of the early 1970s also brought resurgence in the coal industry and an increase in mining jobs. However, a trend also began to construct new buildings away from Main Street, as it .vas considered cheaper to build new than to rehabilitate Main Street’s older structures. A mini boom during the 1970s saw the construction of shopping centers and businesses both east and west of town. By 1980 the perception was clear: Main Street was dying and “redevelopment” would be needed to save it from certain death. In the early 1980s the City of Price organized a redevelopment agency to cover an area that included the historic district. A number of Main Street businesses <wailed themselves of the incentives offered by the redevelopment agency to renovate.

Beginning in the 1980s and continuing today, another trend to affect Main Street merchants was the construction of “big box” businesses, mostly east of town. These included a K-Mart, a Smith’s grocery center, and a Wal-Mart “Super Store.” On Main Street, specialty stores and boutiques, in particular, have seemed to successfully survive this new challenge, but even J. C. Penney’s on Main Street continues to serve the community, in spite of the competition.

Today, Price continues in its place as the largest and most important community in both Carbon and Emery Counties. In the years since the period of significance it has weathered considerable economic downturns, but its significance in the region’s history, both past and future, is assured. The Main Street Historic District exemplifies the spirit of cooperation, independence and progress that have characterized the community since its founding.

Provo Downtown Historic District

15 Friday Nov 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Historic Districts, NRHP, Provo, Provo Downtown Historic District, utah, utah county

The Provo Downtown Historic District was added to the National Historic Register (#80003980) on May 1, 1980.

Related posts:

  • Downtown Provo
  • Provo, Utah

The text below is from the nomination form for the National Historic Register:

A central business district conveys the image for a city. The Provo Downtown, Historic District’s “attractive and substantial buildings,” built bylocal craftsmen and builders, reflect business and building booms in the cityin the 1880’s, 1900’s and 1950’s. The structures document the history of thearea and its residents, some prominent (T.N. Taylor, Jesse Knight, O.K. Berg, Alex Hedquist, Ercanbach and Sons, and the Hoover Brothers), some infamous (S.S. Jones, Russel S. Hines), some obscure. The buildings remain as resources to exploit for their visual beauty, style, craftsmanship and as reminders of the past out of which the present is created.

Following Provo’s development in the 1850’s of a commercial center at the corner of 5th West Street and Center Street, business activity moved east to the present Downtown Historic District in the late 19th Century. The earlies buildings in the District, two-story brick Victorian commercial structures, date from the late 1870’s and the 1880’s, the documents of a boom in the rich Tintic mining district to the west. Other commercial and public structures, one to three stories tall in the Victorian, Renaissance and Classical Revival styles, illustrate eras of business prosperity in the 1900’s. Buildings from the 1950’s and 60’s, along with extensive “modernization” of most of the earlier structures, reflects the development of the nearby Geneva Steel mills and the rapid expansion of Provo’s Brigham Young University in the period.

Provo’s downtown historic district is one of the two or three most intact and architecturally significant Main Streets of Utah’s middle-sized cities. Provo’s commercial district is probably the most architecturally legible of these. While most of Utah’s Main Streets developed loosely around a central block with a Mormon tabernacle as the focal point, Provo’s commercial district presents a very distinctive “crossroads” at the intersection of Center and University Streets. Two large Victorian commercial blocks, one with a clock tower, mark the two northern corners of the intersection, the Classical Revival City and County Building and the Gothic Revival Provo Tabernacle (National Register) prominently occupy the southeast and southwest corners. Almost a dozen of the commercial structures on the north side of Center Street are now owned by a partnership who have announced plans to renovate the buildings and restore the facades.

The History:

In March 1849, John S. Highbee led a company of about 150 persons, bringing their goods, cattle, equipment and provisions into the Utah Valley. They formed the nucleus of the tour of Provo City. The company had been sent by Brigham Young, President of the L.D.S. (Mormon) Church, and as part of an effort to secure a territory in which to establish a theocratic hegemony.

In keeping with the ideals of Jeffersonion agrarianism which infused Mormon philosophy and practice, and the necessities of producing food and feed, Provo was surveyed (1850) as a plot one mile square surrounded by several acres of land put into eight lots. This grid pattern was the “Plat of Zion” pattern used repeatedly by the Mormon settlers.

Brigham Young had instructed the settlers, particularly the church and city officials, to establish their homes and farms in the town site. When many chose to build outside the city, those on the townsite petitioned Brigham Young (1852) to appoint church leader George A. Smith to move to Provo and regulate the affairs of Utah County. Smith did so, and with his encouragement the frontier town with its accompanying industrial and commercial enterprises began to emerge.

The first merchant in Provo was Andrew J. Stewart who operated a general store out of his home on what is now 5th West. He later moved his business into a building he had erected on what is now Center Street the street which would become the center of Provo’s commercial district.

By the end of 1852, Provo had several industries and businesses – a pottery for brown ware, two grist mills, one sash factory, three cabinet shops, one wooden bowl factory, three shoe shops, two tailor’s shops, one meat market, two store houses, and two lime kilns. The Deseret Manufacturing Company organized by John Taylor had brought in sugar refining machinery from England and had obtained land for raising sugar beets. Provo also had two hotels.

The hotels and most of the businesses were clustered at 5th West and Center Street. However, other businesses followed and established themselves east along Center Street. These two streets had been surveyed eight rods wide, with other streets five rods. As the demand for city lots increased, Plat 13 of Provo city was surveyed (1856) on the Mormon Tabernacle. It is obvious from the additional placement of the tithing yard diagonally across the street from the Tabernacle, that the city organizers planned for this east end of Center Street to be used for religious activities rather than commercial. Eventually even the county and city governmental buildings were located at this end.

However, commercial establishments did not remain clustered on the west side, but rather pushed into the east – even including on the LDS blocks. The two streets – 5th West and University – were to become the focal point of the west-east commercial development in the City and the conflicts between the west and the east side merchants which would spill over into politics.

The arrival in Utah of the United States Army (1857) in an effort to control the seemingly rebellious Mormons was a stimulation to the economy of Utah and particularly Provo. The several thousand Mormons from Salt Lake City significantly, the soldiers from Camp Floyd needed materials and supplies.
When the army finally left the area in July of 1861, more than $4,000,000 worth of Government property was sold at a public auction for about $100,000.

One of the merchants who had prospered because of the residence of the soldiers was Samuel S. Jones. He had begun his mercantile business in Camp Floyd, first by making adobe bricks for the fort and then in partnership with William Daley by selling vegetables to the men. After the army left, Jones who had bought some of the government property, established a business with a Jewish merchant Benjamin Buchman.

This partnership and its later dissolution are symbolic of the sometimes cooperation, more often competition, between the Mormon and non-Mormon merchants in Provo. The competition intensified with the Mormon cooperative effort.

In a 1867 church meeting, Brigham Young exhorted the Mormons to maintain economic self-sufficiency and to trade only among themselves. He soon afterward suggested cooperative merchandising. Late in 1868, the ever enterprising S. S. Jones organized a group of Mormon merchants including David John and A. O. Smoot, at the “Provo Co-Operative Institution.” Utah’s first cooperative store – the “West Co-Op” was established on Center Street in the building built by Andrew Stewart. S. S. Jones became the manager.

A flood of “Gentile” business never did come into Provo as it did Ogden. Although Provo Canyon was examined as a possible route for the Pacific railroad, the “iron horse” found its way to Ogden rather than to Provo. After 1869, Ogden’s population and commerce increased rapidly in comparison to Provo’s. Provo, as the W.P.A. writers put it, “maintained its identity as a solid Mormon town.”9 There were non-Mormons who came to Provo. Some were successful businessmen – such as the Bee brothers whose twin buildings which housed their harness and mercantile businesses still stand. The entire Bee family – Jane Bee, Jennie Bee Jones, Fred Bee, Cal Bee – was involved in Provo commerce. Earlier than the Bee family was the Freshwater family who began business in Provo in 1871 and continued successful through the 1920’s. Samuel Schwab developed a clothing business which attracted customers from throughout the state.

There was a building boom in Provo in the late 1860’s. Several businesses – many substantial brick buildings of two or more stories – locate along Center Street. The quagmire in the street was eliminated by grading in 1865.10 The Provo Woolen Mills was begun in 1869 on a block just north of Center Street. It would become one of Provo’s major industries.

Some of the early commercial buildings in Provo were built of wood. Man} others, in accordance with advice given by Brigham Young, were made of adobe. Adobe yards were located in what is now North Park. In 1866, Philander Corton built Provo’s first kiln, and by 1874, W. Alien’s brickyard was employing ten people.11 Many of Provo’s commercial buildings built in the 1850’s boom, suet as the West Co-Op, were constructed of adobe and brick.

Samuel Liddiard established a cement business in Provo in 1865. His son – the Liddiard Brothers – continued the operation, building many of the commercial structures on Center Street. (The Cal Bee building). Later, S. H. Belvant established a stone work business (1890) examples of which are still standing (Smoot building). E. J. Ward and Sons (1889) became the Central Lumber Co. (1904), competing with the Beebe and Smooth Lumber Companies (1870). The Provo Foundry and Machine Company (1885) produced much of the heating and plumbing systems included in Provo’s buildings.

The building boom of the 1860’s included the establishment on West Center Street in 1866 of the Taylor Furniture Company.13 Members of the George Taylor family established a number of successful Provo businesses – the West Side Business District.

However, the Provo commercial district had continued to move east along Center Street, and in 1883, Samuel S. Jones erected a handsome store (demolished) on J Street, now University Avenue. The next year the first bank in Provo, the First National Bank of Provo (1882), moved into its own building just down the street from Jones. Although businesses would continue to prosper and new ones would continue to be established on West Center Street, the next years would see the shift in Provo’s Commercial District to the east. The impressive buildings on either side of University Avenue (the Excelsio, the Union Block, the Knight Block) remain as evidence of this shift.

Part of the impetus for new businesses and new buildings in the 1880’s was the spinoff from the mining boom which had been going on in the Tintic mining district since the late 1870’s. Many who made their fortunes in Tintic came to Provo and established businesses and residences, building substantial homes and often extravagant buildings. Russel S. Hines who built the Palace Drug Store and Saloon which is still standing, was but one example. The relationship between Tintic and Provo would continue as other businesses and buildings were established and built in Provo with capital made in Tintic.

Charles E. Loose used his Tintic-made fortune to buy up much of Provo’s commercial property. The Loose Block, though fairly modest, remains as part of that legacy.

Jesse Knight who attempted to establish “clean” mining towns built one of the most impressive of Provo’s buildings – the Knight Block on east center where the East Co-Op had stood in the Mormon tithing yard. He became the symbol and the power of Provo’s east-side in the way Thomas N. Taylor became that for the west side.

for the west side. In 1883, construction began on a new LDS Tabernacle on the same block as the older one, a massive structure of brick and stone. Though the structure was not completed until 1896, its beginnings were part of a new building boom.

In 1888, the Provo Enquirer ran headlines that read, “Boom, Boom, Boom.” Entrepreneurs and real estate investors from the East and the West came to Provo and began paying exorbitant prices for real estate. The Provo Chamber I of Commerce which had been organized the year before to stimulate the growth in the community, published a 50-page pamphlet describing the “Garden City” of Utah.

In 1889, the Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Company secured a twenty-year franchise and eventually built a building on the east side. The North American Asphalt Company began paving sidewalks, North and University Avenue (then called Academy Avenue). The Provo Lake Resort was established on Utah Lake.

The “Boom” did not last long, however. During the winter of 1891-92, only a few of the new real estate dealers renewed their licenses. The national panic of 1893 further aggravated the situation. Many businesses failed including Samuel S. Jones.

There were those able to rise out of the panic. One was George Startup who began his candy business in 1895. By 1897, the business had grown so much that he and his brother Walter built a little factory on 3rd West which still remains. The large factory built in 1900 on the south side is on the National Register of Historic Places. Candy-making was a popular business in Provo at the turn of the century, with enterprises so numerous, Provo could have been called the “Candy City”, a situation made possible by the large sugar beet industry in the area.

The turn of the century saw a continuation of the West-East side controversy, a culmination in the 1905-11 fight over the location of the railroad depot and the conclusion in favor of the east side as more businesses continued to locate there and north along University Avenue.

The prominence of this section of town was even more emphasized by the building of the public library (1907, since greatly remodeled), the Provo Post Office (1909, since demolished) and finally, the replacement of the Utah County Courthouse (1873, demolished) with an impressive new City and County Building (1902-26). In 1976, Provo City Offices were moved out of this building into a new complex built on block 63, replacing the Provo High School Building and part of a reversing trend of the commercial and public interests building on the west end.

The 1920’s saw the rise of the automobile industry in Provo and brought about one of the last major changes in the commercial district, as automobile repair and service shops established themselves along the south side of Center Street replacing several residences and filling up what had been vacant land. Some of these businesses were the descendants of earlier harness and wagon businesses.

nesses. The post World War II economic boom had a major impact on the business section of Provo. With the completion of the General Steel Plant in 1946, the rapid expansion of Brigham Young University which was only recently leveled, the proliferation of new housing developments to accommodate the many new families which moved into the area, the downtown merchants responded with effort to “modernize” their buildings. These efforts, suing sheet metal and stucco, were the most destructive changes to the architectural character of the district. However, recently there is evident a realization that restoration of the architectural heritage may now be a way to revitalize the downtown whose vitality is being sapped by the development of suburban malls.

Boundaries:

The northwest corner of the Provo Downtown Historic District begins approximately 180 north of the intersection of Center Street and 300 West along the East curb of 300 West. The boundary follows east along the back property lines of the buildings facing south on Center Street (buildings 58-20) to a point at the northeast corner of building # 20 where it turns north to follow along the back property lines of buildings which face east on University Avenue (buildings 16-12).

At the northwest corner of building 12, the boundary turns east again across University Avenue to the northeast corner of building 11 where it turns south along the back property lines of buildings 11 and 10, then east along the back property lines of the buildings facing south on Center Street (building 8-1) to the west curb of 100 East where it turns south following the west to the corner of 100 East and 100 South were it turns west, following the north curb along 100 South to 100 West where it turns north along the east curb of 100 West approximately 200 feet where it turns west and follows the back property line of the buildings facing north on Center Street (buildings 76-59) to 300 West where it turns north along the east curb back to the point of beginning.

Included Sites listed here: Provo Center Street

Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District

19 Saturday Oct 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Clark County, Historic Districts, Las Vegas, Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District, NRHP

Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District

The Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places (#90002204) on January 30, 1991.

Properties previously listed on the National Register:

  • Las Vegas High School Academic Building and Gymnasium, 315 South Seventh Street, built 1930-31 and listed on the National Register September 24, 1986.
  • Jay Dayton Smith House, 624 South Sixth Street, built 1931-32 and listed on the National Register February 20, 1987.

The Las Vegas valley is situated within the basin and range province of the southern portion of Nevada at an approximate elevation of 1950 feet above sea level. The region is characterized by sharp, rugged, north-to-south trending mountain ranges separated by wide alluvial-filled valleys and gently sloping alluvial aprons at the mountains’ bases.

A number of mountain ranges surround the valley. On the northern edge are the Las Vegas, Sheep, Desert, and Pintwater Mountains. On the west are the Spring Mountains. The southern boundary is formed by the River and McCullough Ranges and Frenchman’s and Sunrise Mountains.

Abundant natural springs have long made the site of the City of Las Vegas attractive to Indians, early explorers and other pioneers, to Mormons who established a short-lived fort in 1855, and to ranchers. The availability of water and its location halfway between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City motivated its official founding in May, 1905 as a town and as a division point on the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad. The railroad company established a subsidiary, the Las Vegas Land and Water Company, to lay out a townsite and to auction off the lots.

Located immediately to the south and west of the Las Vegas High School, the Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District primarily consists of approximately six full blocks and parts of another seven blocks of middle-class, pre-World War II housing. The Las Vegas High School, already listed on the National Register, occupies an oversized lot of its own, and defines the northeast corner of the district. The district is roughly bounded by E. Bridger Street to the north, the service alley in between Las Vegas Boulevard (also known as Fifth Street) and S. Sixth Street to the east, E. Gass Street to the south and the service alley between S. Ninth and S. Tenth Street to the west.

The district encompasses parts of two separate subdivisions – the Wardie and the South additions. The blocks of the Wardie addition (platted in 1914, but generally undeveloped until the late 1920s and then throughout the 1930s) are generally 300 feet by 400 feet while those of the South Addition (platted in 1926) are generally of the same dimensions. The lots of both additions are regularly divided and have a frontage of twenty-five feet and a depth of 140 feet. Most of the homes and buildings in the district occupy at least two or three lots and oftentimes more. The streets of both the Wardie and South Additions, like those of all the early developments in Las Vegas, parallel the railroad tracks. This pattern emphasized the town’s early dependence upon and orientation toward the railroad.

The majority of homes are uniformly setback from the street, an important unifying feature. Most have detached garages situated towards the rear of the lots and adjacent to the service alleys running up the center of each of the district’s blocks. The use of service alleys is one of the more important distinguishing factors that this Pre-World War II neighborhood retains. Much of the rest of the city today consists of a “super-grid” covering nearly 100 square miles of east-west and north-south streets at approximately one mile intervals. This immense and repeatable super-grid has been laid over the much smaller and more self-contained pre-existing city of Las Vegas, of which the Las Vegas High School Neighborhood Historic District is a part.

Architectural Character

The Las Vegas High School Historic District is the oldest residential neighborhood within the city of Las Vegas which retains its architectural and historic integrity. The historic district consists primarily of single-family residential structures, the majority of which contribute to the district’s architectural and historic character. The district also includes several multiple-family dwellings, one large educational facility (the Las Vegas High School) and one religious structure (the Las Vegas First Ward Church of Latter-day Saints).

Most of the buildings within the district are modest middleclass, single-family dwelling units. Almost all are oriented to the numbered streets running north-south. A handful of homes face the named streets running east-west. Many of the district’s buildings depend upon a frame-and-stucco form of construction. Many utilize architectural elements and design features of a wide variety of period revival styles. These include the Pueblo Revival, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival styles; although most are restrained in their ornamentation and vernacular in their design. The district also includes a number of Moderne-styled residences. Examples of these architectural styles are not generally found in any other part of the city.

The district contains a number of consciously-designed structures. The following presents some biographical information about some of the city’s more important architects and construction professionals, some of whose work still survives within the proposed historic district.

Hampton Brothers

The four Hampton brothers (Robert, Roscoe, Henry and Elmer) were originally born and raised on a farm in Wray, Colorado. They moved to Kansas City at one point, but eventually gravitated to Southern Nevada in 1929 to work on the construction of Boulder Dam. They were all carpenters. They had learned their skills from living on a farm and from building homes nearby.

They remained in that employ for a little over two years before moving to the Las Vegas area and establishing themselves in their own construction firm. Each of the four brothers were equal partners in the firm. Their first contract in Las Vegas was to put in a basement for Jim Cashman Sr. in 1932.

Las Vegas was growing in the 1930s, unlike most of the country, because of the Depression. Robert Hampton, Jr. , the son of one of the brothers, feels that Las Vegas basically escaped the Depression because of construction of the Dam and the economic benefits it brought for Las Vegas and the region.

Robert Hampton Sr. lived outside of town (approximately N. 25th and Stewart) where he owned five acres of land. Robert Jr. says his father lived there because he had a big family (five sisters) and needed the extra room. The other three brothers did not have the same family responsibilities as Robert and chose to live in town instead. Roscoe lived within the proposed historic district and the high school neighborhood at 607 South Seventh.

Henry Hampton lived at 808 South Third Avenue, just north of the proposed historic district.

Generally they did not draft their projects before building them and rarely worked on big projects that required an architect. At one point the Hampton Brothers employed as many as 100 carpenters. They specialized for the most part in building tailor-made houses. Robert Jr. says this was the era before they started building tract homes and that they would simply sketch a design in pencil and just go ahead and build it. Robert Jr. in a recent telephone interview compared the process to cabinetry work.

Occasionally the Hampton Brothers tried to build a house as quickly as possible, just for the challenge of it. Robert Jr. recalls how they actually raised an entire frame for a house in a single day (somewhat similar to a barn raising) . They often worked with the Carson boys, another construction firm originally from Colorado.

Robert Jr. vaguely recalls that the Hamptons worked with an architect by the name of Harvey Bradley (sp?), who occasionally came up from Southern California. They worked together for only a short time. Robert Jr. also recalls how the Hampton Brothers, would stay up at nights to do their “cost estimating.” He says that was in “the days without calculators and everything was done in pencil.”

Structures within the district built by the Hampton Brothers include the following:

  • 802 E. Bonneville Avenue (1931) Jay Dayton Smith House (1932 – Listed on the National Register)
  • 624 S. Sixth Street (1932)
  • 615 S. Sixth Street (1938)
  • 700 S. Seventh Street (1938)
  • 610 S. Seventh Street (1939)
  • 617 S. Ninth Street (1939)
  • 621 S. Ninth Street (1939)

Other buildings constructed by the Hamptons:

  • Al Wengert House (date unknown)
  • Ron Brown (ex-State Senator) House (date unknown)
  • American Legion Building (date unknown)
  • First Bowling Alley in Las Vegas (date unknown – now demolished?)
  • Hidden Well Dude Ranch (date unknown)
  • Sam Gay House (date unknown)
  • Dr. R.D. Balcom House (date unknown)
  • 816 South Third Street (1931)
  • Henry Hampton House, 818 South Third Street (1931)
  • 201-223 Bridger Street (1931)
  • 327 North Ninth (1932) (Addition – 1954)

Ferris & Son

George Ferris ran an architectural firm in Reno, and often worked closely with Frederick J. DeLongchamps. George Ferris designed the Governor’s Mansion (1909) in Carson City and four Mission Revival schools in Reno – McKinley Park (1909), Mount Rose (1912), Mary S. Doten (?) and Orvis Ring (?).

The elder Ferris was soon joined by his son, Lehman, at which point the firm was renamed Ferris & Son. Lehman A. Ferris was born May 14, 1893, the son of George and Doris Ferris. His father, although never formally trained, established an architectural practice after moving to Nevada in 1908. By 1910, the elder Ferris was so inundated with work, that his son started to assist in writing specifications. In 1911, Lehman began his formal education when he entered the electrical engineering program at the University of Nevada in Reno. The lack of family finances cut Lehman’s education short and he never graduated.

After World War I. Lehman began full-time work for both his father and Frederick J. DeLongchamps as a specifications writer. Lehman supervised the construction of a grammar school in Elko, and the Humboldt County courthouse and the Humboldt hotel, both located in Winnemucca. The firm of Ferris and Son was formed soon thereafter. Perhaps their largest commission came in 1928 when they designed the Las Vegas High School, a part of the proposed historic district. Because of the economic conditions during the Depression, their firm was dissolved in 1932. George Ferris took a job as the State Architect for the Federal Housing Administration and Lehman continued to practice privately.

After working as an electrician, draughtsman, specifications writer, and superintendent of construction with various mining operations, Lehman Ferris began work for the State Highway Department. In 1935, a new Democratic administration under Governor Carvill took office and Lehman was pressured to resign. He then became Reno’s first building inspector. Working at home at night, it was then Lehman began to develop an architectural practice of his own.

In the mid-1940s, Lehman left his job with the city, revived his architectural practice full time and formed a partnership with Graham Erskine. Examples of structures designed by this firm include the Reno High School, Wooster High School, Hug High School, the Nevada State Legislative Building and Harold’s Club. Both Ferris and Erskine were instrumental in establishing a licensing board for architecture in Nevada in the 1940s. As a result, Lehman has Nevada Architectural License No. 1.

Structures built by Ferris & Son inside the historic district:

Las Vegas High School (1931)

Pacific System Homes. Inc.

On January 8, 1932, the Pacific Systems Home, Inc. announced in the Las Vegas Review-Journal the completion of the Blakey apartments at the corner of Sixth and Carson streets and that they were open for inspection by the public. The president of the corporation, W.P. Butte, mentioned that the Blakey apartments represented “the highest achievement of his organization in producing an edifice of this character.” dough’s office was in the Blakey Apartments at 201 South Sixth Street.

Butte addressed the issue of Las Vegas’s future prospects for growth and continued development.

Our activity in Las Vegas and vicinity, combined with the completion of this beautiful apartment home makes us feel more certain than ever of the development that will take place by reason of the construction of the Hoover Dam.

Two earlier examples of pre-cut homes survive within the historic district. They are attributed to the Pacific Ready Cut (also spelled Readicut) Company, Los Angeles, California. It seems probable that the two different names represented the same company at different stages in its existence, the change coming sometime late in 1931.

Pacific Systems Home, Inc., was established in Los Angeles c. 1908. Establishment of the company in Las Vegas can be traced back to 1929. Frank Lusson of 620 South First Street was the company’s authorized builder in Las Vegas from at least 1929- 1931. Lusson had been with the company for 17 years, indicating perhaps that he moved to Las Vegas rather recently, with most of his experience coming from his previous time in Los Angeles. A July, 1931 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal mentions that seventeen projects utilizing the Pacific Readicut system were presently underway.

A sizeable number of plans and designs were available to the prospective homeowner. One newspaper ad mentions that there were

… over 1800 Pacific System designs, from the mountain cabin to the modest bungalow or the palatial home. Also ‘Special Plan Studies’ of artistic exteriors, unique room arrangements and decorative treatments provided to the individual owner’s preference.

An earlier newspaper article indicates that the 24-acre plant facilities, located at 5800 South Boyle Avenue in Los Angeles, also included a number of fully-assembled models available for inspection on their “exhibition grounds.”

Once the home was ordered, the plant in Los Angeles would pre-cut all the necessary materials. The home would then be assembled on site by a local authorized builder. Newspaper articles and ads strongly emphasized the economy of scale and the company’s nearly almost 23 years of experience in building homes as selling points.

Pacific System Homes, Inc. outside of the historic district:

  • Blakey Apartments (1931)
  • 812 South Sixth Street (1931)

Pacific Ready Cut Homes, Inc. within the historic district:

  • 711 S. Sixth Street (1929)
  • 517-519 S. Sixth Street (1930)

Samuel J. Shaw

Samuel J. Shaw first moved to Las Vegas from Nephi, Utah as a child with his family in 1917. Sam Shaw Sr. was a rancher and purchased a home on Fifth Street in which he and his family lived. The elder Shaw also purchased another eighty acres eight miles south of town, presumably for ranching purposes.

The first known reference of Samuel J. Shaw’s life as a construction professional is dated January 1930. As early as 1928, the building crafts in the city sought to organize themselves and to form the Las Vegas Protective Building Trades Association, with Shaw as its first chairman. Their primary concern seems to have been the prevailing wages for each of the building professions. Later meetings were held in Shaw’s home at 521 South Sixth street; a house within the proposed historic that Shaw had built himself and has since been replaced with a 1949 structure. In March 1932 the organization adopted the name Contractors’ Association of Las Vegas and was “fashioned after the organizations of this type throughout other cities of the United States.”

One of Shaw’s largest commissions was the Ronnow Building on South First Street, a half-block south of Fremont Street. The two-story commercial structure was designed and built by Shaw, utilizing “22,000 hollow concrete tiles” manufactured by the Nevada Concrete Block company, a recently-organized Las Vegas firm.

The following August, Shaw was awarded the contract to build the Pico Apartments to be located at 431 South Third Street. Construction was financed and designed by Dr. Louis C. Pico.

The apartments consist of four separate structures, two on each side of a concrete walk with a grape arbor in the rear leading to the residences of the proprietor.

Spanish style, they are of frame stucco, immaculate white exteriors, the front structures connected with a graceful arch under which the walk passes.

Careful attention to details mark the construction work of Sam Shaw and his men, builders of the apartments.

Three feet of air space above the ceilings insures insulation against temperature extremes.

Structures built by Shaw outside the historic district:

  • 524 South Sixth Street (1930 – since demolished)
  • Ronnow Building, 120 South First Street (1931)
  • Unknown Dwelling, corner of Mesquite and State Streets (1931)
  • Pico Apartments, 431 South Third Street (1931)
  • Max Tenesch building, South First street between Bridger and Carson Streets (1931)
  • Las Vegas Club addition (1931)

Structures built by Shaw within the historic district:

  • Samuel J. Shaw house, 521 South Sixth Street (1930 – since demolished)
  • Robert B. Griffith House, 408 South Seventh Street (1931)
  • 506 South Seventh (1931)

Harrison Stocks

Stocks was married in the Los Angeles area to Louise (maiden name unknown) Stocks in 1907. They were separated in 1927, just previous to Harrison’s relocation to Las Vegas. The couple had two children; Grace born c. 1906 and Harrison born c. 1916.

One of the earliest known newspaper references to construction by Stocks is dated July 7, 1931. The article announces the Harry Garner House, a five-room residence costing $2,000, on the corner of Bridger and South Eighth Streets as a “New Model Home To Be Open For Public Inspection” and that the builder and designer, Harrison Stocks, will be there “to point out and explain fine points in construction and finishing of the home.”

The same article goes on to mention that the “Spanish and Moorish styles of architecture [were] combined for uhigue effect” and that “[t]he structure is distinctly [of] desert type construction, the round, built-in tower effect in the corner of the porch lending a decidedly Asiatic atmosphere, with the rustic gates and patio wall effect reminiscent of the Spanish.”

Stocks had just completed a residence for $2000 for Tom Peck, retired general passenger agent for the Union Pacific in Alhambra (near Los Angeles) where he had worked previously as a builder. Projects Stocks also had underway then included the home and a new residence for Dr. J.N. Van Meter in the Park Addition.

A May 1932 advertisement in the Review-Journal for the grand opening of Smith’s Root Beer Stand in Boulder City mentions that the structure had just recently been completed by Harrison Stocks, General Contractor. In June of the same year Stocks was awarded his first known contract for a commercial structure in Las Vegas by the partnership of Lowry and Kennedy, proprietors of the L & K Markets.

The new structure, which will represent an investment of $10,000, will be constructed on the Southeast corner of Second and Bridger streets.

The building itself will be 40 by 100, and will sit well back on the property, the entire remainder of the lot being given over to parking space for the convenience of the housewives patronizing the institution.

In February 1933, Stocks won a very prestigious contract for the building of the A.W. Ham house, located at the corner of Charleston Boulevard and Second street. At the same time, Stocks was at work constructing a home directly adjacent for District Attorney Harley A. Harmon and his wife. This might have been the first instance when Stocks built a structure designed by an architect, in this case by H. Clifford Nordstrom. Construction was projected to cost $15,000.

Being of Norman English style of architecture, that motif will be carried out in its entire construction, stucco, brick, slate and stone, with clapboard and beams, each playing its respective part in gaining the desired effect.

A unique nautical arrangement will be worked out in the boys’ bedroom, where, instead of beds, bunks will be erected, and portholes instead of windows, will bring in fresh air and sunshine. Ship lanterns and compass linoleum will be among the outstanding features. Shop pine will be used in finishing the room.

The construction of the well-appointed Harley Harmon house, also known as “The Pines,” was completed very soon after that of the A.W. Ham house, this time without the assistance of a professional architect. A March 1933 article describes the house in great detail as the “Most Modern In Entire State of Nevada.”

As one views the house from the outside he is charmed with the balance and beauty of the line in its English architecture and the harmony of coloring of brown trim on the soft, grey stucco and the soft blended colorings of the flagstone in the front and garage courts. Stone columns balance the front of the yard and the drive will be connected with English box hedge and two large pine trees will be placed on either side to dignify the front facade.

As one enters the beautiful stained English oak door with its massive hammered black iron hinges and hardware, he is announced with the soft, musical tones of Velvetone chimes and is delighted with the vista of the drawing room, a step down to the left, the wrought-iron and tile paved stairs in front, and a step down to the dining room at the right, both rooms secluded with silk tapestry, green and gold portiers. Back of the stairs is the guest lavatory and dressing room done in light yellow and orchid and at the right of the front door is a guest coat and golf club closet.

By July 1933 and the completion of the A.W. Ham House, Stocks was advertising himself as a “contracting architect.” Perhaps he felt that after finishing these two major commissions he had graduated from being simply a contractor to something more refined.

In August 1935, the city of Las Vegas appointed a board of building examiners and appeals. Their function was to arbitrate in any inspection disagreements in the building industry. Stocks was one of five prominent local builders that also include the architect, A. Lacy Worswick, the builder Samuel J. Shaw, Roscoe Hampton and Ryland Taylor, all of which, except for Taylor, are known to have designed and/or built properties within the proposed historic district.

In October 1935, Stocks won the commission to build a new service station for General Petroleum. The $12,000 station was to be erected on the southeast corner of Fifth and Carson Streets. Berkeley Bunker, a resident of the proposed historic district, was named as its owner and manager.

The station will be of all steel construction, colonial style, and will be constructed by the General Petroleum company. It will have six computing gasoline pumps, and will be equipped to render one stop service to all motorists.

The next major commission for Stocks, and perhaps the largest to date, came in October 1936, when he was awarded the $25,000 contract for building the Las Vegas Elks home at Third and Carson streets.

The building will occupy a space 62 by 102 feet, suitably placed in the 100 by 140 foot site owned by the lodge. It will be of concrete block construction facing Third Street.

A basement will be devoted to gymnasium features for the members. . . The main floor will accommodate spacious clubrooms and a lodge hall . . .

The building was designed by A.L. Worswick and promises to be one of the finest homes owned by the Elks in the State when completed.

By November 1939, Stocks had established the Stocks Mill and Supply Co. The Mr. and Mrs. James Powers’ house at 508 South Sixth Street (since demolished) was perhaps the first building designed and built by Stocks and his new company. A newspaper article describing the house concentrates on the structure’s interior detailing.

Cream colored cabinets gay with blue trim are set in the walls so that they are flush with the slightly dropped ceiling, thus forming one continuous line.

In the breakfast nook is a charming bay window, an effect which Mr. Stocks achieved in other rooms as well by graceful triangular steel windows. Set into the bay is a blue leatherette cushioned seat. The breakfast table is of alternating blue and red bands of linoleum spaced by rings of chromium. This table, made by Stocks Mill and Supply Co., is as smart and modern a piece as one could find.

Venetian blinds were used throughout the house and were furnished by the Stocks Mill and Supply Co.

Later that same month, Stocks was made the building construction superintendent of a low-cost housing tract to consist of 75 homes within four blocks of the Grand View Addition for the firm Nevada Contractors, Incorporated. This was the second such project of its type in the city. Stocks was put in charge of sales as well as construction.

According to a front-page newspaper article, each of the homes would have a different exterior appearance although they would all share a similar floor plan.

They will be placed on 53 by 140 foot lots, facing the street and connected with an alley in the rear. The houses will have two bed rooms, a large living room, a kitchen, a breakfast alcove, a bath, and an attached garage, and will sell from $3900 to $4000. Part of the internal fixtures of each home will feature hardwood floors, inlaid linoleum, large electric water heaters, and electric air heaters.

An interesting feature of the new homes is that all of the attached garages will be placed on the north sides of the buildings, permitting use to the best advantage of south exposures for cool breezes in summertime, and sunshine in the winter.

A later newspaper article indicates that this was a Federal Housing Authority funded project.

Structures designed and/or built by Stocks outside historic district:

  • Vernon Bunker House (1930)
  • Dr. J.N. Van Meter House (1930)
  • Harry Garner House (1930)
  • Smith’s Root Beer Stand, Boulder City (1932)
  • L & K Market Building, Corner of Second and Bridger (1932)
  • Harley A. Harmon House (1933)
  • A.W. Ham House (1933)
  • General Petroleum Service Station (1935)
  • Las Vegas Elks Home (1936-7)
  • James Powers House, 508 South Sixth Street (1939 – Demolished)

Structures designed and/or built by Stocks inside historic district:

  • 729 S. Seventh Street (1936)

Warner & Nordstrom

Little is known about the architectural firm of Warner and Nordstrom. The firm consisted of Paul A. Warner and H. Clifford Nordstrom. The earliest known local newspaper references dated February 1929, concern Paul Warner’s design of the Egyptian Hotel.

In May 1932 the firm of Warner and Nordstrom undertook a $20,000 commission to design the headquarters for A.C. Grant, an auto dealership. The partnership was dissolved in February 1932. Nordstrom went on to design the addition to the Overland Hotel and A.W. Ham House on his own soon thereafter.

Structures designed by Warner & Nordstrom within the district:

  • J. Dayton Smith House 624 South Sixth Street (1932)

Structures designed by Warner & Nordstrom outside the district:

  • Beckley House (1931)
  • Silver Building Supply Warehouse (1931)
  • A.W. Ham Commercial Building (1931)
  • A.C. Grant Headquarters at Third and Fremont (1932)

Structures designed by Paul A. Warner outside the district:

  • Overland Hotel Addition (1932)
  • A.W. Ham House (1933)

Arthur Lacy Worswick

A. Lacy Worswick was perhaps the most important architect in Las Vegas during the booming growth period of the 1930s and 40s. His designs can still be seen throughout the city and include many of the city’s most significant structures. Worswick studied architecture at Kansas State University in the early 1900s. In 1904 he joined San Francisco’s Bureau of Architecture. After the destructive earthquake of 1906, Worswick won a number of commissions that established his reputation and skill as an architect. By 1910 he was placed in charge of reviewing the construction of the city’s schools. By 1912, Worswick became the chief of the Bureau, holding that position until 1929.

It was soon thereafter that Worswick moved to Las Vegas and reestablished a private architectural practice. His reasons for the move are unknown, but they might have been related to the economic conditions brought on by the Depression and the opportunity Worswick envisioned for Las Vegas based on the commitment the federal government was making to Southern Nevada in terms of constructing Hoover Dam.

One of his first designs in the area was the Stephen R. Whitehead House in 1929, to be followed by the Henderson House in the following year. In 1931, he designed the Las Vegas Hospital and the Apache Hotel at Second and Fremont, regarded by many at the time as the city’s plushest hotel. By 1936, Worswick was active enough to announce to the Las Vegas Age that he was drawing up plans for two or three new homes every week. In 1938, Worswick designed the Art Deco Lincoln County Courthouse in Pioche. Worswick was active up until at least 1947 when he designed the John S. Park School at Franklin and Tenth in Las Vegas.

Structures designed by Worswick within the district:

  • 431 S. Sixth Street (1938)
  • 704 S. Ninth Street (1930)

Structures designed by Worswick outside of the district:

  • 520 S. Sixth Street (1938)

A property-by-property description within the proposed historic district follows:

  • 421 S. Sixth Street Built c. 1930
    A single-story, frame-and-stucco, vernacular Spanish Colonial Revival house. Wood-shingled, low-pitched gable roof over L-shaped plan. Originally built as a residence, it is now used as professional offices.
    This residence was one of the first to be built east of Fifth Street and was originally built c. 1930 for Bryan Bunker, a prominent civic leader. Bunker began his career working at Will Beckley’s store. He and a partner were the original owners of the Charleston Hotel.
    Bryan Bunker was also an important leader of the Church of Latter-day Saints in Las Vegas. Bunker was the Bishop for the First Ward Church in Las Vegas from 1929-1936. In 1940 he became the Moapa Stake president. He devoted much of his life to having temple built in Las Vegas.
  • 425 S. Sixth Street Built c. 1937
    A single-story, frame-and-stucco, vernacular Tudor Revival residence. High-pitched, cross-gabled roof over L-shaped plan. The front-facing (W) gable has wood trim to mimic a daub and wattle treatment. The picture window on the main (W) facade was added recently, while the remainder of the building seems to retain its original architectural integrity.
    Built in 1937, this was originally built for Merlin and Vida Hardy and their three sons. Merlin Hardy was a rancher from the Moapa Valley, north of Las Vegas, and came to Las Vegas in the 1920s with his family to work for the local school district as a gardener. The house remains in family ownership and is now used as professional offices.
  • 431 S. Sixth Street Built 1938
    A single-story, frame-and-stucco residence designed by the local architect A. Lacy Worswick. It exhibits ornamental features associated with both the Spanish Colonial Revival and the Moderne styles. A low-pitched wood-shingled roof is surmounted by a centrally-located wood-louvered cupola.
    The detached garage is original to the main house and although an attached carport has recently been added it still contributes to the character of the district. The property occupies a corner site on the northeast corner of S. Sixth Street and E. Bonneville. The main house is oriented towards S. Sixth, while the two-bay, stucco-exterior, garage faces south to East Bonneville.
    The residence was originally built in 1938 for a total cost of $7000 for Jack Price, a retail clothing merchant. The house is now used for professional offices.
  • 501 S. Sixth Street Built 1930
    Contributing A single-story, frame-and-stucco, five-room vernacular Spanish Colonial Revival residence. Shallow-pitched, cross-gabled, mission-tiled roof over irregular plan. The entry and window openings are round-arched. The house occupies a corner lot on the northeast corner of S. Sixth Street and E. Clark Street. The main house retains its architectural integrity as a local representative example of the Spanish Colonial Revival in Las Vegas during the 1930s.
    It was originally built for Arthur Gifford, a long-term mid-level railroad employee, for a total cost of $5,500. Gifford and his wife, Alice, continued to live there until the 1960s. The house is now used for professional offices.
  • 501-A S. Sixth Street Built c.1975
    Non-contributing The property includes a recently-built secondary residence that does not contribute to the proposed historic district.
  • 509 S. Sixth Street Built 1947
    Non-contributing A stone residence with a hipped roof sheathed with asphalt shingles. Subsequent additions have joined the main house with the stone detached garage situated towards the rear of the property. These two buildings are less than fifty years of age and do not presently qualify for the National Register, but should be reconsidered at an appropriate later date.
  • 513 S. Sixth Street Built 1982
    Non-contributing A two-story office building that is incompatible with the historic district.
  • 514 1/2 Sixth Street Built 1930
    Contributing A secondary frame-and-stucco residence that survives the main house (514 S. Sixth Street) since demolished.
  • 517-519 S. Sixth Street Built 1930
    Contributing A single-story, frame-and-stucco residential duplex. Mediumpitched, composition-covered gable roof with exposed rafters along the eaves over a rectangular plan.
    This duplex is typical of the many small structures built as rental properties during the building boom associated with the construction of the Boulder (Hoover) Dam. The original owner, Bert Stevens, was an engineer with the Union Pacific railroad. Stevens had the duplex built in 1930 as an investment and never lived in it himself.
    The house was a pre-fabricated structure designed and mass produced by the Pacific Readicut Homes, Los Angeles, California and assembled by local contractors, DeRenzy and Bertelson. According to an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal the total cost was $3,650. The detached garage (since demolished) cost another $300. The property is a representative example of rental housing in the Las Vegas area built to take advantage of the housing shortage caused by the construction of Boulder Dam.
  • 521 S. Sixth Street Built 1949
    Non-contributing A vernacular concrete-block residence with low-pitched clay-tiled roof. The building should be re-evaluated when it is fifty years of age (1999) to see if it might then qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. Formerly the site of the home of Samuel J. Shaw, a local contractor who built the house in 1930, previous to the one now there.
  • 525 S. Sixth Street Built 1930
    Contributing A vernacular stucco-over-wood-frame residence has a complex gable roof with flared eaves. The original garage still survives and contributes to the original historic and architectural character of the district.
    The main house was originally built as a rental property in 1930 for Henry Kampling. Kampling alternately lived in and rented out the property for ten years, at which point he sold it to Robert Peccole, a lawyer and the current owner.
  • 529 S. Sixth Street Built 1932
    A Tudor Revival-styled frame-and-stucco residence. It has a jerkinhead gable roof and 6/1 double-hung wood-sashed windows.
    Built c.1960
    Non-contributing The detached garage was recently built and is not original to the property and does not contribute to the architectural or historic character of the historic district.
  • 600 S. Sixth Street Built 1930
    Non-contributing A vernacular residence which has been significantly altered c. 1970 to accommodate a commercial use.
  • 601 S. Sixth Street Built 1938/Addition 1941
    A Tudor Revival residence utilizing stucco-over-wood-frame construction. The house was built in 1938 for Al Adams, manager of Ronzone’s, a local department store. Adams had the house built for a total cost of $5,900.
    Non-Contributing The detached garage has been recently converted to an office and no longer retains its architectural integrity and, therefore, no longer contributes to the character of the historic district.
  • 604 S. Sixth Street Built c.1932
    A residence with Tudor Revival features (i.e. steeply pitched gable roof) and wooden siding covering its wood-frame construction.
    The secondary residence (commonly referred to as a “Mother-InLaw”) occupying the rear of the property is contemporary with and similar in design to the main house and, therefore, contributes to the character of the district.
  • 605/607 S. Sixth Street Built 1930
    A vernacular duplex with stucco-over-wood-frame construction and a jerkinhead gable roof over a rectangular plan. This duplex is significant because of its association with the speculative real estate boom and residential development that resulted in Las Vegas because of the construction of Boulder Dam. The original owner was Glenn Starkweather, a carpenter. He was quite possibly the builder as well.
    A secondary residence (commonly referred to as a “Mother-in-law”) similar in design and contemporary with the main residence occupies the rear portion of the property. It also contributes to the architectural and historic character of the district.
  • 608 S. Sixth Street Built c. 1933
    A vernacular Tudor Revival residence with stucco-over-wood- frame construction. Cross-gabled roof over rectangular plan. The house was first owned by Vernon Bunker, a local businessman, and was his residence from 1933 to 1938. Beginning in 1939
    Berkeley Bunker, Vernon ‘s brother and a prominent figure in Nevada politics, lived in this house. Berkeley Bunker was elected to the State Assembly in 1936 and named Speaker of the Assembly in 1939. In 1940 he was appointed U.S. Senator, replacing Key Pittman, who died in office. Berkeley Bunker was also a key figure in the LDS church, being named Bishop in 1940.
    Built c. 1950
    A recently-built apartment building occupies the rear of the property. It does not presently contribute to the historic or architectural character of the district.
  • 611 S. Sixth Street Built 1935
    A vernacular stucco-over-wood-frame residence with a cross-gabled roof with open eaves and exposed rafters over an irregular plan. The house was originally built for Orval Lee, a postal worker. Built c. 1960
    The rear portion of the property is currently occupied by two recently constructed buildings – a four-plex and a wooden garage. Because of their recent construction neither of these secondary structures contribute to the architectural or historic character of the district.
  • 614 S. Sixth Street Built c. 1933
    A vernacular residence utilizing stucco-over-frame construction. Cross-gabled roof with open eaves over a rectangular plan. The house was originally built for Jack Hutchinson, who was for a time part owner of the Exchange Cafe. (The original detached garage has since been demolished.)
  • 615 S. Sixth Street Built 1938
    A vernacular frame-and-stucco residence constructed by the Hampton Brothers construction firm. The property also includes a contributing double-bay garage, contemporary and similar in design to the main house.
    The house was originally built for Meyer H. Gordan and his wife Sallie at a cost of $5,200.
  • 618 S. Sixth Street 23 Built 1928 0MB Approval No. 10244018
    A vernacular residence with stucco-over-wood-frame construction. Cross-gabled roof with open eaves over rectangular plan. This building was originally constructed for Reed Whipple, an important civic, religious and political leader in the Las Vegas community. Whipple was born in Pine Valley, Utah and moved to Las Vegas from Logandale in 1919. He worked for the Union Pacific Railroad, before starting his new career with the First National Bank.
    This property includes a stucco-and-frame garage that is contemporary and similar in design to the main house and contributes to the historic district.
  • 619/623 S. Sixth Street Built 1950
    A vernacular flat-roofed ranch-styled residential duplex that does not presently qualify for the National Register.
  • 624 S. Sixth Street Built 1932
    A Spanish Colonial Revival residence utilizing stucco-over-frame construction and a complex gable roof sheathed with clay tile over an irregular plan. This house was originally built in 1932 for Jay Dayton Smith, a dentist and important civic leader for the community. The architects were H.C. Nordstrom and P. A. Warner; the builders were the Hampton Brothers. The eight-room residence cost a total of $8,500 and the interior included a sunken living room with open truss ceilings, a large tile fireplace and built-in cabinets. This house and garage were listed on the National Register of Historic Places on February 2, 1987. They continue to retain their architectural integrity and strongly contribute to the character of the district.
  • 625/627 S. Sixth Street Built c. 1932
    A small Spanish Colonial Revival residential duplex with stucco- over-wood-frame construction. The building features 3/1 double-hung wood sash windows and a central entryway.
    This property also includes a small flat-roofed, stucco-over- frame, double-bay, garage similar in design and age to the main house.
  • 629 S. Sixth Street Built 1938
    A vernacular residence and detached garage that have been extensively altered and do not contribute to the historic district and do not qualify for the National Register.
  • 400 S. Seventh Street Built 1937
    A ranch-styled residence with wooden drop siding and low-pitched gable roof over irregular plan. original detached garage. This property includes its Both buildings retain their original architectural integrity and contribute to the architectural and historic character of the district.
    This house is closely associated with Dr. John R. McDaniel, who lived there from 1938 until 1960. McDaniel was one of the first doctors to join the new Las Vegas Hospital. In 1932 the Las Vegas Hospital Association opened a unit in Boulder City in response to the tremendous need created by the building of the Dam. McDaniel was placed in charge of the Boulder City unit and continued to work there after dam construction was completed.
  • 408 Seventh Street Built 1931
    A Spanish Colonial Revival residence utilizing stucco-over-wood- frame construction and a low-pitched gable roof sheathed with clay tiles. the The detached double-bay garage towards the rear of property is original and contributes to the historic character of the district.
    This house was originally constructed for Robert Griffith at a cost of $7,500. Griffith was a real estate developer most noted for his development of nearby Mount Charleston into a resort area.

Old Spanish Trail – Mormon Road Historic District

19 Saturday Oct 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Clark County, Historic Districts, Mormon Road, Nevada, NRHP, Old Spanish Trail, Spanish Trail, The Old Spanish Trail

Old Spanish Trail – Mormon Road Historic District

Related:

  • Old Spanish Trail

The Old Spanish Trail – Mormon Road Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places (#01000863) on August 22, 2001. The text below is from the national register’s nomination form:

The Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road property is regionally significant under National Register Criterion A, in the areas of Transportation and Exploration/Settlement. In terms of significance for the State of Nevada, the trail is significant under the Transportation Research Theme, and the Exploration and Settlement Sub-theme; see the Nevada Comprehensive Preservation Plan (White et. al 1991). The Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road was the first transportation corridor used by Euroamericans across the state of Nevada. Segments of the road which maintain historical integrity and show physical remains of the trail are significant under National Register Criterion D, for historical archaeology. Much of the history of settlement and early travel in southern Nevada can be directly tied to the Spanish Trail and the widespread publication of John C. Fremont’s 1844 route (he was responsible for the term “Spanish Trail”) across the region. The Mormon Battalion traveled over the route from Salt Lake City to San Bernardino and back in 1847-1848. Subsequently thousands of Mormons used the route to travel to the Mormon mission in San Bernardino (established in 1851) and missionary stations in the Pacific. Then in 1855, the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City decided to capitalize on the well-known rest stop of Las Vegas along Fremont’s route, and establish a mission there. Thus, the “Mormon Road” as the trail came to be known, was established in 1847 through the initial expedition over the trail by the Mormon Battalion, and saw continual usage through the abandonment of the Mormon mission at Las Vegas in 1857, and afterward. The Mormon mission at Las Vegas was the first Euroamerican settlement in southern Nevada, thus making it a significant site in the early history of the southern Nevada region. The settlement at Las Vegas would not have materialized without the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road corridor adjacent to the natural springs there (listed in the National Register in 1978 as the Las Vegas Springs).

John C. Fremont’s 1844 expedition over the Old Spanish Trail, which resulted in a widely distributed map of the route and much of the Great Basin, is significant. This expedition established Fremont’s reputation as a nationally-known explorer. Because the map was available in 1845, that year was the beginning of steady wagon traffic. Although the route that is being nominated has its roots in a pack trail that traversed the Greater American Southwest nearly 20 years prior to Fremont’s expedition and the establishment of the Mormon Road, wagon traces and associated artifacts from the post-1845 era are what remain of the trail today. Some segments of the property are significant under National Register Criterion D, in the area of historical archaeology, for the potential to yield further information important to the history of the region. Archaeological material such as wagon hardware, animal accoutrements including iron horseshoes, etc., and trash dumps exist along certain segments. The wagon traces themselves exist as linear features cut into the earth by the continual use by wagons, carrying mostly freight.

BACKGROUND

The Spanish Trail was one of the earliest routes between the interior of North American and the California coast to be used by Europeans and Americans (Hague 1978:139). Prior to the arrival of the Spanish colonists and missionaries, the trail was used by the Hopi, Mojave, and Chumash Indians of Santa Barbara, trading items between the Pacific coast and the Four Corners. In particular, the aboriginal knowledge of water sources along these ancient trade routes enabled trapper Jedediah Smith (Warren 1974:48) in 1826 and others to make the journey across the desert Southwest. Without the assistance of Native American guides, many of these first expeditions would not have been successful. Therefore the discovered routes naturally incorporated portions of ancient trade routes.

During the Spanish colonial period (1542-1821) in the American Southwest, the Spanish Empire was competing for control over resources with the British, French, and Russian monarchies. One strategy Spain attempted was to link its northernmost colonies, New Mexico and California, to assert the Spanish presence in the American West. In 1776, missionaries attempted to establish a route between Santa Fe and the mission at Monterey. Fathers Dominguez and Escalante left Santa Fe for the California coast, only to loop back to Santa Fe after meandering over the Colorado Plateau in Colorado and Utah for months. The same year, Father Francisco Garces left the colony at Sonora (now in northern Mexico), to establish a route between Sonora and Los Angeles. He was successful in reaching the pueblo of Los Angeles. However, it was not until Antonio Armijo’s trading expedition in 1829-1830 that the missionaries’ routes were linked to form a passageway across the entire southwestern desert region.

After Mexico won its independence from Spain (1821), Gobernador Chavez of New Mexico envisioned a profitable trade between Santa Fe and California (Lawrence 1931:27). The aim was to bring horses and mules overland from California to sell in the American market (often they were traded to Santa Fe Trail traders to sell back east). Chavez’ idea of a lucrative trade can be seen as a catalyst for the initial use of the Old Spanish Trail.

New Mexican Antonio Armijo is an important personage in the story of the Old Spanish Trail. He and his men constituted the first commercial caravan and the first Europeans to make the entire journey from Santa Fe to Los Angeles (Warren 1974:5). Antonio Armijo was also responsible for tying the Dominguez-Escalante route and Father Garces’ route of 1776 together, forming links of a 1,200-mile route between the two Mexican territories of New Mexico and California. The official report filed by Armijo, printed in the Registro Oficial del Gobierno de Los Estado-Unidos Mexicanos on June 19, 1830, states that the group of about sixty men left Abiquiu, New Mexico on November 8, 1829, arriving at the mission at San Gabriel, California on February 3, 1831.

Armijo’s journey was the first commercial group excursion across the Southwest to the coast, but legitimate commerce in tradeable items was not the sole function of the trail (Warren 1974:86). Slave trading (by Utes and New Mexicans), emigration, horse thieving, and later, mail transport were also served by the route. The trading activities that were the major force behind travel during the early era of transportation on the Old Spanish Trail essentially ended in 1848 (Warren 1974:84) after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and cessation of Mexican lands.

In the Mojave desert region, American mountain men established their presence early on, between 1826 and 1831 (Casebier 1981:285). Mountain man Jedediah Smith was the first documented American to enter California overland from the east in 1826. He traveled along portions of the later-established Old Spanish Trail, and was also the first to chart a map of the geography of the Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin (Hafen and Hafen 1954:109). Kit Carson also traveled the Old Spanish Trail several times, and may have assisted in leading Fremont’s 1844 expedition along the route.

The mountain men moving through the region along the trail often traveled along the southern route, following the Virgin, Colorado, and Mojave river corridors to capitalize from the nearby water sources as they moved large caravans of pack animals back to the market in Santa Fe. However, several of these men also moved stolen horse herds from the California ranches through the interior Nevada desert in efforts to thwart pursuing authorities. One of these routes, used by “some of the west’s most famous horse thieves, some of whom were also the west’s most famous mountain men,” (Warren 1974:173) was later traced by Fremont and thereafter named the Spanish Trail.

OLD SPANISH TRAIL/MORMON ROAD: 1844-1857

Fremont’s Expedition

Captain John C. Fremont first explored the Great Basin in 1843-1844 for the U.S. Topographic Engineers. This expedition established his reputation as an important American explorer (Elliot 1987:45). Not only was he the first to scientifically map and describe the Great Basin, but a greatly excited Congress printed 20,000 copies of his route map, many more than were usually printed of topographic survey maps (Warren, personal communication 2000). The period of significance for this nomination is 1844-1857, beginning with Fremont’s journey over the route, and ending with the abandonment of the Mormon mission at Las Vegas in 1857.

Fremont chose his guides well for his expedition. He hand-picked such experienced mountain men, scouts, and travelers as Thomas “Broken Hand” Fitzpatrick, Kit Carson, and Alex Goday, a Creole Frenchman from St. Louis who had trapped with many a mountain man, including Carson, Old Bill Williams, Isaac Slover, and others (see Hafen 1965:369; Warren 1974:footnote 78). Kit Carson’s prior experience on the Old Spanish Trail had perhaps enabled Fremont to predict “between us and the Colorado River we were aware that the country was extremely poor in grass, and scarce for water, there being manyjornadas, or long stretches of forty to sixty miles, without water, where the road was marked by bones of animals” (Fremont 1966:259 [1845]). Fremont also alluded to interrogating people on the trail about the route they followed; he notes that he heard several conflicting accounts, naming landmarks that his party never did encounter, indicating that these travelers were using different routes from each other, and ultimately, different routes than the one Fremont used to travel to Salt Lake (Warren 1974:159). This suggests that travelers in the area used various routes to and from California; this nomination considers Fremont’s route.

On April 30, 1844, Fremont and his men entered southern Nevada along the Amargosa route of the Spanish Trail (close to Armijo’s route) and camped at Stump Spring. The expedition continued on to Mountain Springs and Cottonwood Springs in the Spring Mountains. Three days after leaving Stump Spring (May 3rd), Fremont’s groups arrived at the “camping ground” at Las Vegas (Fremont 1966:266 [1845]). Fremont noted the excellent quality of the springs there (“good, clean, deep”) and grazing opportunities. The following day, May 4th, the group began the longjornada de muerte walking for 16 hours across the 55-mile waterless stretch of desert to the Muddy River. Either Fuentes, a hapless traveler encountered near the Nevada border who had lost everything and everyone in his freight party to raiding Native Americans, or Kit Carson, had to inform Fremont of this in advance, for they were the only two who had previously traveled in this region. During the group’s stay at the Muddy, Fremont had several interchanges with Southern Paiutes, some confrontational (Fremont 1966:266 [1845]). They left the Muddy River May 6th, marched 20 miles across the Mormon Mesa to the Virgin River, and followed it to the present Arizona border, camping along its banks over the next three days. In his report to Congress, Fremont notes that the group lost the “caravan road” in the sandy alluvial floodplain of the Virgin River, having to instead follow a Native American foot trail along the river banks; the following day (May 9th) his scouts found “a convenient ford in the river, and discovered the Spanish trail on the other side” (Fremont 1966:268 [1845]). Again, this suggests that Fremont was following a pre-existing trace across the interior of Nevada. Fremont’s expedition left southern Nevada on May 10th, 1844.

Fremont’s 1844 journey along the Old Spanish Trail was the first one during which truly scientific observations where made of the environment and topography; in fact, it was during this expedition that Fremont had the revelation that the interior deserts between the Rockies and the Sierra were part of a large, self-enclosed drainage unit thereafter named the Great Basin (d’Azevedo 1986:1; Warren 1974:156-157). Fremont was also responsible for dubbing his trace across the southern region of the Far West the “Spanish Trail.” Before the distribution of his map, this route had been referred to as “El Camino de California” or “El Camino de Nuevo Mexico” depending on where an individual was based (NPS 2000:5). Because Fremont’s report was widely distributed, his route was the one that became the most popularly used and recognized as the “Spanish Trail.” Today the route is popularly known as the Old Spanish Trail. Further, Fremont’s report greatly enhanced the American public’s understanding of the West, and established the route of the upcoming Mormon Road for wagon freight traffic and emigration between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles (Warren 1974:157).

Distances between camps in southern Nevada, according to Fremont (1966 [1845]).

Beginning LocationDestinationMileage
Resting Spring, CAStump Spring, NV24 miles
Stump SpringMountain Springs15 miles
Mountain SpringsCottonwood Springs12 miles
Cottonwood SpringsLas Vegas18 miles
Las VegasMuddy River
“California Crossing”
57 miles (jornada de muerte)
Muddy RiverVirgin River18 miles
1st Virgin River camp2nd Virgin River camp28 miles
2nd Virgin River campSanta Clara River, Utah25 miles

During the years 1848-1850, the majority of the traffic on the Old Spanish Trail was directly or indirectly related to the Gold Rush to California (Warren 1974:176). The Spanish Trail was used as a winter route to California, as well as a freight road to get provisions from the coast to Salt Lake City, where forty-niners were stocking up on provisions before their journey across the Great American Desert. Again, Fremont’s map was integral to the continued use of this trail his maps were readily available before maps of the more northerly routes across Utah, Nevada, and northern California were available to eastern gold-seekers (Warren 1974:177).

The Mormon Road

No wagons were reported as ever getting through that way, but a trail had been traveled through that barren desert country for perhaps a hundred years and the same could be easily broadened into a wagon road.
– Death Valley forty-niner W. L. Manly, on the rumors of a little-known southern route to California (Koenig 1984:23)

The first Mormon excursion over the Old Spanish Trail included Porter Rockwell and Jefferson Hunt, who marched with the Mormon Battalion to San Diego in the fall of 1847. It took less than three months for the group and 135 horses and mules, along with a single wagon, to return to Salt Lake City from San Bernardino.

The Old Spanish Trail was desirable as an alternate route to the northern Emigrant Trail, made infamous by the Donner Party. The Old Spanish Trail was used by emigrants traveling in the winter months, when the Sierra Nevada was virtually impassable. In the fall of 1848, just months after the Battalion successfully brought a wagon along the route, forty-eight wagons traveled on the road, and one year later, over two hundred made it over the trail to California. Mormon leadership viewed the route as a freight corridor, within which people and supplies could move between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. The Lower Colorado region in extreme southern Nevada also held potential for permanent settlement.

For the Mormons and others, this region generally held interest for several reasons: the potential navigation of the Colorado, the mild climate and irrigable lands, the minerals ranging in value from silver to salt, and its proximity to a year-round route between California and Utah. Mormons looked to this region for a seaport, as a freight and emigrant route, and for missions and settlements as part of their quest for political self-determination, isolation and protection, and economic independence and survival. –Smith 1978:29

As early as 1850, Mormon leaders were eyeing San Bernardino as a possible mission, at a time when Angelenos were ready for anyone to establish an “outpost” on the fringes of their large center, in hopes of curtailing the frequent raids by thieves (Gough 1999:24). The main route to this burgeoning Mormon center became known as the “Mormon Corridor,” or the “Mormon Road.”

The springs at Las Vegas were a well-known resource to anyone who traveled the route, as the oasis provided some of the best water along the long, dry route. In 1851, a Mormon named Mr. Chorpening received a contract with the U.S. government to transport U.S. mail between northern Utah and San Bernardino. Mail carriers stopped at the springs on their route. At the Las Vegas Springs, archaeological investigations show a small adobe structure that may have been built by Chorpening, although that fact has not been determined definitively.

Noting the significance of this transportation corridor, the U.S. Congress approved $25,000 in 1854 to be spent on developing a military road from Salt Lake City to eastern California. This road utilized the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road route, with minor modifications. This marked the beginning of major freight traffic between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.

In 1855, Deseret’s (the name of the U.S. provisional state organized by Mormons in 1849) President Brigham Young announced that the Southern Indian Mission would be expanded, and William Bringhurst and others were sent to establish a post at “Vegas Springs.” They chose this location because Mormon leadership felt they could capitalize from travelers stopping at the springs as a resting area and water hole, in addition to the relatively large Native American population in place for religious conversion. On June 14, the brethren arrived at Las Vegas (Jensen 1926:131). Within four days of their arrival (after walking some 440-plus miles across desert terrain), the brothers were surveying for the location of their fort, laying out agricultural plots (2.5 acres each) and garden plots (0.25 acres each) designated for each member of the mission, planting seeds, and creating a “water sect” of men overseeing water control and usage, while five missionaries departed for the Colorado River to explore possibilities for navigation and to meet the Native American groups in the area (Jensen 1926:134).

The organized settlement at Las Vegas must have been a welcome sight for weary Euroamerican travelers on the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road. Not only did the mission provide some protection from hostile Native Americans, but the brethren would offer fields for grazing and provisions, in addition to horse-shoeing services (Jensen 1926:218). Many of these necessities cost money, and if the emigres’ animals got into the gardens at night, the travelers would be charged accordingly.

Many missionaries on their way to missions or returning homeward passed through Las Vegas during the occupation of the mission there. A group of missionaries from Pacific Islands, a single missionary from the Siam mission, many from the California missions (including the President of the San Bernardino mission, Amasa Lyman), a group of missionaries from Australia, and two groups of missionaries returning from mission in the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands were all documented as visiting the Las Vegas mission. Other noteworthy travelers documented as staying over at the mission included a herd of 500 cattle on its way to California, two scientists, one Englishman and a Frenchman (during their journey through the desert region, collecting plant and mineral specimens), and three “circus or showmen” (Jensen 1926). There were many other travelers through the area. An estimation of total visitors documented at the mission during the 21-month Mormon occupation shows 260- 350 Native American visitors and 350-800 (conservatively) Euroamerican visitors. Out of the Euroamerican visitors, roughly a third (33-38%) of those were traveling east from California (most of these were Mormons returning to Utah). Thus, roughly 2/3 of the travelers that rested at the Las Vegas mission were making their way to California.

Timidness and fear in the local Paiute bands caused by years of slave-capture and animosity by travelers emigrating through the area on the Old Spanish Trail are noted by brother John Steele in a letter to Elder George A. Smith. Steele writes, “There is a first-rate spirit among the Lamanites [Native Americans]… some of them have come into camp rather suspiciously, as they have been shot at and drove away from camps of the passing emigrants who have been on the road for years; they will show us the bullet holes and marks they have received from white men and tell us they will try and forget it, although their brothers have been killed, etc.” This passage is telling in a few respects. First, it shows a willingness on the part of the Paiutes in the area to forge friendly relations with the resident Mormons, possibly driven by a perception on the Paiutes’ behalf that the Mormons may protect them from further violence at the hands of other Euroamericans (see Kelly and Fowler 1986:386- 387; Van Hoak 1998:18). This also shows compassion in the brethren at Las Vegas toward the Paiutes, a sentiment that was not shared by many contemporary Americans. Indeed, as late as 1855, the missionaries noted some uneasiness in the Paiutes due to accounts of slave capture of some Moapa Paiutes on the Muddy River “to sell to Mexican traders” (Jensen 1926:183). There was some interest expressed by the Moapa band to have missionaries come to their territory to settle because of the threat of raids on their women by Ute slavers; in September, 1856, some missionaries traveled to the Muddy River area to explore possible locations for settlements. The Las Vegas band told the Mormon brothers that they already lost many of their women to slavers, perhaps too many, “or they would have provided some of us with wives…” (Jensen 1926:188).

A steady stream of emigrants, mail carriers, wagon freight trains, and miners continued to use the springs and travel on the wagon road after the complete abandonment of the Mormon mission in 1857. In 1865, O. D. Gass and two partners re-settled the mission. They rebuilt the dilapidated mission buildings to use for a ranch, and plowed fields (Paher 1971:37).

The Mormon occupation of the region surrounding the Colorado River indirectly affected the U.S. involvement in exploring and settling the area. Reports of ambitious Mormons settling along the Colorado River and their interest in navigating the large river to the Gulf of California, led to increased federal activity toward the same goal. Thus the Army assigned a survey of the river to be completed in 1856 under the command of Lt. Joseph C. Ives (Smith 1978:33). But the impendent arrival of Johnston’s Army and the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857 forced Mormon leadership to direct their priorities in the region differently. Thus, the Southern Indian missionaries were reassigned this time to protect Mormon wagon trains along the Mormon Road from Indian “harassments,” and eventually were recalled to Salt Lake City.

Other national events that affected the traffic along the Mormon Road in the mid-1860s were the Civil War and Indian attacks on travelers on the eastern freight and emigration routes leading into Utah (Smith 1978:34), instilling fear and hesitation in prospective travelers. Therefore, most emigrants used the heavily traveled northern routes as a measure of security when traveling west from Salt Lake City.

Due to such forces as the Civil War, an increase in agitation on the part of the region’s Native American groups, and a recall of missionaries stationed at Las Vegas less than two years after initiating the mission project, the development of a Mormon-controlled freight moving operation never got off the ground (Smith 1978:40). However, the inland corridor left its lasting mark on the region, especially as a driving force behind the eventual settlement of Las Vegas.

Settlement of Las Vegas

By the time Mexican traders entered the Las Vegas Valley during the first part of the nineteenth century, the region had for over 600 years been the home of the Southern Paiute Indians, and various archaeological studies detail an extended trail traveling southwest through the region to the Pacific coast. -Gough 1999:21

There is a connection between the Old Spanish Trail and urban developments in its vicinity. Early settlements in the East were almost invariably along water courses, to facilitate the gathering of necessary resources as well as communication and transportation. In a similar fashion, the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road served the same purpose: “it facilitated town growth.” As Gough (1999:22) writes:
The development of the neon metropolis of Las Vegas during the twentieth century unquestionably finds its origin as an early stopping area along the Spanish Trail. Rails and highways eventually traced the Trail, and the first survey of Las Vegas was laid out precisely along the route. Though the Spanish Trail was originally but one of several paths through the region, its eventual recognition as the primary course directly influenced both the location and growth of Nevada’s largest city. Modern-day visitors to and from Las Vegas still follow much the same route as Charles [sic] Fremont’s eventual course through this once inhospitable desert region.

As traffic needs in and out of southern California grew with the advent of automobiles, the second decade of the twentieth century saw the development of the Arrowhead Trails Highway. The automobile route was generally aligned along the Spanish Trail/Mormon Road. This, and the construction of the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake railroad line across southern Nevada in 1905 contributed to the demise of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road as a regional transportation route (Myhrer et al. 1990:13). Local use of the route continued through the 1940s. Today, modern travelers arriving in Las Vegas from the west and east on Interstate 15 follow Fremont’s basic route to the former location of one of the best springs in the region.

ARCHAEOLOGY

This section discusses the archaeological and trail remains as they pertain to significance under Criterion D. At least two previous archaeological surveys have documented portions of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road in Nevada. In 1987-1989, Keith Myhrer and Stanton Rolf, BLM archaeologists, surveyed the portion of the road between the outer limits of urban development in Las Vegas to the Nevada-California border. This segment is 48.3 miles long. Portions of this section of the trail were reevaluated during this project to ascertain whether sections that were determined eligible (see Myhrer et al. 1990) for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) still maintained historical integrity. The relatively-undisturbed portions included a 4.1-mile segment and a 5.7-mile segment, both determined eligible to the NRHP. The results of the reevaluation are provided below. In 1993, archaeologists from the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada Las Vegas, documented a 1.5-mile section of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road on the western edge of Mormon Mesa; they recommended that the eastern 1-mile portion of this segment, in Sections 22 and 27, T 14S, R 67E (Overton NW, NV 7.5 Minute USGS quadrangle) was relatively undisturbed and eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. Other surveys were completed for the Apex Industrial Park and the Chemical Lime Apex Mine Land Sale that documented Fremont’s route of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road on the northwestern boundary of Las Vegas’ urban development; however those segments lacked historical integrity and were not recommended as eligible to the NRHP.

Description of Wagon Traces

Wagon traces, the most common feature along the road route, are typically in the form of parallel wagon tracks aligned side by side. These parallel traces, or in places, ruts, are generally in a narrower alignment than if created by automobile traffic.

Historic Artifact Concentrations: roadside camps, trash dumps, “pitch zone”

Roadside camps, trash dumps and the “pitch zone” are artifactual manifestations of historic travelers on the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road. These are features of the overall site; without the historic travel corridor these accompanying features would not exist. Small roadside camps and trash dumps are types of artifact concentrations that are self-explanatory; the “pitch zone” refers to the linear areas alongside either edge of the travel corridor (as denoted by wagon traces) where travelers tossed extraneous items from the wagon in efforts to lighten the wagon load, or discard broken or spent items.

Research Methods

In December, 2000, a field survey was conducted in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. The study was undertaken in order to research, evaluate and survey for sites along and relatively undisturbed portions of the transportation route identified by John C. Fremont in 1844, referred to in this document as the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road. The resource is regarded by historians as the most important transportation route in southern Nevada to move travelers and supplies between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles between 1844 and 1905 (the date of arrival of the railroad to southern Nevada).

The pedestrian survey involved Nevada State Historic Preservation Office archaeologist Terri McBride and 1-5 volunteers, walking zig-zag or parallel transects along the historic road bed, covering a 50-foot corridor centered on the center of the road. The records search included a site file search at the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Campus, archival research at the Nevada Historical Society and the Nevada State Archives and Library, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office in Reno. Copies of Fremont’s map that accompanied his 1845 report to Congress and Lt. George M. Wheeler’s 1869 map produced for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were located at the Nevada Historical Society (copies attached). A review of the 1881 Government Land Office Survey plats at the BLM State Office that pertained to the Mormon Mesa area of the survey revealed that the surveyors plotted a road labeled “Old Mormon Wagon Road” nearly 2.5 miles south of the actual location of the wagon road trace; in addition, the topographic features on the map do not correspond with the natural topography of the plat (T 14S, R 68E, Mount Diablo Meridian). BLM staff (Dave Morland, personal communication 2000) provided information regarding “fictitious surveys,” an unfortunate result of surveyors in remote areas being paid for every mile of drafted survey maps.

Gilmer Park Historic District

05 Thursday Sep 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

Gilmer Park Historic District, Historic Districts, NRHP, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, utah

Gilmer Park Historic District

The Gilmer Park Historic District, developed primarily between about 1909 and 1943, is a significant residential neighborhood in Salt Lake City. It is a well-preserved, cohesive neighborhood of 244 buildings, all but two of which are houses and eighty-eight percent of which are contributing structures. The district’s significance is based on three key factors. First, it represents the most intensive period of housing construction in the city’s history, during which virtually all of the farmland on the south edge of the city, where Gilmer Park is located, was transformed into residential subdivisions. Between 1910 and 1930, Salt Lake City’s population increased fifty-one percent with more than 47,000 new residents, and suburban developments accommodated most of that growth. Gilmer Park is one of the most distinct of those subdivisions. Second, a substantial number of Gilmer Park residents were important individuals in the community and state. These included influential businessmen, politicians (including a governor), artists, architects, doctors, attorneys, educators, and religious leaders (including a president of the LDS Church). Third, many of the houses in the district are excellent local examples of important architectural styles and types. The neighborhood was developed between 1909-43, with the majority of building (sixty-two percent) occurring between 1921-8. This period of development, just after World War I, is reflected in the postwar construction boom and the predominant use of Period Revival style architecture in the area. The neighborhood itself, with its curvilinear layout, represents a unique variation in subdivision design in the city. It is one of the first subdivisions in the city to deviate from the rectangular grid and follow the national trend toward more organic layouts.

The Gilmer Park Historic District covers the area east roughly between 1100 East and 1300 East from 900 South to Harvard Avenue and is in the East Central Neighborhood of Salt Lake City, Utah and it was added to the National Register of Historic Places (#96000314) on March 28, 1996. The text on this page is mostly from the nomination form from the national register.

Related:

  • Salt Lake City’s Historic Districts
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zxcyA42wi2o5xAAC8

Places in the district:

  • Garden Park Ward

HISTORY OF GILMER PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT

Early History

Water, a primary factor in the development of land, and transportation services were in place prior to the development of Gilmer Park Historic District. Water mains were installed on 1100 East in 1892. The area was three miles from downtown Salt Lake City and in response to the need for public transportation because, in 1889 the streetcar system extended to 900 South, and in 1898, the lines were extended to 2100 South on 1100 East. A bus line was in place along 1300 East by 1926.

Roughly bounded by 900 South and Harvard Avenue (1100 South) between 1100 and 1300 East, the district comprises two large properties known historically as the Gilmer estate, from 900 South to Yale Avenue, and the LeGrande Young estate, between Yale and Harvard Avenues. Once this area was primed for development, four sections formed from these estates: Gilmer Park, Gilmer Square, the Young-Howard Estate, and approximately one-fourth of Park View subdivision. Subdivision plats were filed in 1909 for Gilmer Park and 1910 for Gilmer Square. Park View Subdivision was platted in 1889. The Young-Howard Estate was never platted. Construction of the first homes in Gilmer Park Historic District began in 1909 but the majority of the homes were constructed between 1921-8.

Though Gilmer Park Historic District has a cohesive appearance, it was actually created by a number of different owners and developers. The fact that several owners and developers were able to create this visual cohesiveness through the use of curvilinear tree-lined streets, irregular lots, similar house styles, similar scale of houses, and deep set-backs with lawns and landscaping, is evidence of the trend for landscaped subdivisions that began to occur in Utah and across the country. They quickly realized the area’s assets of cleaner air and a unique park-like setting and sloping topography, characteristics that were attractive to home buyers. Capitalizing on the natural features of the district, development was directed at defining a unique, internally-structured, and cohesive neighborhood. Careful and judicious planning extended to the quality of the homes being built.

GILMER ESTATE

The land on which most of the Gilmer Park Historic District was developed originally belonged to the Gilmer family. It was first developed as the Gilmer estate, property that was located between 900 South and Yale Avenue (1080 South) between 1100 East and 1400 East. It was purchased in 1888 by Mary E. and John T. Gilmer from a farmer in the area, Alvin F. Guirvits. John T. Gilmer (1841-92) was a successful mining operator, government mail contractor, and a partner in the Gilmer and Salisbury Overland Stage Company. Mary E. Gilmer (1844-1924) was active in women’s clubs and civic affairs, helping found the Ladies Literary Club and the Sarah Daft Home for the Aged. She was also a local leader in the women’s suffrage movement. In 1889, the Gilmers built a house on the property near the corner of 900 South and 1100 East at the end of a curved driveway which is now part of Gilmer Drive. In 1899, the house and property were leased to the Salt Lake Country Club, Salt Lake’s first and newly organized golf club. The house (originally at 945 South 1100 East) was used as the clubhouse and the surrounding land as the golf course. The Salt Lake Country Club moved to the Forest Dale location in 1907. The Gilmer house was apparently replaced by newer houses built in the 1920s.

Gilmer Realty Company

In 1909, Mary Gilmer and her son, Jay T. Gilmer, organized the Gilmer Realty Company and filed subdivision plats for a portion of Gilmer Park. Gilmer Realty Company was responsible for the initial platting and promotion of Gilmer Park and Gilmer Square, land they owned together with other investors. Their involvement in the development of the Gilmer Park Historic District is significant in initiating the building of a unique neighborhood. Advertisements in Goodwill’s Weekly Magazine show that Gilmer Realty and J.T. Gilmer were involved in developing this area through at least 1914. For whatever reasons, the Gilmers’ role in developing the property diminished and by about 1920 they no longer appear to have been active in the venture. Gilmer Realty Company may have actually built only about thirty homes in the area.

Kimball & Richards Company

It appears that much of the development in Gilmer Park was done by Kimball and Richards Company. Weekly newspaper ads that appear in the 1919 Salt Lake Tribune support their involvement in this area. These ads extolled the virtues of living in Gilmer Park for its location, natural beauty, improvements such as sidewalks, trees, city water and sewer, its regulations that protected it from undesirable surroundings, the individuality of each homesite made possible with the services of an expert landscape architect, and the reasonable price of the lots. Kimball & Richards developed numerous lots throughout the district with the exception of the Gilmer Square.

The company was first listed in the Polk Directory as an insurance and rental company in 1908. By 1910, they had expanded into real estate and development, calling themselves “land merchants.” The firm of Kimball & Richards consisted of three corporations: Kimball & Richards “land merchants,” which marketed subdivisions; Kimball & Richards Building Company, which custom built many of the homes for buyers on lots promoted by the “land merchants”; and Kimball & Richards Securities Company, which provided financing. Taylor Woolley and Clifford Evans, architects that lived in Gilmer Park, designed homes for Kimball & Richards. Kimball & Richards Company was known for its innovative promotion methods and was aware of national trends. In 1910, D. C. Kimball visited Los Angeles and Southern California to study the California market and the promotional methods used there. Both Don Carlos Kimball and Claude Richards were Utah natives and members of the LDS Church. It was one of the most active companies in the early decades of the twentieth century. They developed individual houses and large subdivisions such as Chesterfield, Homefield Acres, and Highland Park. They left their mark indelibly in the growing subdivisions of Salt Lake City. Unfortunately the firm was forced out of business by the mid-1920s because of internal and external economic problems.

Ashton-Jenkins Company

It appears that Ashton-Jenkins Company also had a great deal of influence in the Gilmer Park Historic District. As early as 1909 they owned property in the area between 900-1000 South and 1100-1300 East and in 1913 they were buying land throughout Gilmer Park Historic District.

The Ashton-Jenkins Company was responsible for hundreds of buildings in the Salt Lake Valley between 1890-1945. Edward T. Ashton was a successful builder and architect as well as a talented businessman and developer. He purchased, planned, and developed the Franklin Subdivision, drew plans for and constructed the State Normal School at Cedar City, and erected electrical plants for Telluride Power. In 1881, Edward T. Ashton began a general contracting business and was later joined by his brother Charles S. to form the Ashton Brothers Company. Edward E. Jenkins joined them to form the Ashton-Jenkins Company which became one of the largest real estate companies in Salt Lake City.

Ed D. Smith & Sons

Ed D. Smith & Sons were involved in the Gilmer Park Historic District in about 1916 having purchased property from Clifford P. Evans. Their influence was apparently throughout the district. Newspaper articles show they were developing lots between 900 South and Yale and 1100 East and 1400 East, with several hundred homes planned for construction. In 1916, plans were formalizing for street improvement work with plans to grade part of Gilmer Drive. This company also brought influences from outside Utah. For example, in 1916 a news article about Gilmer Park and Ed D. Smith & Sons reported that a “prominent California landscape gardener was brought here from California to plan the park, and it promises to be a delightful spot, with the broad, curved driveways, parkways, tennis courts, shrubbery and groves.” Gilmer Park was also described as a place that could be easily accessed by motorists, offered great views, and was apart from the grime of the city.

Other Developers

Vincent-Peterson Construction, owned by J. G. Vincent, who lived in the area (1220 Yale Ave.), was involved in building five homes on Gilmer Drive in addition to many others in the area. Waddoups Company (1922-5) and Morrison-Merrill Company (1925-7) were also developers in the area.

GILMER PARK SUBDIVISION (1914-43)

The subdivision known as Gilmer Park extended south to Yale Avenue and east to 1400 East, excluding Michigan and Herbert Avenues (the Gilmer Square Subdivision). The owners of the subdivision included Gilmer Realty Company, Taylor and Dorrit Evans Woolley, Evelyn J. Burton, J. G. and Winnie B. Vincent, and George E. and Lillian C. Merrill.

What was originally the Gilmer Park Subdivision is the largest portion of the Gilmer Park Historic District. Its primary period of development was between 1914-43, with the majority (approximately eighty-five percent) of the building occurring between 1921-30, although a few homes were built prior to 1920. Restrictions placed on the buildings were made to “insure beauty and permanence that should enhance the value of the property.” The minimum construction cost was set at $3,000 with the majority of the homes starting at $3,500 to $4,000. The landscape plan for a portion of Gilmer Park, primarily around Alpine Place, was designed by Taylor Woolley.

GILMER SQUARE SUBDIVISION (1910-26)

The Gilmer Square Subdivision, platted on April 4, 1910, was owned by Gilmer Realty and LeGrande Young. It included the lots along Herbert Avenue, the south side of Michigan Avenue, and the north side of Yale Avenue between 1100 East and 1200 East. The majority of the building in this subdivision occurred between 1914-26. In a Salt Lake Tribune advertisement, Gilmer Realty stated that some of the features of the subdivision were: a $4,000 minimum building cost restriction; extensive public improvements including sidewalks, city water, graded streets, perfect drainage, and a street car line; and it was considered “the last close-in residence division of the better class.

One of the earliest houses in the subdivision was built in 1910 for Jay T. Gilmer (1038 South 1200 East) at a cost of $6,000. It was designed by two prominent Utah architects, Frederick A. Hale and Charles S. McDonald. Drawings of Jay T. Gilmer’s home were used to promote the Gilmer Square development in newspapers and magazines. The majority of development in the subdivision began in 1915.

LEGRAND YOUNG ESTATE

The LeGrande Young estate, between Yale and Harvard Avenues, was obtained in 1887 by LeGrande Young (nephew of Brigham Young) from his uncle, Lorenzo Young. LeGrande built a home c.1890 on the site now occupied by the Garden Park Ward and began planting a wide variety of trees including oak, plum, apple, pear, cherry, Boston elm, silver leaf poplar, and horse chestnut. His efforts resulted in beautiful groves and gardens for which the area became well known and which later attracted people to this area. The gazebo, pond, brick wall, and carriage house which are still located on the property were part of this estate.

YOUNG-HOWARD ESTATE (1918-39)

In 1914, Young sold the entire estate to John C. Howard, a prominent Salt Lake businessman and community leader who served, among other positions, as president of Utah Oil Refining and president and director of the American Mining Congress. Howard sold some of the parcels of land, but retained the two-and-one-half acres that now constitute the Garden Park grounds. The area immediately surrounding the Howard estate was developed primarily during the early 1920s, without being officially platted as a subdivision.

Howard and his wife, Gertrude Musser, lived in the home built by LeGrande Young with their four daughters until their deaths in 1929 and 1919, respectively. After Mr. Howard’s death, three of his daughters lived in the house until 1938. Apparently they had planned to add on to the house before it was deeded to the LDS Church. In that same year, a chapel designed by architects Taylor Woolley and Clifford Evans, both ward members, was built on the foundation of LeGrande Young’s home and the foundation of what was to have been a new house for the Howards. At first the building was called the Gilmer Park Ward, but was later changed to Garden Park Ward.

PARK VIEW SUBDIVISION (1909-27)

The portion of the Park View Subdivision in the Gilmer Park Historic District is the south side of Harvard Avenue between 1100 East and Douglas Street. LeGrande Young was the owner and developer of the subdivision, which is located directly south of the Young-Howard Estate. LeGrande Young purchased the property from William G. Timmons on March 3, 1889, for a reported $12,000, and a plat for the Park View Subdivision was filed on October 23, 1889. This portion of the subdivision was apparently undeveloped until about 1909.

In 1914, LeGrande Young moved from his estate located between Yale and Harvard Avenues to his newly built home across the street from Park View at 1121 Harvard Avenue. His children also built homes in the subdivision primarily on the south side of Harvard Avenue: Grace Young and Kenneth Kerr (1172 Harvard Avenue, 1909); Lucille Young and William Reid (1150 Harvard Avenue, 1905); and LeGrande Young, Jr. (1218 Harvard Avenue, 1910).

The only portion of Park View included in the Gilmer Park Historic District are the lots on the south side of Harvard Avenue west of Douglas Street. Houses were built on lots along this part of Harvard by 1920. The lots on the east side were developed a few years later. This section of the Park View Subdivision is included within the boundaries of the Gilmer Park Historic District because of the connections with LeGrande Young’s family throughout this district and because of the visual cohesiveness and similar scale of houses.

CONTEMPORARY SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT

The earliest suburbs were thought of in a different light than they have been perceived in the 1950s through today. Early suburbs were sub-urban, or not fully urban. By the late 1890s, suburbs were occupied mostly by upper class families because they could afford a retreat from the city heat and filth. The residential developments outside the urban setting were considered a retreat from the grime and grit of the city and afforded the middle and upper classes a chance to have the American dream of a single family home that accommodated private space inside and outside. By 1910 things changed and the middle- and working-class citizens were moving out to the suburbs by the thousands, facilitated by public transportation. People moving in from the farm and out from the city combined to create an altered architectural pattern. With this came the creation of a significant architectural type — the suburban house form. 33 It wasn’t until the advent of the post-WWII housing development that the pastoral qualities of the suburb of the late 19th and early 20th century began to vanish.

The urban space, divided into plain rectangular strips without concern for topography or aesthetics and whose gridiron plan produced straight streets intersecting at right angles, appealed to the city residents’ preference for rational solutions and scientific methods. It was a practical approach for ordering space and simplified surveying and facilitated speculation. Early suburbs followed this plan because the rectangular layout of the streets extended beyond the city to make easier the sale and resale of lots possible in advance of settlement; it also stimulated promotion of undeveloped areas. “The price that the grid exacted in ugliness appeared small in a strange world where monotony also suggested familiarity.”

Just after the turn of the century the suburban form began to change. The increased cost of real estate in the city led land speculators and real estate developers to survey fields and meadows, imprinting streets and creating a landscape, neither rural nor urban, where people could enjoy both city and country lives. Profits were abundant for developers of the early twentieth century. Some learned that greater profits could be realized from “new arrangements of streets and structures, from new building materials, and from integrated beauty.” People in search of rural settings and something “unique would force private developers to reach new levels of residential design and new levels of profit.”

Large-scale suburbs on curvilinear street systems, like Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, were planned as early as 1895 by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Olmsted (landscape architect of the nineteenth century) had outlined the requirements of city planning. His plan stated that first, main thoroughfares “should be direct, ample, and convenient no matter how they cut the land.” Second, other roads must be “quiet, attractive” residential streets, not “fantastically rooked,” but laid out “so as to discourage their use as thoroughfares.” Third, was the necessity of park land and public open spaces. Although Olmsted was successful in influencing planning patterns throughout the country, his work, along with that of Grosvenor Atterbury, an architect of equal reputation, and the Sage Foundation in their c.1911 development of “Forest Hills Gardens produced almost no progeny.” This lack of influence is believed to have been caused primarily by the village or company town appearance which overshadowed the efforts of backers and designers. Other planned subdivisions such as Shaker Heights, developed beginning in 1911 by the Van Sweringen brothers outside of Cleveland, did influence many residential developments. These developers controlled the building in this area by reviewing the plans of a number of different architects and landscape architects. “Forest Hills Gardens and Shaker Heights reflect something of the range of the early twentieth-century planned residential development.” Some suburban developments were not successful while others continue to be known.

Some subdivisions were developed to follow the natural topography. Roads followed the trails established when lands were first settled; bridges were built where ferries had terminated; old hedgerows and trees were surprisingly often preserved as “salable features.” Post-Victorian suburbs were individualistic, egalitarian, and comfortable. The idea was to live in a location far enough from the city to have rural qualities that included an open field nearby, a garden behind, and a front lawn, while living close enough to commute to the city to earn a living. This was a new era for housing development. The suburbs were practical because land was less expensive and afforded an individual home on a lot. They provided psychological advantages because they were “images of sturdy independence in their apartness from their neighbors.” And, they were traditional as an American idea and historical experience in contrast to European. The American house-designer conceived of houses as individual units set in landscapes rather than one among many similar buildings.

By the mid-1920s Salt Lake City mirrored the national trends of contemporary planning. Growth in the city during this period was occurring primarily to the east and south of the city center and between 1906-30, 439 new residential subdivisions were recorded with the county recorder’s office. Land subdivision was relatively stable during this period and was marked by the desire to make the city a good place to live.

Unlike many other developments in Salt Lake City during the early twentieth century, Gilmer Park Historic District “distinguishes itself through unusual skill and sensitivity applied to the layout and design of both the area as a whole and the individual structures.” Gilmer Park Historic District is believed to be the one of the first subdivisions in Salt Lake City developed using curvilinear streets, a layout that was considered a more progressive design. According to architectural historian, Gwendolyn Wright, the “increasing reliance on the car had many effects on residential planning to make driving more pleasurable, some developers abandoned the familiar rectilinear grid street and laid out wide, curving streets and cul-de-sacs.”

Federal Heights, roughly bounded by Virginia Street, University Street, First South, the University of Utah, and the foothills of the Wasatch mountains, is the only other known similarly planned subdivision that occurred as early as Gilmer Park Historic District. Telluride Real Estate Company began developing the area in 1909 and named it Federal Heights in reference to the government’s previous ownership of the property and its neighbor, Fort Douglas. The street patterns were designed to take advantage of the sloping topography and to create greenspaces within the neighborhood. Federal Heights, like Gilmer Park, has maintained its historic integrity and widespread identity. Slight differences occur in the scale of the homes from those in Gilmer Park as the number of large-scale residences in Federal Heights are greater. Also a number of the roads in Federal Heights are wider. Overall, however, the similarities between these two neighborhoods are strong and both reflect the a particularly successful pattern of subdivision development during the early 1900s in Salt Lake City.

Other suburban developments in Salt Lake City of about the same time did not follow the planned landscaped community as completely as did Gilmer Park. Westmoreland Place, with entrance gates at 1500 East and 1300 South, was platted in 1913 just a few years later than Gilmer Park and developed by Earl and Clark Dunshee. Amenities similar to those found in Gilmer Park included the landscaped green spaces and the idea of using parks, but it maintained the rectilinear street grid.

Highland Park was developed by the firm Kimball & Richards Company. Boundaries for this subdivision are roughly between Elizabeth Street (1140 East) and 1500 East, from Parkway Avenue (2400 South) to 2700 South. Highland Park was built primarily during the period between c. 1910-25 in a rectilinear plan. Kimball & Richards generally followed the typical pattern of subdivision layout, promotion, and development that had been established during the 1890s. They did include the planting of shade trees and terraced yards.

Many areas were developed not as a single subdivision but by speculative developers purchasing a few lots within an area. For example, the University Neighborhood Historic District, roughly bounded by South Temple and 500 South between University and 1100 East, was not a ‘subdivision’ and in addition to its single-family residences there are numerous apartments, and commercial buildings.

Gilmer Park’s planning and development by the individuals who owned and developed the area was intended to define an internally-structured and cohesive neighborhood. The visual quality of the district is created by a combination of several factors: the sloping terrain, curving streets, sloped or terraced yards, uniform setbacks and spacing, landscaping, and the architectural quality of many of the homes. While all subdivisions in Salt Lake City were named when they were developed, few remain easily identifiable today. Gilmer Park has withstood the test of time and most people recognize the name with the area that is being designated for nomination.

Gilmer Park influenced the development of other subdivisions in the area. Later subdivisions to the east of Park View were the site of many middle- and upper-middle-class residences located on tree-lined, lamp-lit, serpentine streets. This area is known as the Harvard/Yale area having been given ivy league street names as a result of the city engineer’s attempt to provide a standardized system of naming streets in the various residential developments. Harvard/Yale, like Gilmer Park, is one of the few most recognized residential neighborhoods in Salt Lake City.

Gilmer Park Historic District is also important because it contains numerous buildings that are both significant and modest examples of the work of prominent Utah architects. Since several architects participated in the subdivision’s development, their awareness of current trends in suburban planning no doubt influenced its plan. Layout of much of the Gilmer Park area is attributed to Taylor Woolley, a prominent Utah architect. He apprenticed with Frank Lloyd Wright in the early 1900s and apparently brought that influence to his work in his layout and landscaping of lots along Gilmer Drive. His plan for a section of the district shows several homes located on spacious lots on Alpine Place. Although those particular houses were never built, the layout has remained intact with curvilinear streets and deep setbacks, including a private alley that leads to a group of garages. It is unknown whether Woolley designed other curved streets in the subdivision, but his influence is obvious. The architectural firm he formed in 1917, Miller, Woolley, and Evans, was one of the first to include a landscape architecture department. They did not limit their designs to buildings but included the planning of the State Capitol grounds and Memory Grove. Woolley’s firm also influenced the architecture in the area. He and his brother-in-law, Clifford Evans, designed the Garden Park Ward Chapel located at 1150 Yale Avenue. Other houses in the district that may have been designed by Woolley include 1016 Douglas Street and 910 South 1200 East. He also designed several notable Prairie School style homes just east of 1300 East on Yale Avenue.

Other architects who influenced the area included Frederick A. Hale and Charles S. McDonald, who are known to have designed J.T. Gillmer’s residence (1038 S. 1200 E., 1910). Hale designed more than one hundred buildings in Salt Lake City including the Alta Club, the First Methodist Church, the Keith-Brown mansion, and numerous residences. Charles S. McDonald, of the firm McDonald and Cooper, worked with Hale on the addition to the Alta Club, designed the Keith O’Brien building, and worked with Eames and Young on the Walker Bank building.

Gilmer Park Historic District contains large number of excellent examples of the styles popular in Salt Lake City and Utah during the period of significance, 1909-43. The houses display the craftsmanship of design and construction materials associated with the era of the significant period. Attention was paid to the quality of design and cohesiveness in the neighborhood. The residential building styles are predominantly Period Revival Cottages and Bungalows and portray the sequence of its development and its association with the growth of the city during a progressive era.

The majority of buildings constructed in the district were bungalows and period revival cottages. Nearly twenty-nine percent of the homes are bungalows, either Arts and Crafts or Prairie School. These styles were popular in Utah from 1905-25 and incorporated many similar stylistic features such as low, hipped roofs and wide, overhanging eaves. The wide porches help to create an impression of informal living and unite the houses to their sites. The bungalow plan is open, informal, and economical and became the basic middle-class house, replacing the late-nineteenth century Victorian cottage. Like the Victorian style, the bungalow’s popularity can be attributed to the widespread use of architectural pattern books and a corresponding period of economic prosperity when many families were purchasing their first homes.

Approximately sixty-four percent of the homes in the district are Period Revival English Cottages, English Tudor, and Colonial Revival homes. Period Revival styles were popular in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah primarily between 1920-40. Most of the Period Revival homes in Gilmer Park Historic District were constructed in the 1920s. A possible reason for the rise in popularity of the Period Revival style may have resulted from national pride following World War I which led to its increased use. English Tudor, Spanish Revival, and French Norman styles were most likely imported by soldiers returning from the war in Europe. These designs were based primarily on external decorative features rather than the historical building and planning traditions and “were simplistically massed, suggesting the informality that various architectural writers of the period stated was appropriate to the American way of life.”

PROMINENT RESIDENTS OF GILMER PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT

Gilmer Park Historic District is also significant because of its association with prominent residents who contributed to the growth and progress of Salt Lake City and the state. The influx of professionals were an indication of the progress the city was experiencing and greatly influenced the growth and social fabric of the neighborhood and ensured its viability. The neighborhood has been home to many of Salt Lake City’s prominent residents who were influential in business, politics, art, architecture, medicine, law, education, and religion.

A look at the lives of many of the residents in the district reveals that the district was home to many prominent citizens involved in business, politics, architecture, art, law, medicine, education, and LDS Church activities. Those who chose to make Gilmer Park their home came from all walks of life, although residents were generally upper-middle class.

Many Gilmer Park Historic District residents were politically influential. Wilson McCarthy, state senator, governmental appointee, and president of Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, lived at 974 South 1300 East between 1924-32. Elise F. Musser, state senator and governmental appointee, and her husband Burton W. Musser, state senator and attorney, resided at 1133 Harvard Avenue. Elise lived there until her death in 1967 and Burton lived there through the 1980s. Elizabeth P. Hayward, also politically active as a state legislator and with the Democratic National Committee, lived at 1140 Herbert Avenue between 1917-28. Finally, Herbert B. Maw, a former governor of Utah, lived at 1212 Yale Avenue between 1939-80s.

A number of residents were prominent in business. Earl F. Free (1205 Gilmer Drive) was the founder and manager of Carbo-Chemical Group and also Hygeia Ice Company. Harold H. Bennett lived at 1187 Harvard Avenue between 1930 and the 1980s and was the president of Zion Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI). Samuel H. Sharman (1159 Gilmer Drive, 1925-38) was vice-president and general manager of Sharman Automobile Company and was also a nationally famous trap-shooter. Between 1922-36, Simon Rosenblatt, vice-president of Eimco and founder of Grand Central Stores, lived at 1277 Yale Avenue.

A University of Utah economics professor and governmental appointee, Mark H. Green, lived at 1127 East Alpine Place between 1933-49. Other professionals who lived in the area included Walter M. Stookey (1270 Yale Avenue, 1923-35) and Rush B. Stevens (1236 Yale Avenue, 1924- 37) who were physicians, and Murray P. Rock (1120 Yale Avenue, 1922-27) who was a dentist.

Many residents were also known for their accomplishments in art and architecture. Gilbert P. Riswold (1252 Gilmer Drive, 1924-31) was a sculptor. Three prominent Salt Lake City architects lived on 900 South between 1200 and 1300 East on what has been called “architects row.” Taylor Woolley lived at 1222 East 900 South from 1918 until his death in 1965. His brother-in-law and partner, Clifford P. Evans resided at 1266 East 900 South. Harold W. Burton, of the firm Pope and Burton lived at 1226 East 900 South.

LDS Church leaders also made their home in Gilmer Park Historic District. Richard L. Evans lived at 1032 Douglas Street between 1936-71 and was best known as the radio announcer for the nationally broadcast radio program, “Music and the Spoken Word.” Sterling W. Sill who resided at 1264 Yale Avenue from 1935 through the 1980s was bishop of the Garden Park Ward and a member of the Quorum of the Seventy. Adam S. Bennion was a member of the Council of the Twelve and a United States Senate candidate who lived at 1183 Herbert Avenue between 1918-58. Joseph Fielding Smith (998 Douglas Street, 1926-53) was the tenth LDS Church president.

SUMMARY:

Gilmer Parks’ distinctiveness lies in its break with the street grid pattern that dominated the development of Utah cities. Rich in history and architectural significance, the Gilmer Park Historic District is one of the best-preserved and well-designed twentieth-century suburban neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. The influence of the people who lived in this area is evident through their political and professional affiliations and leadership. The unique qualities of the neighborhood combined with the people who continue to value these qualities remains strong. The original owners resided in their homes in Gilmer Park Historic District for relatively long periods of time. Residents in the neighborhood continue to take great pride in their homes and streets by maintaining their houses and yards. A strong neighborhood association was formed about ten years ago and continues to be very active today.

RESIDENTS OF GILMER PARK

  • Bennett, Harold H. – 1187 Harvard Avenue (1930- ); President Z.C.M.I.
  • Broberg, Ernest J. – 1261 Yale Avenue (1918-28); Banker
  • Gilmer, Jay T. – 1028 S. 1200 E. (1910-16); President of Gilmer Realty Co.
  • Hayward, Henry J. – 1140 Herbert Avenue (1918-27); President/Manager of Salt Lake Mill & Construction Co.
  • Kelly, Lincoln G. – 1171 Herbert Avenue (1924-68); President of Kelly & Co., accountants
  • Nelson, Marion C. – 974 S. 1300 E. (1932-56); Owner/President of Gillham Advertising Agency
  • Pembroke, Adrian B. – 1062 Douglas St. (1925-46); President and General Manager of Pembroke Co.
  • Robins, Thomas R. – 1246 Gilmer Dr. (1927-42); President of Fabian Brokerage Co., Vice-President of Robins Canning Company
  • Rockwood, Julius A. – 950 S. 1300 E. (1940-48); President of A.J. Rockwood Furniture
  • Rosenblatt, Simon – 1277 Yale Avenue. (1922-36); Eimco Vice-President
  • Russell, John H. – 1120 Yale Avenue (1927-43); Manager of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
  • Sharman, Samuel H. – 1159 Gilmer Dr. (1925-38); President of Sharman Automobile Company, 1924 Olympic team member
  • Vincent, Joseph G. – 1220 Yale Avenue (1927-36); Restaurant entrepreneur, President of Vincent-Peterson Co., developers
  • Warshaw, Maurice – 1270 Yale Avenue (1935-55; Founder of Grand Central Stores
  • Woolley, Albaroni H. – 1244 E. 900 S. (1924-55); Z.C.M.I. department manager and board of directors member

POLITICS:

  • Hayward, Elizabeth P. – 1140 Herbert Avenue (1918-27); State Legislator, Democratic National Committee member
  • Maw, Herbert B. – 1212 Yale Avenue (1939-46); Governor of Utah
  • McCarthy, Wilson – 974 S. 1300 E. (1924-32); State Senator, Governmental Appointee, President of D.&R.G.W. Railroad
  • Musser, Burton W. – 1133 Harvard Avenue (1924- ); State Senator, Attorney
  • Musser, Elise F – 1133 Harvard Avenue (1924-67); State Senator; Governmental Appointee

ARCHITECTS, ARTISTS, DOCTORS, EDUCATORS

  • Burton, Harold W. – 1226 E. 900 S. (1918-20); Architect
  • Evans, Clifford P. – 1266 E. 900 S. (1921-73); Architect, University of Utah instructor
  • Greene, Mark H. – 1127 Alpine Place (1933-49); University of Utah economics professor, Governmental Appointee
  • Riswold, Gilbert P. – 1252 Gilmer Dr. (1924-31); Sculptor
  • Rock, Murray P. – 1120 Yale Avenue (1922-27); Dentist
  • Stevens, Rush B. – 1236 Yale Avenue (1924-37); Physician
  • Stookey, Walter M. – 1270 Yale Avenue (1923-35); Physician, Utah historian
  • Woolley, Taylor – 1222 E. 900 S. (1918-65); Architect

LD.S. CHURCH OFFICIALS

  • Bennion, Adam S. – 1183 Herbert Avenue (1918-58); Member of the Council of the Twelve of the LD.S. Church, U.S. Senate Candidate
  • Evans, Richard L. – 1032 Douglas St. (1936-71); Member of Council of the Twelve of the L.D.S. Church, Radio announcer
  • Sill, Sterling W. – 1264 Yale Avenue (1935- ); Garden Park Ward Bishop, Member of the Quorum of Seventy of the L.D.S. Church
  • Smith, Joseph Fielding – 998 Douglas St. (1926-53); Tenth L.D.S. Church President

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY

The Gilmer Park area was part of a tremendous building boom in Salt Lake City. At the turn of the century, Salt Lake City experienced a major shift in demographic patterns. The population of Salt Lake City increased from 20,000 in the 1880s to well over 92,000 in 1910, and the physical structure of the city rapidly expanded upon higher land to the east and south of the original town grid. The accumulation of a smoke haze over the city had also been a problem in the late 1800s, with coal-fired furnaces and smoke-producing industries exacerbating the problem. During the winter the entire valley was frequently engulfed in a black curtain of smoke particles that marred buildings and clothing. Salt Lake City was so plagued with smoke during the early 1920s that it was nicknamed “the Pittsburgh of the West.” As the population grew, people moved away from the center of town. There was a need and a desire for residents of Salt Lake City to move to higher ground for cleaner air and water. After the problems of acquiring a suitable water supply and sewer system for the bench lands were alleviated, suburban development began to increase. From 1906-30, there were 439 new residential subdivisions platted in Salt Lake City. By 1911 the city consisted of compact residential areas and well-established transportation lines, and in 1922 zoning was established in response to the problems of indiscriminate commercial, industrial, and residential development in all parts of the city.

Nationally the Progressive Era was effecting social changes through governmental reform and the related City Beautiful movement encouraged the design of public spaces that would improve urban life. The movements that defined the early twentieth century, the Progressive Era and the City Beautiful Movement, were also aimed at improving urban life and bringing rational order and efficiency to the forces of progress that had begun in the past century. Private citizens and Salt Lake City’s government moved to join the City Beautiful movement. In 1900, they planted trees in local parks and around the City and County Building, and improved walks and drives in Liberty Park, then considered a showplace of Salt Lake City open spaces. In 1908, due greatly to pressures by the Civic Improvement League, the city established a park board to make Salt Lake into a “City Beautiful”. In 1909 a Parks and Playground Association, with members largely from upper-middle class was formed to provide playgrounds for children. Civic improvements throughout the city included the planting of trees and building of sidewalks.

During the Progressive Era, the first two decades of the twentieth century, Salt Lake City underwent industrialization and urbanization like other cities across the nation. It experienced a shift from an agricultural to a commercial and industrial economy. The city was no longer isolated but was politically and economically integrated into the mainstream of the country. In general, Utah experienced the commercialization of agriculture, the emergence of a substantial business sector, and the development of corporate mining and manufacturing. The combination of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, commerce, and transportation produced prosperity for Salt Lake City.

In the early 1920s Salt Lake City and Utah experienced a postwar World War I economic slump. Although construction, retail trade, transportation, and communication contributed to overall growth, the city experienced an economic plateau in the mid 1920s and did not participate in the national prosperity of that decade. Building, however, was very strong during this period, even with the higher building material prices and interest rates. The demand for new construction was great due to the need for private homes, the building of which had been curtailed during the war. Gilmer Park Historic District provides evidence of this period of building.

Copperton Historic District

22 Monday Apr 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copperton, Copperton Historic District, Historic Districts, NRHP

Copperton Historic District

The Copperton Historic District was added to the National Historic Register (#86002642) on August 14, 1986. It is roughly bounded by 5th East, Hillcrest Street, 2nd West and State Highway.

The Copperton Historic District encompasses most of the town of Copperton, a planned residential community constructed for employees of Utah Copper Company primarily between 1926 and 1941. The district is exceptionally significant in Utah as a unique combination of company town, planned community and promotional showpiece. Copperton is one of several company towns in Utah, but it transcends the standard company town image with its carefully planned layout, fully developed amenities and substantial brick and stucco houses. The attractiveness of this “model community” reflected well on Utah Copper Company, and the extensive use of copper on the houses was an overt attempt by the company to advertise the use of its product for building construction purposes. Not only is Copperton the elite of company towns in Utah, it is also the only known historic community in Utah that was architect designed. The design quality and scope of the project render it a significant work of Salt Lake City-based architects Scott & Welch, one of the leading architectural firms in Utah at that time. Though Copperton continued to be developed up through the mid-1950s, 85 percent of the community, including all of the single-family houses, was built by 1941, and it was not until 1949 that construction in the town resumed. Of the 207 principal buildings in the Copperton Historic District, 77 were built after 1936 and therefore are not yet 50 years old. Despite their age, those 77 houses are included as contributing buildings in the district because their scale, materials and styling are virtually identical with the earlier houses, and they share the same company town historical associations. Most of those houses are also located in the heart of the community, comprising an integral part of this exceptionally significant district.

Related:

  • Copperton, Utah
  • Utah’s Historic Districts

In 1926 Utah Copper Company began developing Copperton, the company’s worker housing project located at the mouth of Bingham Canyon near the Bingham Copper Mine. The new community was built as a residential annex to the town of Bingham, which, located within the narrow canyon, was ill-suited to handle the population growth brought on by the expansion of the mine operation during the early 1900s. Eighteen houses were built in Copperton in 1926, 30 in 1927, and so on until by 1941 a total of 204 houses had been built. The fourteen houses built in 1941 were the last “full size” houses constructed in Copperton. Thereafter the company built only duplexes, and it was not until 1949 that construction of those began. By that time the nation had gone through World War II and Utah Copper Company had been taken over by Kennecott Copper Corporation. Kennecott, an international corporation, was somewhat less thorough than Utah Copper Company had been in maintaining the houses and the town, and in 1956 it decided to get out of the housing business altogether. That year all the houses in Copperton and other Kennecott towns were sold to private individuals. Kennecott continued its mining operations, however, expanding the huge open pit mine until Bingham and other small towns in the area were swallowed up. Copperton is the only remaining community located near and closely associated with the Bingham Copper Mine, a National Historic Landmark.

Utah Copper Company was the first large copper company in Utah and the most significant in terms of its impact in the industry. It was formed in 1903 as an amalgamation of a number of smaller mining operations in the Bingham area. The Bingham Copper Mine, which became the focus of the company’s mining operation, has been one of the world’s largest producers of copper, molybdenite and gold during the twentieth century, and it ranks first in terms of the aggregate quantity of metal produced by a single mine. The open-cut method of mining was introduced and perfected at the Bingham Mine, and the mine is currently one of the largest open pit mines in the world. The past 75 years have been the primary period of the mine’s production, although significant mining activity was underway in the immediate area as early as the 1860s.

Utah Copper Company chose the Copperton site for its planned housing community for several reasons: the property was already owned by the company; the parcel of land was relatively flat and large enough to accommodate the size of community needed; and the site was close to the mine, which would help minimize worker tardiness and absenteeism, especially in bad weather. Problems with the site were fairly minor, the most serious of which was probably that portions of the town were built on top of mine tailings, requiring that concrete piles, some up to 30 feet deep, be used to provide a solid footing for the houses. As many as 18 pilings were used to support some of the houses built in the northeast section of the town.

Architects Carl W. Scott and George W. Welch were hired by Utah Copper Company to design the overall layout of the town and the individual houses that were to be built there. Their plan for the subdivision community included amenities such as a fully landscaped park, concrete curb, gutters, and sidewalks, shade trees, graded and graveled streets, and a ballpark that was developed at the site in 1923. Scott & Welch worked up most, if not all, of the 85-plus design variations for the houses. This variety was apparently intended to avoid the repetitive and uniform streetscapes that typified most company towns. It is unclear how long Scott & Welch continued to supervise construction activities in the town, since Utah Copper Company apparently took over much of that responsibility after the initial years. The builder for many of the early homes was E. J. Teague and Company, and F. B. Bowers is credited with constructing some of the later homes.

Scott & Welch, the architect of the community, was one of the most prominent and prolific architectural firms in Utah during the 1920s-’40s. Partners Carl W. Scott and George W. Welch designed a great number of schools and other public buildings throughout the state during that period, many of which were federal public works projects. They also designed a significant number of commercial and institutional buildings in the Salt Lake City area. Their works include the Elk’s Club Building, Masonic Hall, South High School, Bryant Junior High School, Nelson-Ricks Creamery Building, and Firestone Tire Company Building in Salt Lake City, and in other parts of the state Blanding High School, Tooele High School, Cedar City Elementary School, Morgan Elementary School, Richmond Community Building, and elementary and high school buildings in Park City. Copperton was the only project of its type undertaken by Scott & Welch, and it is a significant example of the firm’s work.

The Copperton houses were well-built, attractive, and modernly furnished. They had concrete foundations, brick or stucco exteriors, copper roofing and raingutters, central heating, indoor plumbing, garages and landscaped yards. Although the same floor plans were used repeatedly throughout the town, variations in appearance were achieved by using different exterior features and by inverting the plans. The standard house types were a four-room model, which cost $5,065 to build, and a five-room model, which cost $5,804. The most expensive house in town, the superintendent’s house, cost $18,983 to construct. The four- and five-room houses were rented to company employees for $22.50 and $27.50 per month, respectively.

Because of the reasonable rent and the quality of the accommodations the Copperton houses were very much in demand. Since there were many more employees than there were houses, priorities were established for allotting them. First choice was given to the head company officials; the superintendent automatically had his own house. The first eighteen houses built in 1926 were all initially occupied by mid- or upper level management personnel. Only married workers could qualify to live in the town, and those were rated according to their seniority, department, date of application, and record of taking care of company property, if they had previously lived in company housing. The mine superintendent took those factors into consideration and made the final decision on who would live in the houses. His personal feelings toward an employee would often determine whether or not that person was given a house.8 If a worker retired or quit the company he was no longer eligible for a home in the town and had to move out. Widows, too, were not allowed to remain in their Copperton homes after the deaths of their mine-worker husbands.

Utah Copper Company was devoted to maintaining high standards in the appearance of the community. The houses were kept in good condition by regular cleaning, painting and repairs. Maintenance of each yard was the responsibility of the occupant, but the superintendent personally inspected the properties to insure that the proper standards were kept. Louis Buchman, the superintendent from 1930 to 1946, was notorious for his habit of driving slowly through the town each morning to inspect the homes and yards. Any irregularities that he spotted were sure to be brought to the attention of the occupant, and in at least one instance he was known to have dispatched a company employee to mow regularly overgrown lawns and to charge the occupants the cost of the mowing.

The eight-acre park in the center of town was also kept up very nicely by the company. It was developed in 1927 and was landscaped with grass, trees, flowers and winding paths. The park also had a bandstand, rest rooms, tennis courts, and a children’s playground. A greenhouse was constructed nearby in 1937 to provide flowers for the park, and there was a full-time gardner who was responsible for the park maintenance.

The showpiece quality of Copperton was intended for more than just satisfying the workers; it was a definite attempt to advertise the company and its product copper. Building specifications for the houses called for the installation of copper shingles, copper downspouts, bronze screens, brass plumbing fittings, bronze plated hardware, and a variety of other copper products. Utah Copper Company kept careful records of the construction costs of the Copperton houses, and concluded that the initial 5-6 percent increase in costs due to the use of superior copper materials would be offset by savings in maintenance over a short period of years. Most of the more visible copper elements, the shingles and rain gutters, have been replaced over the years, usually not with the same materials.

A more ambitious attempt by Utah Copper Company to promote the use of copper in the building construction industry was the erection of four prefabricated “experimental houses.” The first of these model homes, located at 201 West Park Street, was built in 1936 amid a wave of publicity. During the week-long open house over 2500 people toured the home, which was touted as Utah’s first prefabricated house. The local newspaper gave the following description of the house:

Visitors were particularly impressed with the economy of the arrangement of rooms in the house and characterized it as “the biggest little house” ever planned. Another feature that will help to sell copper houses is that a house like the one on display at Copperton is everlasting. Roof, gutters, downspouts, window frames and screens, radiators and piping are all of copper and the framework of steel make the house termite proof.

Copper Houses, Inc., a subsidiary of Utah Copper Company, was formed to promote and distribute the houses. Offices were established in Salt Lake City and in Washington, D.C., and by January 1937 groups of copper houses were reportedly being erected in several Eastern cities. Three more experimental houses, each slightly different, were built in Copperton in 1937-38. The success of this venture was apparently limited since there is little mention or physical evidence of such houses having been built elsewhere in the state.

Copperton received very favorable coverage in the local newspapers and in mining journals as a model company town. The hospitable environment of the community was viewed as a benefit to both worker and employer. It was noted that “Copperton will be a town of families there will be no room for the floater, the pool-room habitue, or the bootlegger….Truly, one can foresee for Copperton a colony of real homes and children fitted in body and mind far better than the child living under the conditions that prevail in the ordinary mining camp.”

As Copperton grew and developed, schools and churches were established in the community and a number of stores were built as well. Copperton Elementary School (now demolished) was constructed along the south edge of town in 1929, and Bingham High School was built at the north side of town in 1931. The LDS church building, completed for use by 1942, was the first church constructed in the town. The Methodist Church was moved into Copperton in 1948 from its original location at Kearns Army Camp, several miles northeast of town. The third and final church erected in Copperton was the Catholic Church, constructed in 1949. Since none of the churches were built during the historic period (pre-1941) they were not included in the historic district. Commercial buildings, too, have been excluded from the district because they have either been demolished or extensively altered. There were relatively few commercial buildings in the town anyway, because the principal business district in the area was in the town of Bingham, three miles away.

The establishment of schools in Copperton and the requirement that teachers live within the boundaries of the district in which they taught resulted in the construction of three buildings for teacher housing in the community. The first, a ten-unit two-story apartment building, was constructed on the property to the immediate west of the high school in 1931. Two sets of duplexes were built to the west of those apartments in 1939. The apartments were occupied by single teachers, but the duplexes were for the exclusive use of married teachers. The teachers’ apartments and duplexes were constructed by the Jordan School District with the permission of Utah Copper Company which owned the land.

Recreational activities were an important part of life in Copperton. A company ball park was built at the site in the early 1920s even before the town was built. It continued in use until the completion of the high school ball fields and stadium in 1938. The old ball park, located in the center of town, was then replaced with the three blocks of houses between First East and First West streets, from State Highway to Hi 11 crest Street. The high school stadium, a WPA project, is still intact and is used by the Bingham Middle School which currently occupies the old high school building.

Though neither the first nor the largest company-built mining community in Utah, Copperton did own the distinction of having the most substantial and well furnished houses of any company town in the state. It was considered the showpiece of Utah Copper Company towns with its modernly equipped, copper accoutered masonry houses. The largest of UCC’s towns was Garfield, located twelve miles to the north. It eventually consisted of almost 400 houses, as well as school buildings, churches, and numerous commercial enterprises. Garfield was established in 1906 near the mine’s smelter, but in 1957, in order to make way for expansion of the smelter operations, the houses were either demolished or moved from the site. There were also several company towns erected by coal companies in central Utah during the early 1900s. Included among them are Clear Creek, Columbia, Sunnyside, Kenilworth, and Hiawatha. The houses built in those towns were generally neither as large nor as well furnished as the Copperton houses, and were frame instead of masonry buildings. Hiawatha, however, is probably a more complete company town than Copperton. It has a wider variety of resources, including public, commercial, religious and mining company buildings as well as segregated residential areas for workers and management. Copperton, on the other hand, was primarily just a residential community.

Company towns and planned communities were an important development in American housing during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Planned industrial towns, such as Lowell, Massachusetts, had been in existence since the 1820s, but it was not until the turn-of-the-century that sociological and management concerns were combined with the ideas of the nascent urban planning profession to create the company town that is most familiar and pervasive in the U.S. The standard appearance of company towns is that of evenly spaced, virtually identical houses clustered in a subdivision arrangement. Uniform facades were used not only to cut construction costs, but also to convey the sense of order and efficiency valued by the large industrial employers who had the towns built. While providing employees with improved living conditions, company towns also served the employers by giving them greater control over the workers. As owner of the town, the company could dictate who could live in the houses, how the houses should be maintained, what kinds of businesses would be allowed in the town (no saloons), and, by having the workers live near the industrial site, the company could better regulate worker tardiness and absenteeism.

Though Copperton still retains its original appearance, it ceased serving as a company town in 1956. That year Kennecott Copper Corporation decided to divest itself of all its residential real estate and to focus its efforts entirely on mining. A plan was worked out whereby the occupants were given first opportunity to buy their own houses for very reasonable costs. The transactions took place with very few problems.

The transition from company town to privately owned community necessitated the formation of local administrative bodies to oversee community functions such as water and sewer services, street maintenance, and upkeep of the community park. Though Copperton has never been incorporated as a town, it has functioned successfully as a community for over 30 years, despite it isolated location.

Today Copperton appears much as it did during its first few decades. None of the houses have been torn down and only a relatively few have been significantly altered. There have been no substantial additions to the size of the town since its company town days of the mid-1950s. This well preserved, compact community conveys a distinct sense of time and place and represents important segments of Utah’s architectural and social histories.

Description:

The Copperton Historic District contains most of the town of Copperton, a compact, isolated community located at the mouth of Bingham Canyon approximately 25 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The town was built between 1926 and about 1955 as a planned residential community for employees of Utah Copper Company. Resources in the district include the high school building and stadium, one small apartment building, two duplexes, an 8.5-acre park, and 204 similary styled houses with 63 accompanying garages. The subdivision layout of the town consists primarily of straight streets and rectangular blocks divided into roughly equal size lots. The individual resources in the district as well as the town’s overall layout are, for the most part, very well preserved and effectively convey the original character and significance of the town.

Boundaries of the District

Boundaries for the Copperton Historic District were chosen to include the parts of town that were developed before 1941, the cutoff date for the district. (See the Significance Section for details on the cutoff date.) Of the 247 principal buildings in the community, 207 are included within the boundaries of the historic district. The newest sections of town, those built after 1941, are located on the fringes and are therefore easily excluded from the district. The district is bounded on the south by Hillcrest Street, on the east by 5th East Street, and on the west by 2nd West Street (with the exception of three houses). The northern boundary is the most irregular with State Highway serving as the boundary at both the east and west ends of town, but in the center the boundary extends across the highway to take in all the structures between 115 East State Highway and 106-108 West State Highway, inclusive (see map). The boundaries may be expanded at a later date to include all of the buildings constructed in Copperton during its years as a company town, up to 1956.

pany town, up to 1956. Excluded from the district at this time were the duplexes on West State Highway, 5th East Street and in Copper Circle, all three churches, the extensively altered credit union at 117 East State Highway, the gas stations and miscellaneous commercial buildings at the east end of town, and the Lions Club building/firestation south of the park. All of these buildings are on the fringes of the community.

Contributing Resources in the District

Contributing resources in the district include 199 (of 207) principal buildings, 34 (of 63) frame garages, the community park and the structures included with the high school stadium. Of the 199 contributing principal buildings, 195 are single-family houses which are very similar to each other in terms of their scale and design. The important original features that have been retained on those contributing houses include their roof lines, exterior wall surfaces, and window and door openings, especially on the primary façade. Minor changes have been made to most of the houses, however. These include new porch railings, new windows and doors, small additions on the side or rear elevations, the replacement of original copper shingles and rain gutters with non-historic materials, and the installation of aluminum siding on relatively small areas, such as gable ends and soffits. Interior alterations have also been made on most of the houses to accommodate growing families and changing tastes, but they were not taken into consideration in the evaluation of the houses. One of the most common interior alterations has been the excavation of a full basement, since the houses originally came with only a partially excavated basement.

The 34 contributing garages in the district are those that were built within the historic period which have undergone only minor alterations (photo 3). Most of the garages are rectangular stuccoed buildings with either two or four separate bays under a simple gable roof. The two-bay garages are accessible by a single driveway and are set to the rear between the two adjacent houses they serve. Most of the four-bay garages are, in essence, two two-bay garages set back to back in the middle of the block. They serve a pair of houses on each side of the block. There are also a few multi-bay garages in the center of some blocks that are lineally arranged as opposed to back-to-back. The nineteen garages that are attached to houses were not counted as separate buildings. Common garage alterations that were considered minor included the replacement of the original hinged double doors with overhead doors and small additions on the sides or rear.

Non-contributing Resources in the District

The non-contributing buildings in the district include 9 (of 207) principal buildings, 29 (of 63) garages, 11 out-of-period garages, 3 buildings at the community park, and 2 buildings at the high school stadium. There are no out-of-period principal buildings in the district. The 9 non-contributing buildings are all houses built within the historic period but which have been significantly altered over the years. The most common major alteration is the addition of aluminum siding to the exterior of houses. Unlike some of the contributing houses which had only minor exterior wall surfaces covered with aluminum siding, these non-contributing houses are either completely covered or are covered with the exception of only a few rows of exposed brick at the base of the walls or surrounding doorways. Other major alterations on non-contributing houses include the enclosure and drastic alteration of the front porch and the enlargement of window openings on the façade.

The 29 garages that were evaluated as non-contributing are those that have been significantly altered by large additions and/or new exterior siding. Since most of the garages contain either two or four separate bays, each individually owned, the chance for alterations was greatly increased. If one of the bays was significantly altered the entire structure was determined to be non-contributing because of the major impact of those changes on the relatively small, simple building.

House Designs and Floorplans

The houses in the Copperton Historic District convey a distinct sense of cohesiveness through their age, scale, materials, and design. They were built between 1926 and 1941 and are all one-story houses with brick or stucco exteriors. Stylistically, all of the houses in the district are bungalows, period cottages or a combination of both. The bungalows are characterized by their broad front porches and exposed rafters, and they tend to more plain than the period cottages. The period cottages generally have modest designs in the English Tudor or Spanish Colonial Revival styles. The period cottage house type, popular in Utah between the two world wars, was so named because its stylistic embellishments were derived from designs of earlier historic periods. English Tudor was the most common style used on period cottages in Copperton and throughout Utah. In addition to the bungalows and period cottages there are four prefabricated copper-clad houses built between 1936 and 1938. Though slightly different in their architectural styling, those copper houses blend in well with the other houses in town.

The designs for virtually all of the Copperton houses were drawn up by Scott & Welch, a Salt Lake City-based architectural firm that is also credited with designing the layout of the town. An extensive, though not complete, collection of their original drawings for Copperton provides an invaluable insight into the design process for both the houses individually and the community as a whole.” There is also an overall layout of the town, apparently begun by Scott & Welch, which shows each building in the community and gives the plan type for each house.

Although there are over 85 stylistic variations for the Copperton houses, a single floorplan concept served as the basis for virtually all the designs. That basic floor plan is a rectangular form with its narrow end facing the street. It is divided lengthwise by a central wall with “public” rooms living room, dining room, kitchen on one side and “private” rooms bedrooms and bathroom on the other. The majority of those 85-plus variations are four- and five-room plans, which together account for over 95 percent of the houses in the town.

The four-room floor plans are the most common, probably since they were the most simple and inexpensive to build. There are 55 variations of four-room houses, and they constitute 75-80 percent of the houses in the community. They all share a standard floor plan that has a living room and kitchen on one side and a bedroom-bathroom-bedroom arrangement on the other. (The bathroom was not counted as a room.) There is a short hallway adjacent and parallel to the center dividing wall connecting the two bedrooms. The front door enters into the living room, and the rear entrance and the stairway to the basement are located at the rear of the kitchen. Built-in breakfast nooks are a prominent feature in the kitchens. The “semibasements,” which had one unexcavated room in order to avoid paying higher taxes for a full basement, included a laundry room, a furnace room, a storage/fruit room and a coal room.

The numerous variations of this basic four-room plan are all the result of exterior changes, minor interior alterations, or inverted plans. Those changes do not alter the basic room arrangement, however. In some versions the living room projects slightly to the front, while in others it is flush. Most of the four-room plans have the living room and the front bedroom facing the street, but there are a few variations that rotate the plan 90 degrees to have the living room/kitchen side of the house facing the front with the porch projecting off that elevation. Exterior variations are numerous, consisting of changes in roof lines, porch treatments, windows, wall surfaces and design elements. A few of the four-room houses have attached garages, though the vast majority share a detached garage with the neighboring house.

Five-room plans differ from four-room plans primarily in that they have a dining room inserted between the living room and the kitchen. The living room is often projected slightly out the front or side in order to help accommodate that additional room. In one version the kitchen extends behind the back bedroom, and in another a third bedroom is added across the back of the house. Twenty-four of the 39 five-room houses are located on corner lots, which were traditionally favored locations. There are at least 23 five-room plans, and they account for about 20 percent of the houses in the town.

Although four- and five-room plans make up the vast majority of the Copperton houses, there are a number of miscellaneous floorplans with six, seven, or eight rooms. These were used on a very limited number of houses in the town, and some of the designs may not have been used at all, since there are no houses that have been clearly identified with them. The largest house in town is the eight-room superintendent’s house at 104 East State Highway (National Register 1985).

The four copper-clad prefabricated houses in Copperton were built as “experimental houses,” and as such they are noticeably distinct. Although these houses have the same number and types of rooms found in the earlier houses, the floor plan and the exterior designs are different. The exteriors are symmetrical and simpler than those of the standard houses, and the modest stylistic features that they have are Classical instead of Period Revival or Bungalow. The horizontal copper siding on three of the four houses is very similar in appearance to aluminum siding, but early photos prove that it was original. The broadside-to-the-street orientation of these houses is reflected in their floor plans. The front and rear bedrooms are adjacent and set to one side of the house and the living room and kitchen to the other. The bathroom is set between the kitchen and the rear bedroom and the stairway to the basement is located between the living room and the kitchen. Despite their distinctiveness, these house have the same setback and scale as the other houses in town and therefore blend in very well.

Other Resources in the District

In addition to single-family houses in the Copperton Historic District there are also the old Bingham High School and stadium, the teachers’ apartment building, the two duplexes for teachers, and the community park. The high school is an Art Moderne building designed by Scott & Welch and built in 1931. The teachers’ apartment building was also built in 1931, and the duplexes were built in 1939. The stadium was constructed as a WPA project in 1937-38. The three-acre park is planted with grass and trees and has tennis courts and a playground at the south end. There are three buildings in the park, two of which – the “roundhouse” pavilion and the restrooms – are out-of-period. The maintenance shed appears to be an original building that has been extensively altered. The concrete and wrought iron entrance at the northwest corner gives the name of the park and its date of completion: Utah Copper Company Community Park, 1927.

COPPERTON HISTORIC DISTRICT
List of Buildings and Owners
April 1986
Property Address (evaluation; date of construction; house type)
Current Owner and Address

  • 100 First East Street (contributing; 1941; type 5-2-39)
  • 101 First East Street (contributing; 1926; type 5-1-R)
  • 102 First East Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-A-41)
  • 103 First East Street (contributing; 1926; type 4-B)
  • 200 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 5-B-40)
  • 202 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-B-26-R)
  • 204 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-A-40)
  • 206 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 6-A-40)
  • 300 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 6-B-40)
  • 302 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-26)
  • 304 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-40)
  • 306 First East Street (contributing; 1940; type 5-A-40)
  • 101 Second East Street (non-contributing; 1926; type 4-C-R)
  • 102 Second East Street (non-contributing; 1926; type 4-B)
  • 103 Second East Street (contributing; 1926; type 4-B)
  • 104 Second East Street (contributing; 1926; type 5-2-R)
  • 101 Third East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 102 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-F)
  • 103 Third East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-B-3)
  • 104 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-B)
  • 105 Third East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-E-5)
  • 201 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 5-4-R)
  • 203 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-A)
  • 205 Third East Street (contributing; 1927: type 4-B)
  • 207 Third East Street (non-contributing; 1927; type 4-F)
  • 209 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 5-3-R)
  • 211 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-G)
  • 213 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-C)
  • 215 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-D)
  • 217 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-B)
  • 219 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 5-2-R)
  • 221 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-E-R)
  • 223 Third East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-G-R)
  • 101 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 102 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-B-3)
  • 103 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-D-2)
  • 104 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-C-4)
  • 105 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-E-5)
  • 106 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-F-6)
  • 107 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-G-7)
  • 200 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-B-R)
  • 201 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 5-1-12)
  • 202 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-C)
  • 203 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-E-5)
  • 204 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-F)
  • 205 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-A-3)
  • 206 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-B)
  • 207 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-B-26)
  • 208 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-E)
  • 209 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-Y-l-ll)
  • 210 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-C)
  • 211 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-D-27)
  • 212 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-D)
  • 213 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-D-26)
  • 214 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-B)
  • 215 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-F-6)
  • 216 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-G)
  • 217 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-B-27)
  • 218 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; tye 5-4-R)
  • 219 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-1-8)
  • 220 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-A)
  • 221 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-C-4)
  • 222 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-C-R)
  • 223 Fourth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 5-3-27)
  • 102 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-G-7)
  • 104 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-A-3)
  • 106 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-F-6)
  • 108 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 200 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-C-4)
  • 202 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-Y-1-11-R)
  • 204 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-F-6)
  • 206 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-B-27)
  • 208 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-D-27)
  • 210 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-D-26)
  • 212 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-D-2)
  • 214 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 216 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-E-5)
  • 218 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-A-3)
  • 220 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-B-26)
  • 222 Fifth East Street (contributing; 1930; type 5-1-27-R)
  • 101 First West Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-A-40-B)
  • 102 First West Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-1-8-A)
  • 102 Second West Street (contributing; 1937; type 7-A-37)
  • 92 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-40)
  • 93 Cyprus Street (non-contributing; 1940; type 4-E-5-40)
  • 94 Cyprus Street (non-contributing; 1940; type 4-D-26)
  • 95 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-A-40)
  • 96 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-Y-1-10-R)
  • 97 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-B-26-R)
  • 98 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-39)
  • 99 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-F-40)
  • 100 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-A-3)
  • 101 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 5-1-27)
  • 102 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-C-4)
  • 103 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-2)
  • 104 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type E-3-5-RM)
  • 105 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-B-27)
  • 106 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-26)
  • 107 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-27)
  • 108 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-F-6)
  • 109 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 110 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-B-26-R)
  • 111 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-2)
  • 112 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 113 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-26)
  • 114 Cyprus Street (non-contributing; 1937; type 4-B-27)
  • 115 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-B-26)
  • 116 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-2)
  • 117 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-Y-1-10-B)
  • 118 Cyprus Street (non-contributing; 1937; type 4-B-3-R)
  • 119 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-E-5)
  • 120 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 5-2-5-RM)
  • 121 Cyprus Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-A-37)
  • 92 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-Y-1-10-B)
  • 94 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-39)
  • 96 Hill crest Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-A-40)
  • 98 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-D-26)
  • 100 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 5-2-39)
  • 102 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-5-1-10-BR)
  • 104 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-D-26-R)
  • 106 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-C-4)
  • 108 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-B-26)
  • 110 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-E-5)
  • 112 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-D-27)
  • 114 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 116 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-F-6)
  • 118 Hillcrest Street (contributing; 1939; type 4-D-39)
  • 101 East Park Street (contributing; 1926; type 5-2)
  • 103 East Park Street (contributing; 1926; type 4-C)
  • 105 East Park Street (contributing; 1926; type 4-D)
  • 107 East Park Street (contributing; 1926; type 5-3-R)
  • 201 East Park Street (contributing; 1926; type 5-1)
  • 203 East Park Street (non-contributing; 1927; type 4-D)
  • 205 East Park Street (contributing; 1927; type 4-C)
  • 207 East Park Street contributing; 1927; type 5-1-R)
  • 301 East Park Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-X-1-8)
  • 303 East Park Street (contributing; 1928; type 4-X-2-9)
  • 88 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-E-5-40)
  • 90 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-D-26)
  • 92 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-D-40-R)
  • 93 West Park Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-Y-1-10-R)
  • 94 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-B-26-R)
  • 95 West Park Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-A-40)
  • 96 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 4-F-40-R)
  • 97 West Park Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-E-5-40)
  • 98 West Park Street (contributing; 1941; type 5-A-40)
  • 99 West Park Street (contributing; 1940; type 4-B-40-R)
  • 100 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-Y-l-ll)
  • 101 West Park Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-D-26)
  • 102 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-29)
  • 103 West Park Street (contributing; 1937; type 4-E-5)
  • 104 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 5-1-27)
  • 105 West Park Street (contributing; 1937; type 5-1-5-RM)
  • 106 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-B-3)
  • 107 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 108 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-D-2)
  • 109 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-B-27)
  • 110 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-D-26)
  • 111 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-A-3)
  • 112 West Park Street (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-1-8)
  • 113 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-B-26)
  • 115 West Park Street (contributing; 1930, type 4-F-6)
  • 117 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-Y-1-10)
  • 119 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-D-27)
  • 121 West Park Street (contributing; 1930; type 4-Y-1-11-RA)
  • 201 West Park Street (contributing; 1936; “model home,” no type given)
  • 100 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 7-R)
  • 102 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 4-D)
  • 104 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; supt. residence)
  • 105 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 8-A-30)
  • 107 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 4-E-5-A)
  • 109 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 4-C-4-A)
  • 111 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 4-X-1-8-A)
  • 113 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 4-Y-1-10-A)
  • 115 East State Highway (contributing; 1930; type 4-X-29-RA)
  • 200 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 5-3-R)
  • 202 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 4-A-R)
  • 204 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 5-4-R)
  • 206 East State Highway (contributing; 1926; type 5-3)
  • 300 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 5-2-13)
  • 302 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-E-5)
  • 304 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-D-2)
  • 306 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-Y-1-11)
  • 308 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-F-6)
  • 310 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 5-1-12)
  • 400 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 5-2-13)
  • 402 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-C-4)
  • 404 East State Highway (contributing; 1928; type 4-B-3)
  • 406 East State Highway (non-contributing; 1928; type 5-1-12)
  • 91 West State Highway (contributing; 1941; type 4-D-40)
  • 93 West State Highway (contributing; 1941; type 4-A-40)
  • 95 West State Highway (contributing; 1941; type 4-F-40)
  • 96 West State Highway (contributing; 1931; high school building)
  • 97 West State Highway (contributing; 1941; type 4-E-5-40)
  • 99 West State Highway (contributing; 1941; type 5-1-27)
  • 100 West State Highway (contributing; 1930-31; teachers’ apartments)
  • 101 West State Highway (contributing; 1927; type 6-R)
  • 102-104 West State Highway (contributing; 1939; duplex)
  • 103 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 4-C-4)
  • 105 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 5-3-27)
  • 106-108 West State Highway (contributing; 1939; duplex)
  • 107 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 4-B-26)
  • 109 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 4-F-6)
  • 111 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-1-8-A)
  • 113 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 4-X-29-A)
  • 115 West State Highway (contributing; 1929; type 5-2-13)
  • 203 West State Highway (contributing; 1940; type 4-B-4-40)

University of Utah Circle

23 Friday Feb 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts, U of U Circle Historic District

University of Utah Circle / President’s Circle

The University of Utah was the first land grant college established west of the Mississippi. Under John Park’s leadership it grew into a strong non-sectarian state school. In this role it served the entire state as it grew from a close Mormon community into a diverse state. Dr. Park’s insistence on independent thinking and conclusions based on evidence produced a high quality of students who went on to positions of leadership in the state, nation and Mormon church.

At the present the University of Utah has an excellent medical school serving the entire intermountain area. It has gained national recognition for its research on cancer and organ transplants. It also gives a high quality professional education in pharmacy, business, engineering, and social and behavioral sciences. Its law school is one of the two largest in the intermountain west. The University of Utah, placed at the center of Nevada, Colorado, Idaho and Wyoming, provides the entire area with superior state-supported professional education.

The University of Utah Circle includes the early buildings constructed after the present campus site was designated in 1899. The Circle is still the heart of an -institution which has greatly expanded beyond the original physical boundaries established in 1899.

Located an the University of Utah at approximately 200 South University Street in the University Neighborhood and the University Neighborhood Historic District in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places (#78002682) in 1978. The text on this page is from the nomination form from when it was added to the register.

Related:

  • A. E. Tourssen Motor Company Photo Shoot (100 Year Car Tour)

The architectural significance of the buildings in this district are twofold. The library, Normal and Physical Science buildings are noteworthy because they were done by Richard K. A. Kletting, the architect of the Utah State Capitol ,and the other major buildings in Salt Lake City. S. C. Dallas, who designed the Alfred W. McCune Mansion, a National Register property, did the Museum and Park Buildings. Both architects were prominent turn-of-the-Century Salt Lake City architects. The Park Building is also a good example of Neo-Classical Revival architecture.

The interiors of several of these buildings also contain significant architectural features. The Park Building is lavishly trimmed with marble in its lobby, foyer and stairway in a manner indicative of its period. Also on the stairway are five large panels of the Great Men of Knowledge unveiled on June 24, 1941. They were done by Lee Greene Richards (1878-1950), a Utah artist of some fame. A statue of John Park, done by Mahonri Young, was erected in 1921 in a niche in front of the building.

Kingsbury Hall has a lovely foyer and lobby that continues the classical motif of the outside with its niches and pilasters and crown molding. On either side of the stage are large murals and the theatre is nicely detailed in paint on the ceiling, walls and balconies. Other interesting details are the curved corners in the stairways and the vaulted upper lobby ceiling.

The Union/Music Building has a lovely foyer with recessed niches and a marble floor. In the east wing there is a room with the original pilasters and crown molding.

The interior of the George Thomas Library is a fine example of 1930s decorating. The foyer and the lobby are done in birdseye marble which is only found in Utah County. Some of the rooms have the original oak walls and one room has a serpentine cornice of oak indicative of the art deco period. The original wood work was dark oak and it is still quite evident despite the renovation of the 1960s which was handled very nicely. Several rooms were done with a prominent 1930s style moldings and they were also left as is. There is extensive metal work around the entrance doors and on the stairway done in an art deco motif.

All the buildings are located around the “U”, a horseshoe drive coming eastward off University Street. The original concept of Richard Kletting was a circular commons, but the 1905 Board of Regents expanded the plan into the present horseshoe arrangement. One of the first landscaping endeavors was to plant a border of trees on either side of the drive. Later walks were put in to connect the buildings and crisscross the center lawn area. Shrubs were planted in the center area. A 16 foot gateway of two massive red sandstone pillars and heavy wrought iron gates, a gift from the cla$s of 1907, is located at the west open end of the horseshoe. The three buildings around the east end of the U face the drive. The next two buildings, one on the north and one on the south, are facing streets running off the U to the north and south respectively. The northwest end of the U has two buildings facing the commons and the southwest end has one longer buildings facing the commons. With the borders of trees and the connecting walkways, it is one unified whole which slopes dramatically to its pinnacle. This is in contrast to the rest of the University which has no strong patterns or united plan in its building arrangements.

From the first these buildings were designed and used as University classrooms and administrative buildings. The particular functions have changed over the last 76 years, but they are still being used daily in these general capacities.

  1. UNION/MUSIC BUILDING–This building was begun in 1930 to serve as a student union; and it was paid for by the students with fees added to their tuition. Raymond J. Ash ton and Raymond L. Evans were the architects. Its style was supposed to conform to that of the Neo-Classical Administration Building. The building is more eclectic but it still has the columns, pilasters and pediments associated with the Neo-Classical style. It is done in white stone. When a bigger union was built in the fifties, David C. Haines and Arne R. Pulhoven were selected to remodel the interior for a music building. This remodeling was extensive. On March 11, 1957, it was officially renamed the Music Hall. The building has a lovely foyer with recessed niches and a marble floor. In the east wing there is a room with the original pilasters and crown molding.
  2. KINGSBURY HALL–It was built in 1930 to satisfy a critical need for an auditorium. An architectural competition was held to select a designer and the main requirements were that it was to be simple and conform to the architecture of the administration building. Edward 0. Anderson and Lorenzo S. Young won. The style is Neo-Classical with an Egyptian Revival influence, as shown in the composite columns. The pediments over the doors are a very Neo-Classical feature. The building fits in nicely in scale and style with the others in the U-shaped commons. There has been no significant renovations or work on the building since it was built and the usage has remained the same. It has a lovely foyer and lobby that continues the classical motif of the outside with its niches, pilasters and crown molding. On either side of the stage are large murals painted by Florence E. Ware in 1946 as a government project. The theatre is nicely detailed in gold paint on the ceiling, walls and balconies. Other interesting details are the curved corners in the stairways and the vaulted upper lobby ceiling. The building was named for Joseph Kingsbury, the President of the University between 1897 and 1916. He moved the University to its present site.
  3. PHYSICAL SCIENCE BUILDING/JOHN A. WIDTSOE MATHEMATICAL BUILDING–This building was one of the original three built in 1899-1901 with the initial $200,000 appropriated to establish the University on its present site. The architect was Richard K. A. Kletting, a prominent Salt Lake architect. Like the other two buildings done at the time it is done in a simplified version of the Second Renaissance Revival. It has rusticated sandstone foundations with pressed hard brick for the rest of the exterior. The symmetrical arrangement of the windows, with the square bays at the bottom and Roman bays at the top is characteristic of the style as well as the horizontal quality and the hip roof. The building was nearly destroyed by fire on the night of December 19, 1901. The foundations and walls were left in good condition up to the arches of the third floor windows. It was rebuilt by 1902. In 1911 an extension was added to the north side which gives it the uneven massing that the other original buildings don’t have. The interior of the building was extensively remodeled during the last part of 1975. The bearing walls and floors were kept but the rest of the building was redesigned and mechanical and air conditional systems were revamped. On March 8, 1976, the building was officially renamed the John A. Widtsoe Mathematical Building in honor of Widtsoe, who had served as President of the University between 1916 and 1921. He was the author of the laws and by-laws of the first University constitution.
  4. LIBRARY/COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING–One of the original buildings designed by Richard Kletting and completed in 1901. It too is Second Renaissance Revival, with rusticated sandstone foundations and pressed hard brick walls. It is very similar to the Physical Science Building with the hip roof, window treatment and horizontal quality but is distinguished by its entrance which has two ionic columns supporting a portico in front of the double arched doorway. It was originally named the Library because a library occupied an L-shaped room on the west and north sides of the first floor. The library contained 12,950 volumes and there were seats for 100 students. In 1913 the library was moved to the newly completed Park building and the structure was renamed the Liberal Arts Building. In November 1957 the Mathematics department took over the building and it was renamed the Mathematics Building. The Math department moved out in December of 1975 and it was temporarily named the Communications Building on February 12, 1976. The building has had very little interior renovation despite the many changes in functions. The wooden joists are still exposed. The exterior has been unaltered except for the replacement of the wooden front doors with metal ones made as closely to the original as possible.
  5. PARK BUILDING–The administration building was built in 1912 with $300,000 raised by the Legislature. The architects were Samuel C. Dallas and William S. Hedges. It was to be an imposing and beautiful structure to compensate for the plainness of the original three buildings. It was the first building on campus done in the Neo-Classical Revival style. It has the common features of the style, the broad expanses of plain wall surface, the quiet roof line, the square window bays, the dental molding and the pedimented portico with ionic columns at the main entrance. On June 9, 1919, the building was dedicated and named the John R. Park Building after the first president (1869-1992) and driving force behind the growth of the University. It has undergone several reworkings to accommodate various departments but has always remained the Administration Building for the University. Originally it housed the library, but when the library was removed in 1935 to a new building the upper floor of the Park building was remodeled with P.W.A. funds to accommodate the Psychology, Anthropology and Law departments. In 1949 the upper floor was again remodeled to house the Hudnut and Hatch Art Collection and an extension was added to the east. In 1953 the basement was reworked to handle student traffic, arid in 1966 the second and third floors were remodeled for the offices of the presidents and deans. In 1971 more administrative offices were made on the fourth floor when the art collection was moved to the Fine Arts Museum. The building has several significant features. A statue of John Park, done by Mahonri Young, a Utah sculptor, occupies a niche in the front of the building. The lobby, stairway and foyer are lavishly trimmed in marble. On the walls of the stairway are five large panels of the Great Men of Knowledge done by Lee Greene Richards, another Utah artist.
  6. DINING HALL/GEOLOGY BUILDING–This building was built in 1919 to accommodate 600 and relieve the Gym which had been serving as a dining hall. It was built with state funds for emergency war work. Although it reflects no particular style, it fits in nicely with the other buildings; the hip roof and horizontal line relate it ot the original buildings while the classical traces in the dental molding and the columns at the front entrance relate it to the Neo-Classical buildings. In 1932 it became the Geology Building after the cafeteria was transferred to the Student Union. An annex to the building was financed with W.P.A. funds paying four-fifths of the cost.
  7. MUSEUM/ JAMES E. TALMADGE BIOLOGY BUILDING–Although part of the original plans, this building was not completed until 1902 because the initial appropriations did not allow for construction of all four buildings. Samuel C. Dallas was the architect. Its style is Second Renaissance Revival and follows the plan of the first three buildings using pressed hard brick and the rusticated sandstone foundation with the same window arrangements, hip roof and horizontal quality. The only deviation is at the entrance. Here Dallas used double Corinthian columns in sandstone to frame a fan-shaped transom over the doorway. The entablature and sandstone railings above the pillars add to the elaborate impression of this entrance. There have been no exterior changes and little interior modification. Metal doors replaced the older wooden one but an effort was made to follow the style of the old doors as closely as possible. Originally the building held all the science departments and their museums so it was named the Museum. On September 29, 1931, it became the Biology Building; and on March 8, 1976, it was officially named the James E. Talmadge Biology Building. James Talmadge was the president of the University from 1894-1897 and head of the Geology Department until 1907.
  8. NORMAL/HOME ECONOMICS BUILDING–Completed in 1909, it was one of the original buildings done by Kletting in the Second Renaissance Revival Style. It also has the hard pressed brick, rusticated sandstone foundation, symmetrical arrangement of windows, hip roof and horizontal lines of the other two with no distinguishing features. It has had no significant renovations. Originally it housed the Normal or Teachers Education Department of the University. On December 17, 1918, it became the location for industrial work and in 1948 was named the Home Economics Building.
  9. GEORGE THOMAS LIBRARY/UTAH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY–Completed in 1935, this building was financed with W.P.A. funds. Raymond Ashton and Raymond Evans were the architects. The building is eclectic; obviously designed to blend with the rest of the buildings. The rusticated front entrance is reminiscent of the Second Renaissance Revival. The Neo-Classical cornices over the entrance and around the top of the buildings reflect the Park Building. It was done in concrete and this made it unique at the time. Originally the library was named for George Thomas who was president of the University for twenty years from 1921-1941. In 1968 it was remodeled to become the Utah Museum of Natural History. This was accomplished without destroying the original character of the building. A concrete stair tower added to the rear is the only exterior modification. The building has several significant features. The art deco metal work around the entrance and in the interior, especially the stair rail, is quite nice. The foyer and two and a half feet up the lobby wall is done in birdseye marble found only in Utah County. The original dark oak woodwork remans and some rooms have oak walls. One room has a serpentine cornice of oak indicative of the art deco period. Several other rooms have 1930s style cornices in plaster. The building is nicely detailed.

History:

“The University of Deseret,” later to become the University of Utah in 1892, was established on February 28, 1850, two and one half years after the first group of Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. In 1850 the Mormons applied for admittance into the Union as the state of Deseret. When a General Assembly of the proposed state of Deseret met, it adopted in its eleventh ordinance of official business a resolution establishing the University of Deseret.

The seeds for this University sprang from a university organization begun in Nauvoo in 1841 by Dr. John Bennett, the Mayor of the city. Departments were established, professors chosen and plans were drawn; however no buildings were constructed. Financial stringency and the social conflict that led the Mormons to abandon Nauvoo ended the University development. However the idea did not die, and shortly after the Mormons arrived in the Great Salt Lake Valley it was re introduced. Education was valued highly in Mormon society, and the University was seen as a “parent school” for an entire school system. Under the parent school plan, the University was supposed to train the teachers for the public schools in the state.

When the ordinance was passed by the General Assembly, Orson Spencer was appointed Chancellor and a Board of Regents was established. They held their first meeting on March 13, 1850. The records show that the primary business of that meeting was to appoint a committee of three regents to act in connection with the Governor to select a site for the University. They selected 561 acres east of the city which the U. S. government later absorbed into the military reservation of Fort Douglas.

The actual building of the school on the east bench site was put aside until a later date. Instead a stone wall was built around this property and a building was put up in the Thirteenth Ward as a temporary home for the school. This was located east of State Street on Second South. Work did not progress, and it was decided to hold the first session of the University in the State or Council House, at the time nearing completion on the southwest corner of Main and South Temple Street. This was delayed also, so the University rented a parlor and adjacent room in the home of Mrs. John Pack, which was near the corner of West Temple and First North Streets. Orson Spencer was the director, and Dr. Cyrus Collins was the first teacher. They were to instruct in all branches taught in high school. These were arithmetic, elucidation, geography, grammar and declamation.

It was opened for young men, and the first class held on Monday, November 11, 1850, had 25 students. In February of 1852 the school was transferred to the State House with Chancellor Spencer teaching and W. W. Phelps his assistant. Beginning with this quarter registration was opened to young ladies. On November 29 a new session opened in the school house of the Thirteenth Ward.

In 1852, because of financial problems, the legislature rescinded the section of the act providing $5,000 annually for support of the University. The school was not able to become self-sufficient, so it remained closed for 13 years until 1867.

In November of 1867 the Board of Regents, at the instigation of Chancellor A. Carrington, decided to reestablish the University of Deseret. Classes were soon in operation in the Council House. It was a commercial college at this point. In 1869 the Regents voted to expand this department into fields more appropriate for a University, and in March they hired John R. Park as principal. He reorganized the school into two branches of study: the Normal or Teachers course which included English, mathematics, commercial business, and natural sciences; and the Collegiate Course which included all of the above plus German, French, higher mathematics, Latin and Greek with the classics. At this point it became a true University. The first session had 223 students and was taught in the Council House. The entire building was rented and remodeled.

On September 4, 1869, Dr. Park recommended starting a Model School, and the Board of Regents selected an old store next to the Tabernacle to house it. It began with 37 pupils in October but by spring of the next school year enrollment had risen to 250. It was moved to larger quarters in the Social Hall in 1871. The Model School was essentially a preparatory school for the University.

By 1870 the University began experiencing considerable difficulties. Because the valley was settled by Mormons, the governmental and social structure had always been interwoven with the L.D.S. Church. President Young, the leader of the church, was also the leader of the territory. All activities, even educational ones, were strongly connected with the church. The Deseret Alphabet, a phonetic alphabet invented by President Brigham Young, was being implemented in the school system. This had the affect of further isolating the educational system of the valley from the rest of the country. Since Dr. Park refused to allow the University to become sectarian and would not offer classes on church doctrine for separation of church and state. This feeling was not in keeping with the climate of the times and was viewed with suspicion by the leaders of the community, most of whom were Mormon. They considered this disassociation from the church as a threat to their beliefs and withdrew their support. The Board of Regents, influenced by this lack of support, voted to decrease the size and expenses of the University. When in 1871 President Young requested they cease the instruction of Latin and Greek because he considered this useless, the Board of Regents followed his instructions without consulting Dr. Park. By 1871 the Model School was the only part operating. President Young sent Dr. Park on a mission to the Eastern states and Europe to study education.

In 1872 Dr. Park returned from Europe and the Board of Regents decided to reopen the University. However Dr. Park was the only teacher. By 1873 the faculty was increased to four, among whom were Joseph Kingsbury, who later became President. It remained at this number for several years. During the 1876 term Park was informed that the Council House would be. needed by the Church and the University moved to a two-story building standing at the corner of Second West and First North. It was known as the Union Academy Building.

By 1880 the University had begun to flourish again, and it desperately needed more adequate buildings. A committee apointed to recommend changes chose Union Square in the 16th Ward as a site for the University. This was located on the northwest corner of First North and Second West. The city accepted the choice and gave the ground to the school. Plans were adopted for the building by the Board on April 15, 1881, and the legislature appropriated the $40,000. Governor Eli H. Murray vetoed it. However enough money was raised by subscriptions and borrowing to begin construction. In 1884 the legislature appropriated $50,000, but Governor Murray again vetoed it. His rationale was that the school was Mormon dominated. As a result construction work was halted. In 1886, the legislature appropriated $60,000 for completing the building; but, for the third time, Governor Murray nullified it. In 1888 a fourth bill was passed with a $25,451 appropriation.

Because Governor Murray had been removed by the President of the United States this bill was signed and the university allowed to finish its buildings. By the time it was completed it was already inadequate.

By 1890 the Union Square property was totally inadequate so President Park introduced a bill in the legislature of 1892 petitioning the United States Congress to grant to the University for its campus a strip not less than 60 acres from Fort Douglas.

1892 was a momentous year for the University. Governor Arthur L. Thomas approved an act to change the name of the University of Deseret to the University of Utah. Also in this year President Park resigned after increased tension with his faculty over his arbitrary assumption of power.

In 1894 the prosperity that had affected the valley from 1880 to 1894 reversed and again the University was without funds. The legislature decreased the appropriations and the Board voted to run the school within this smaller budget. Dr. James E. Talmadge was president between 1894 and 1897. In 1897 Dr. Joseph T. Kingsbury was chosen as his successor and was the President who moved the University to its new location.

In 1894 Congress passed the bill granting sixty acres from Ft. Douglas military reservation to the University of Utah. The grant included the ground between First and Fourth South, the west boundary running 400 feet east of 1300 East and parallel east boundary running 1,200 feet from the west one. In 1899 the legislature passed and the governor approved a bill to remove the University from its old location and construct buildings at the new site.

$200,000 was granted for this purpose. Joseph Kingsbury, president of the University, and Richard Kletting, the school architect, visited institutions in the East in preparation for designing the new campus. $180,000 was appropriated for the buildings and $20,000 for improving grounds, water and sewer connections and furniture.

Because of the small appropriation only three buildings were initially planned, the Library, the Normal Building, the Physical Science Building, and a modern heating plant. A fourth building of matching style was to be added soon after. W. H. Rovey, a Chicago contractor, got the bid for the buildings on September 15, 1899. (School opened for registration on October 1, 1900.)

The Library, one of the original buildings, was completed in 1901. It was named this because the Library occupied an L-shaped room on the west and north sides of the first floor. This library contained 12,950 volumes and there were seats for 100 students. In 1913 the library was moved to the newly completed Park Building and the structure was renamed the Liberal Arts Building and housed the liberal arts classes of the University. In November 1957 the Mathematics Department took over the building and it was renamed the Mathematics Building. The Math Department moved out of the building in December 1975 and it was temporarily renamed the Communications Building on February 12, 1976. Except for name and class changes the building has had very little done to it except some necessary modernization such as lavatories. Nothing has been done to the exterior.

The Normal Building, completed in 1901, was originally used by the Normal Department of the University. On December 17, 1918, it became the location for industrial work, and them it became the Home Economics Building in 1948. The only change to the building is a ceramic mural plaque which was put on the west wall of the entrance.

The Physical Science Building, also completed in 1901, was nearly destroyed by fire on the night of December 19, 1901. Foundations and walls were left in good condition up to the arches of the windows of the third floor. By September 1902 the building and its contents were restored under the direction of George Michel. In 1911 an extension was added to the north side of the Physical Science Building. This extension gives the building the uneven massing which distinguishes it from the other two original buildings. The interior of the building had extensive remodeling during the last part of 1975 in preparation for the Mathematical Department taking it over. The bearing walls and floors were kept but the rest of the building was redesigned and mechanical and air conditioning systems were revamped. An elevator was added at the north end. On March 8, 1976, the building was officially renamed the John A. Widtsoe Mathematical Building.

The Museum Building, part of the original plan, was not completed until 1902 because the initial appropriations did not allow for four buildings. Samuel C. Dallas, another prominent Salt Lake architect, designed this building. Richard Kletting and the University had parted ways over money. The first floor contained the Geology and Minerology Departments and the Geological Museum across the west end. The second floor contained the Biological Department with the Biological Museum across the west end. The third floor has the assembly room with the roon on the west serving as the Gym. The building became the biology building on September 29, 1931. It was named the James E. Talmadge Biology Building on March 8, 1976. Like the others this building had had no exterior changes and only those interior modifications necessary to keep the building functioning.

The Park Building began a new phase of construction on campus. In 1911 a proposal finally passed the legislature for $300,000 raised through bonds to build an administration building. Construction began on July 8, 1912. Samuel C. Dallas and William S. Hedges were the architects. A report of the Regents to the legislature of 1907 had specified that, “the main building should be an imposing and beautiful structure costing not less than $250,000 on account of the plainness of the present buildings.” Their imposing building was ready for use in March 1914. On June 9, 1919, the building was dedicated and renamed the John R. Park Building. By 1921 a statue of John Park was commissioned by the University of Utah alumni at the cost of $20,000 to be placed on a pedestal in front of the building. The sculptor was Mahonri Young, a noted Salt Lake Sculptor. It was erected during the June commencement exercises of that year.

Since its initial construction the building has undergone several reworkings to accommodate its changing functions. When the George Thomas Library was completed December 4, 1935, the library facilities which had been there since it was built were removed and the upper floors of the Park Building were remodeled for use by the Departments of Psychology and Anthropology and the School of Law. Funds were provided by the P.W.A. On April 11, 1949 $200,000 was allocated to remodel the upper floor of the Park Building to house the Hudnut and Hatch art collection. During this year the basement and the first floor were remodeled and an extension was added to the east for additional floor space. This cost $185,000. In 1953 additional minor remodeling was done by Olson Construction Company with Paul Evans the architect. This time they reworked the basement floor to handle student traffic. On May 9, 1966, Gulp Construction’s bid of $368,000 was approved and work began on the second and third floors to house the offices of the President and Deans. In 1971 more administrative offices were made on the fourth floor of the building in the space vacated by the art collection when it moved to its own area by the Art and Architecture Building.

A dining hall was built in 1919. It accommodated 600 people at once and relieved the Gym which had been serving as a dining hall. The $40,000 needed to build it was received from State appropriations for War Emergency Work. Later, in 1932, it became the Geology Building after the cafeteria was transferred to the newly completed Student Union. The annex to this building was financed with W.P.A. funds paying for four fifths of it.

By 1927 the need for an auditorium on campus was critical. Originally an auditorium was supposed to be part of the plan of the Park Building but it was not built because of lack of money. An architectural competition was held. This was the first time one of the University buildings was designed this way. The requirements were that the building was supposed to conform to the architecture of the Park Building. The regents wanted “something simple, in harmony with the other buildings.” Edward O. Anderson and Lorenzo S. Young won first prize. W. J. Dean was the general contractor. Kingsbury Hall was completed May 22, 1930, and cost $275,000. The murals were done in the auditorium of the Hall in 1946 as a government project. They were designed and painted by Florence E. Ware, and were entitled “Evolution of Drama Through the Ages.” Florence Ware, a native of Salt Lake City, was a graduate of the University of Utah and the Chicago Art Institute.

At the time Kingsbury Hall was being planned, the students expressed an urgent need for a Union j Building. The students paid for the building from fees added to their tuition. In 1930 Raymond J. Ashton and Raymond L. Evans were selected as the architects and it too was supposed to conform to the architecture of the Park Building. Thomas Child was the general contractor. The building was opened November 25, 1931. When a bigger Union was built in the fifties, David C. Haines and Arne R. Purhonen were selected to remodel the Union Building interior for a music building. On March 11, 1957, it was officially renamed the Music Hall. It was completed January 1958.

The last building built around the U was the George Thomas Library. W.P.A. funds were provided under the National Recovery Act to finance its construction. Ashton and Evans were the architects. Raymond Ashton accompanied President George Thomas to California to consider buildings of concrete construction. $550,000 was granted for construction and George Whitney and Sons of Ogden was the general contractor. On June 25, 1934, the cornerstone was placed, and the building was dedicated December, 1935. In the sixties the library outgrew this building and it was decided to remodel it to become the Utah Musem of Natural History. Plans were made late in 1966, but it was not until 1968 that they were approved and the remodeling work begun.

Obviously W.P.A. monies played a significant role in the development of the University. The depression of the thirties affected Utah as severely as it did the rest of the nation and the Public Works Program, applied through the University, supplied jobs, built up the campus and brought students back to the school. Historically it was the first support of state education with federal funds. Implementation of the Public Works Program began with the granting of $30,000 to be used for employment Of students on projects to improve the campus. The state legislature, in a special session in 1933, set up agencies to administer the funds. From 1933 through the rest of the decade there was a frequent allotment of federal money for projects in which the University was required to pay a portion of the total cost. In the autumn of 1935, 700 students were able to attend the University as a result of these funds. By September 1, 1941, the expenses on these projects totaled $726,988 with the W.P.A. paying $450,320 for labor and the University paying $276,668 for materials. These funds were used for improvements on grounds and buildings chiefly by way of renovations and additions.

The University has continued to expand its boundaries beyond the 1894 grant. It acquired an additional 32 acres in 1904 and 61 acres from Fort Douglas in 1934. Three hundred additional acres were given in 1948, extending the campus eastward. Significantly the administrational facilities have remained in the Park Building, and this has kept the “U” as the gates of the University. Visitors, necessarily coming to the Park Building, approach the University through the giant horseshoe passing the main gates at the west end. Therefore the old portion of the campus remains the entrance to the rest of the area. Since Kingsbury Hall and the Museum serve the residents of Salt Lake, the old “U” is still the part of campus most often seen by visitors.

During the past 75 years the campus has grown to 1,500 acres with over 149 permanent buildings. There are 1,500 day classes offered each quarter through 15 colleges and professional schools. The enrollment has reached 23,000 students representing all 50 states and more than 50 foreign countries. The University has a staff of 6,677 and faculty of 3,153.

Description:.

Two major styles are present in the University District. The early buildings done between 1899 and 1905 were done in a simplified version of the Second Renaissance Revival. They all have the rusticated sandstone foundations with pressed hard brick for the rest of the exteriors. The symmetrical arrangement of the windows with the square bays at the bottom and the Roman bays at the top is a characteristic feature of the style as is the horizontal quality and the hip roof. The window treatment and the cross hatching pattern in the brick below the roof line is carried through all these buildings. Richard Kletting designed the first three and conceived the overall plan for the grouping of the buildings. S. C. Dallas did the fourth building in the same mode after Kletting and the University had a disagreement over money.

The Park building, completed in 1914, departed from the simplicity of the earlier buildings. It was done in the Neo-Classical Revival. The common features are the broad expanses of plain wall surface, the quiet roof line, the square window bays, the dental molding, the ionic columns, and the pedimented portico at the main entrance. S. C. Dallas and William Hedges were the architects for the building. The style and color of the Park Building established a precedent for the next buildings completed in 1930 and 1931. They were commissioned to conform to the architecture of the Park building. They too have the classical orders, columns, pilasters and pediments done with a little more electicism. The final building in the district, completed in 1935, came after the Neo-Classical Revival was passe’ but in its expanses of flat wall surface and decorative cornice it relates to the Neb-Classical buildings. Its resticated stone entrance recalls the Renaissance Revival buildings on campus. The building is an electic combination of the two styles.

Boundary:

The University of Utah Circle Historic District begins on University Street at a point approximately 310 feet north of the intersection of 200 South Street and University Street; then runs east approximately 430 feet behind buildings 1 and 2 (Union/Music Building and Kingsbury Hall) where it turns to the southeast at approximately a 45 degree angle for a distance of approximately 940 feet behind buildings 3, 4, and 5 (Physical Science Building/ John A. Widstoe Mathematical Building, Library/Communications Building, and Park Building) to the northeast corner of building 6 (Dining Hall/Geology Building) then south along the east side of the building to its southeast corner, a distance of approximately 125 feet, then west along the south side of building 6 and behind or on the south side of buildings 7, 8 and 9 (Museum/ James E. Talmadge Biology Building, Normal/Home Economics Building, and the George Thomas Library/Utah Museum of Natural History) a distance of approximately 1180 feet to University Street, then north along the east side of University Street, approximately 690 feet to the point of beginning.

Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District

21 Wednesday Feb 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts, NRHP, Ogden, Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District, utah, Weber County

Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District

Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District is the area from 20th Street to 30th Street and from Adams Avenue to Harrison Boulevard in Ogden, Utah.

Previously Listed National Listings, Jefferson Avenue Register/Contributing Properties Within District Boundaries (Individual District, Eccles District, Three-Story Apartment Listings):

  • 2461 Adams Ave – Perry Apartments – 1909
  • 2509 Adams Ave – Leroy & Myrtle Banks Eccles House – 1917
  • 2522 Adams Ave – John Shannon & Louisa Curtis Houtz House – 1910
  • 2529 Adams Ave – Mr. J. M. & Mrs. Otis Canse House – 1914
  • 2532 Adams Ave – William & Wilhelmine Green/Sherman House – 1914
  • 2533 Adams Ave – William & Bertha Eccles/Morrell Wright House – 1911
  • 2540 Adams Ave – Edmund Orson & Martha Bybee Wattis House – 1914
  • 2545 Adams Ave – Leroy/Larkin, Elijah A. & Rosella Eccles House – 1911
  • 2555 Adams Ave – Dr. Hugh & Vern Tavey Rowe House – 1912
  • 2565 Adams Ave – Marriner Adams & Dorothea Browning House – 1914
  • 2579 Adams Ave – Fern Apartments – 1923
  • 2580 Adams Ave – Patrick & Jr. & Mary Sodwick Healy House – 1920
  • 2509 Eccles Ave – LeRoy Eccles Home
  • 2522 Eccles Ave – John Shannon Houtz Home
  • 2529 Eccles Ave – James M. Canse/Ottis Weeks Home
  • 2532 Eccles Ave – Virginia Houtz Green/William H. Shearman Home
  • 2533 Eccles Ave – William Wright/Joseph Morrell Home
  • 2540 Eccles Ave – Edmund Orson Wattis Home
  • 2545 Eccles Ave – Elijah Larkin Home
  • 2555 Eccles Ave – Hugh M. Rowe Home
  • 2565 Eccles Ave – Marriner A. Browning Home
  • 2508 Jackson Ave – Royal & Cleone Eccles House – 1924
  • 2513 Jackson Ave – J. Willard Marriott House – 1927
  • 2529 Jackson Ave – 1911
  • 2536 Jackson Ave – Clarence C. Hetzel House – 1915
  • 2540 Jackson Ave – 1926
  • 2541 Jackson Ave – 1955
  • 2548 Jackson Ave – 1924
  • 2553 Jackson Ave – 1922
  • 2554 Jackson Ave – 1925
  • 2557 Jackson Ave – 1926
  • 2560 Jackson Ave – 1924
  • 2563 Jackson Ave – 1918
  • 2567 Jackson Ave – 1922
  • 2575 Jackson Ave – 1927
  • 2248 Jefferson Ave – Helms Apartments – 1920
  • 2300 Jefferson Ave – Upton Apartments – 1925
  • 2519 Jefferson Ave – First Baptist Church – 1923
  • 2520 Jefferson Ave – Thomas H. Carr House – 1910
  • 2523 Jefferson Ave – Edmund T. Hulanski House – 1891
  • 2532 Jefferson Ave – Thomas A. Whalen House – 1889
  • 2539 Jefferson Ave – Farnsworth Apartments – 1922
  • 2540 Jefferson Ave – Hill / Hoxer House – 1889
  • 2546 Jefferson Ave – Fred M. Nye House – 1910
  • 2554 Jefferson Ave – Boreman Hurlbut House – 1889
  • 2555 Jefferson Ave – Spencer Eccles House – 1895
  • 2560 Jefferson Ave – John G. Tyler House – 1891
  • 2575 Jefferson Ave – Thomas Jordan Stevens House – 1891
  • 2580 Jefferson Ave – Bertha Eccles House – 1890
  • 2604 Jefferson Ave – James Pingree House – 1908
  • 2606 Jefferson Ave – First Methodist Church – 1928
  • 2615 Jefferson Ave – 1906
  • 2619 Jefferson Ave – George Halverson House – 1915
  • 2627 Jefferson Ave – Richard & Ellen Leek House – 1905
  • 2631 Jefferson Ave – Frank A. Baker House – 1890
  • 2640 Jefferson Ave – Emil & Emma Bratz House – 1903
  • 2646 Jefferson Ave – 1908
  • 2656 Jefferson Ave – Thomas Beason House – 1910
  • 2659 Jefferson Ave – 1910
  • 2660 Jefferson Ave – Alfred Meek House – 1890
  • 2663 Jefferson Ave – 1900
  • 2668 Jefferson Ave – William Scott House – 1890
  • 2670 Jefferson Ave – B. G. & R. C. Nye Blackman House – 1891
  • 2671 Jefferson Ave – William “Coin” Harvey House – 1891
  • 2683 Jefferson Ave – John & Amy Corlew House – 1903
  • 2687 Jefferson Ave – 1910
  • 2418 Madison Ave – Madison School – 1890
  • 2622 Madison Ave – John Dalton House – 1890
  • 2681 Madison Ave – Flowers Apartments – 1923
  • 2465 Monroe Blvd – Fontenelle Apartments – 1924
  • 2485 Monroe Blvd – Hillcrest Apartments – 1923
  • 2408 Van Buren Ave – Gustav Becker House – 1915
  • 2432 Van Buren Ave – Elmhurst Apartments – 1929
  • 2507 Van Buren Ave – 1925
  • 2516 Van Buren Ave – 1905
  • 2524 Van Buren Ave – Witherell House – 1889
  • 2527 Van Buren Ave – Dr. Ezekiel R. & Edna Wattis Dumke House – 1917
  • 2538 Van Buren Ave – Earl E. & Elizabeth E. Greenwell House – 1919
  • 2541 Van Buren Ave – Ruth W. & Marriner S. Eccles Gwilliam House – 1917
  • 2544 Van Buren Ave – 1905
  • 2547 Van Buren Ave – Peter D. & Helen I. Kline House – 1913
  • 2550 Van Buren Ave – 1885
  • 2553 Van Buren Ave – 1921
  • 2558 Van Buren Ave – “Taylor Made” Apartments – 1927
  • 2559 Van Buren Ave – 1924
  • 2571 Van Buren Ave – 1929
  • 823 23rd St – Arvondor Apartments – 1925
  • 795 24th St – Heber Scowcroft House – 1925
  • 549 25th St – Don Maguire Duplex – 1891
  • 607 25th St – David Eccles House – 1904
  • 635 25th St – Dennis Smyth House – 1889
  • 726 25th St – Andrew Warner House – 1890
  • 802 25th St – McGregor Apartments – 1924
  • 961 25th St – Avon Apartments – 1908
  • 583 26th St – Amos & Eva Corey House – 1884
  • 670 26th St – Ladywood Apartments – 1926
  • 461 27th St – La Frantz Apartments – 1920
  • 505 27th St – John Browning House – 1900
  • 579 27th St – Fairview Apartments – 1916

The Central Bench Historic District is significant under both Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, the district is significant as Ogden’s largest historic residential neighborhood, with a period of historical significance dating from 1877 to 1954. The buildings reflect the transition of Ogden’s residential neighborhoods as the city emerged from its agricultural beginnings to become a major center for government, commerce, education, and industry. Prominent families involved in local, state, and national affairs all made the Central Bench Historic District their home. Although the district is primarily residential in nature, it also includes an institution of higher learning, several religious facilities, and various commercial buildings. Because of the diversity of uses, historically the neighborhood was self sustaining, further differentiating it from the industrial/commercial sector of town. Under Criterion C the district is architecturally significant for the diversity and integrity of the buildings. The district contains the best concentration in the city of examples of historic styles and types that were popular both in Ogden and throughout Utah. The houses range from early vernacular Classical style to high-style Victorian architecture to more modest bungalow, period revival, and post World War II styles. The historical and architectural diversity in the neighborhood, along with the high concentration (73%) of well preserved, contributing historic buildings makes the Central Bench Historic District the most important historical neighborhood in the city of Ogden.

Early Development and Structures: 1870s to 1887

Exploration and Settlement

The first European-American settler of Ogden, Miles Goodyear, built a fur trading post in 1845 on an attractive spot of the Weber River, not far from where the Weber and Ogden Rivers converge. In 1847 he sold the property to Captain James Brown, a one-time leader of the Mormon Battalion. Soon after, numerous Mormon families started to migrate to the area. In 1850 Brigham Young, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, established the basic plan for the city. More Mormon families were sent to settle the area, and in 1851 Deseret incorporated the city of Ogden, with Lorin Farr being called to serve as its first mayor. Later in 1851, Henry Sherwood surveyed the streets, blocks, and lots as planned by Brigham Young. An early Ogden journalist noted, “Those who planned the future of Ogden intended that the city should be a mile square; that they made the blocks to contain 10 acres, divided into 10 lots of one acre each; the blocks were 660 feet square and the streets were 99 feet wide excepting Main Street (Washington Boulevard) which was 132 feet wide; the first plat provided for 56 blocks, arranged in seven rows of eight blocks each.” A large portion of that original plat included part of the Central Bench Historic District, the area between 21st and 28th Streets and Adams and Madison Avenue, approximately one-third of the district. Originally, the streets in the district were given names other than United States Presidents. Starting at the western boundary of the district moving eastward the streets were titled Spring (Adams), Smith (Jefferson), Pearl (Madison), Green (Monroe), East (Quincy), 1st East (Jackson), and 2nd East (Van Buren). The streets that ran east to west have also been changed. Twenty blocks were added to its original development, and for instance 1st Street and 4th Street are now known as 21st Street and 24th Street, with twenty blocks added northward to its original development.

Ogden Valley’s geographical make-up played an important role in the early settlement of the city and subsequent development in the Central Bench District. On the eastern border of Ogden lies the Wasatch Mountain Range, with the Weber and Ogden Rivers flowing through it and emptying into the Great Salt Lake, lying just west of the city. In the early 1850s as Mormon families began to move to Ogden in large numbers, the most desirable land was that which was located between the two rivers in the northwest corner of town, with its rich soil and easy irrigation. A good portion of the area was surveyed into farming tracts and large numbers of people settled portions of the riverbanks. By the mid-1850s this desirable portion of town was largely populated and the community started to look eastward for expansion. And in 1855, under the direction of Isaac N. Goodale, appointed by Brigham Young, construction of the Ogden Bench Canal had begun. Canals and irrigation ditches were a common feature in almost all Mormon platted towns.

The building of the canal was an important endeavor, as an editorial in the Ogden-Standard Examiner stated in 1945, “The story of the Ogden Bench Canal is pretty much the history of early Ogden.” The purpose of the canal was to use the canyon streams east of Ogden to provide irrigation to the bench area in order to sustain the newly developing community. Running north to south the canal flowed from the northern tier of the city (at the time 21st Street) to the southernmost boundary (28th Street), and from east to west it cut through just below 2nd East (Van Buren Avenue) and ended up near Green Street (Monroe Boulevard). Another important early canal was the Weber Canal. Although it did not run through much of the district (it only ran through the area of the 2800 and 2900 block of Porter Avenue (a half-block between Adams and Jefferson Avenues) and left the district westward on 28th Street) it did give the Boyle family, who resided between Adams and Jefferson Avenues on 28th Street, power to run tools to make their patented furniture. The curved street between 28th and 29th Streets on Porter Avenue is a good reminder of the canal; when the block was subdivided in the early 1900s the street was graded following the crooked path of the canal.

Community Development and Planning

By 1860 limited building and settlement had started to take place in the district. A Deseret News article described the gradual movement of families to the area in 1863, “A few of the settlers, preferring to dwell on more sightly [sic] ground and where the streets, with slight grading, would be passable most of the year, have located themselves on the upland, or bench, as it is usually called, where the houses generally, as in further witness of their good taste, if not superior judgment, are of a neat and comfortable appearance and, so far as I could learn, fully occupied by an eminently practical and enterprising class of citizens.” The term “bench” was fittingly designated early on for the area because of its unique geographical position to the rest of the city, lying on a small hill looking down on the rest of Ogden.

Throughout the 1860s development was gradual and persistent in Ogden and in the bench neighborhood; by the end of the decade Ogden’s population had grown to 3,000, from 1,500 in 1860. Then in 1869 the Union Pacific Railroad Company completed the railroad through Ogden, and after the transcontinental connection was made at Promontory, Utah, it was agreed that Ogden was the ideal intersection for the east-west railroads. It was more difficult for the railroad companies to decide where the intersection for the north-south railroad would be located, as Corinne, located 15 miles northwest of Ogden, was better geographically located. However, after Brigham Young promoted Ogden by deeding 131 acres of land to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific, the decision was made to make the city the hub of the north-south lines. Ogden soon became the “Junction City” of the Intermountain West.

The early impact of the railroad was significant, however in the beginning it did not change the face of the Central Bench immensely. In an 1875 reproduction of Ogden, a bird’s eye view of the district shows a sparsely developed community with only a few structures located on each block. One of the earliest homes remaining in the district was constructed during this era. The Hathron Chauncey Hadlock House, c. 1877, is located at 478 28th Street.

Other kinds of development started to take place in the district as the bench area started to solidify itself as a key residential sector of the city. A good example of that is found at Liberty Square (now Lester Park). The tree-lined park, located at 25th Street and Jefferson Avenue, was initiated for public use in 1870, and soon became a popular meeting place for religious groups, political organizations, school functions, parties, and other. activities. One decade later, as it became an important gathering place, a large drinking fountain and dance pavilion was added to the park.

During the 1880s, as Ogden’s population continued to grow in larger numbers due largely to the impact of the railroad, the Central Bench remained to be a predominantly rural community. A well-preserved example of the rural folk house of this period of time is the small picturesque cottage located at 937 22nd Street, constructed by local builder Henry Ware in 1887. The John F. Gay House, located at 2121 Adams Avenue, is another notable home constructed during this era. Mr. Gay was a Utah pioneer of 1851 and was a lieutenant in the Utah Black Hawk War in Manti in 1865. He came to Ogden in the late 1860s and commissioned William W. Fife to design and build this large Gothic Revival style residence in 1885.

According to Olivia Gay, J.F. Gay’s daughter, the home was the first residential structure in the city to be built and designed by an architect. In fact, the 1880s is when Ogden first started to witness a number of buildings being erected by architects.

Architecture

Early Architects/Builders
William W. Fife is the most noted early professional architect in Ogden; prior to this era in Ogden and Utah in general the housing design at the local level was usually the responsibility of the person in the building trade. As an architect Mr. Fife designed several early structures in the district, as was the case with the Gay House. Mr. Fife was born in Ogden in 1856. His father, William Nicol Fife, was a well-known builder and contractor from whom W.W. Fife received his training at a very young age. While just a teenager, W.W. Fife helped run his father’s business. And although W.W. Fife died in his fortieth year, his accomplishments in the building of the city were second to none. Mr. Fife also resided in the district at 2122 Adams Avenue, building the Vernacular-Classical style hall-parlor family home c. 1885. In addition to William N. and William W. Fife, some other early builders in the district include D.D. Jones, who was also listed as an architect in the late 1880s. Henry Mortensen, who resided and ran the family business M.F. Mortenson and Sons in the district, lived just above Madison Avenue on 23rd Street. Nils C. Flygare, who was a contractor, resided in the district on 24th Street just above Monroe Boulevard.

To supply the aforementioned builders and other early settlers in constructing their homes, several industries were established. Ogden’s first Mayor, Lorin Farr, was instructed by Brigham Young to build a sawmill and gristmill, which were established as early as 1851 to aid the Ogden pioneers. Ogden Canyon was the early settler’s favorite location to collect timber for construction of their homes. A sawmill was later placed in the canyon, and other mills were also placed elsewhere throughout the city. Adobe supplemented lumber in Ogden’s early years. A large adobe “hole,” where adobe was made, could be found lying east of the cemetery and just across from the northern boundary of the Central Bench District; undoubtedly this is the location where several of the early home’s material in the district were made. Other industries related to building during the 1850s-1880s were also established, such as stone quarries, limekilns, brick kilns, carpentry, plumbing, painting, and tinsmithing. The materials needed for home building was made possible for early builders, by the early Ogden settlers, and everything could be found within the city; and by the late-1880s materials became even more available due to the advent of the railroad in Ogden City.

Subdivisions
Another new development in the 1880s in Ogden was that of subdivisions. As will be seen the proliferation of subdivisions occurred greatly in the very late-1880s, however, Ogden’s first subdivision-Kershaw’s, was platted in 1881 by A.J. Kershaw. Kershaw Avenue was eventually changed to Eccles Avenue in the 1910s, after the development of the Eccles Subdivision, which lies one block south of Kershaw’s.

It is clear that by 1887 the Central Bench had started to establish itself as the dominant residential sector in Ogden. Located on the bench, it was a place where families could move to escape the more bustling and busy area of town west of the district. The bench area slowly became a destination for a wide variety of people, including railroad employees, merchants, laborers, and businessmen. As was noted in a publication of the University of Utah Graduate School of Architecture, “After becoming a railroad hub in the 1870s and 1880s, Ogden slowly developed something of a split personality. A schism emerged between the residential and commercial area running east from Washington Boulevard, and the western industrial district, located near the rail yard.” And of the Central Bench they concluded that it was an attractive sector of the city with tree-lined, middle-class neighborhoods and represented stability, refinement, and peacefulness. Indeed, this sentiment of a need for a stable and peaceful neighborhood only grew as Ogden was approaching a new, more rapidly changing turn to greater growth and development.

A good percentage of the homes that were built pre-1887 in the neighborhood have been razed, with most demolished by the end of the 1920s to make room for more modern houses. Also, during the early days of the Central Bench, most families initially settled on large parcels of land and built smaller adobe and wood frame houses, usually with a stable and/or a barn in the rear of the property. As many of these Ogden pioneering families grew in size by the turn of the century, so would the need to increase the size of the home. So, many demolished their original dwelling and constructed a new home on the site or kept the old dwelling for a while and built new structures on their surrounding property, sometimes building homes for their children. William G. Biddle and family, of 2447 Monroe Boulevard, is a good example of this process.

The Biddles, Mormon pioneers, trekked to Utah in the early 1860s and by 1870 had settled on an acre of land in Ogden, located on the 2400 block of Monroe Boulevard (Green Street). They built a small rectangular shaped wood frame home on the north end of the lot. Two decades later the Biddies demolished this home and built a more modern Victorian Queen Anne style dwelling at 2447 Monroe on the south half of the lot; after demolishing the old home and building the new, the Biddies then sold the north half of their lot. Many other residents would simply build their home in the rear of the lot and years down the road build a modern home closer to the street front.

Another factor that changed the older face of the district during the building and population boom that was to come during 1888-1892, was that many families started to subdivide lots to help provide land and make profit during the boom, and their old property was systematically absorbed by Ogden’s expansion. Replacement homes were very common in the district, old homes being demolished and replaced by newer homes on the original home’s site. The years prior to 1888 were a time of settlement and growth for the district and helped set up what was to become one of the largest 5-year spans of growth in the district and city’s history.

Growth, Prosperity, and the Changing Face of the District, 1888-1899

Social History

The district is important in that it portrays the development of civic life during the late-1800s, serving as the main residential neighborhood in the entire county. This could be seen during that era as people, ranging from blue collar workers to businessmen, flocked to the area.

Ogden’s “Boom” and Sudden Popularity
In the early months of 1888 the Ogden Semi-Weekly Standard started to pay particular attention to a rather peculiar demand for rental housing in the city. In the past, several houses in the city had been built for the sole purpose of renting. The homes were constructed in numbers to more than meet the demand of renters coming to Ogden, and were offered at a reasonable price. However, by early-1888, homes that were easily procured at the renters own price in 1887, could hardly be attained now at any figure. As one gentleman residing in Ogden remarked, “There had probably never been so great a demand for rentable houses as there is at the present.” It was mentioned that the “Junction City” was starting to enjoy a season of prosperity that was causing the citizens to enjoy the highest satisfaction, and to look forward to the future with a renewed energy. Although Ogden had seen considerable growth since the railroad’s arrival in 1869, no one was likely prepared for the boom that lay directly ahead.

It was suggested that investors with the means start to put money into building well-appointed tenement houses. Soon, talk of construction for the upcoming summer months was underway. In addition to the many public institutions that were projected, the building of residences was highly discussed, particularly in the Central Bench District. It was in the hope that the new homes would provide for the many who were moving to Ogden to work for railroad related businesses, create jobs for the unemployed, and add to the appearance of the city which had started to be more recognized. Realizing the possibility of a real estate boom, investors started to take notice of the city. In February a timely article in the Ogden Standard was published forewarning Ogden citizens of the upcoming real estate boom. It was emphasized that individuals who had a homestead or owned a tract of land not feel entitled to sell it. It was also suggested that people not get caught up in buying land for speculative purposes in order to not drive away those interested in Ogden, and so those who wanted to buy land to build on could do so affordably.

Several factors, over and above being the railroad hub of the intermountain West, played into the attention Ogden starting receiving in 1888. Mr. Alfred H. Nelson, proprietor of the Weber County abstracts and an old time realtor of Seattle during its boom days, who came to Ogden in 1883 because of the potential he seen of it becoming a robust city, was quoted as saying, “The only wonder is that the attention of Ogden has been so long delayed, as no other city in the West equals it as a railway and commercial center.” Moreover he claimed, “The attractions of Ogden are manifold, and no one article could do it justice.” He went on to discuss Ogden’s importance as a commercial and manufacturing center, the high quality of land and easiness to obtain the lands as land titles in Ogden were the most accurate he had ever seen, Ogden’s geographical location in terms of its proximity to the Great Salt Lake and beautiful Wasatch Mountains, and best of all its climate. His explanation for Ogden being overlooked in the past was the fact that Salt Lake City had been synonymous to Utah, and consequently the only place people came to stay or visit.

Mr. Nelson did have faith in the city, as can be seen by the several residences he built here, particularly in the Central Bench District. A good example is the Victorian style central block with bays home he had built at 506 23rd Street, which was used throughout most of its history as a rental unit. Many others had respectable views of the city. A visitor of the city remarked, “There is no place but Ogden for me, I like the broad progressive liberal-mindedness of her citizens, I adore the sociability which is to found within her borders, and the activity which characterizes her.

In light of the increasing “buzz” about Ogden, builders and contractors were looking forward to the largest building season they had experienced in years. This perception was no understatement. Numerous homes were constructed during 1888. The availability and ability to obtain products such as lumber and brick were made possible through the railroad, and labor was readily at hand as many moved to the city to work. By April of 1888 the largest brick factory west of St. Louis was located in Ogden , within the Central Bench District between Madison and Jefferson Avenues and 28th and 29th Streets (demolished). Doubtless, a good percentage of the homes that are still standing in the district from this boom era were constructed using the brick of the plant. By the end of 1888, the foundation had been laid in order to bring in another prosperous year and the outlook in the beginning 1889 was that it was to be the best year Ogden had ever had in terms of business, growth, and building.

One of the interesting developments in 1889 was the increasing attention the city was receiving by people who lived outside of Utah. The Denver and Rio Grande Western, along with the Union Pacific, started taking investors, developers, etc. from Denver to Ogden in March of 1889. The excursions were advertised in newspapers in nearby places such as Colorado, and articles were published in the Ogden Standard to make citizens aware and urged the community to take their part in welcoming the visitors and making sure their stay was a pleasant one-to showcase Ogden in the best possible light. In fact, many Ogdenites took this to heart. When one Ogdenite was asked by an excursionist from back east what he thought of Ogden, the citizen replied, “I think it is the best city in the this part of the country and if I had $50,000 to invest, I would invest it all in this city.” Needless to say, this type of response was common and made the city even more enticing.

To boost the city even more, in conjunction with Salt Lake City, the Chambers of Commerce gathered the lilacs that bloomed during the spring in Ogden and loaded them into a Denver and Rio Grande Western railcar; as the train headed eastward to Colorado a number of boosters handling the lilacs made them into small bunches suitable for boutonnieres and bouquets. Colorado responded, at every station where the train stopped there was a crowd of people asking, “Which is the lilac car?” Colorado was not the only state moved by the boom that was occurring in Ogden. People, such as C.D. Hammond all the way from New York, made their way to Ogden to invest in Ogden property. By now, the boom was now well underway. For instance, in a single day in April over $180,000 changed hands over property. Several individuals from places such as Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado; Paola, Kansas; and Syracuse, New York, all were shown making investments on OQ that one day. Real estate investors alone were not the only people coming to Ogden. Builders, architects, and contractors were moving to the city in large numbers. The same was true for businessmen and others looking to put themselves in a better position. The people who came to Ogden quickly saw the bench area was the place of choice to settle, as the division line that had started to separate the residential district from the rest of the town before 1888 took form during the boom years.

Most of the newcomers who made their way to Ogden during 1889 made their new homes in the Central Bench District. Architects John Collins (home and office located at 2670 Jackson Avenue), Francis C. Woods (he built the Catholic Church at 506 24th Street and Madison School at 2418 Madison Avenue), George A. d’Hemcourt (resided at 874 23rd Street), and Charles J. Humphris (he designed the homes at 2605 Jackson Avenue) all made the Central Bench their home.

Businessmen and entrepreneurs were also attracted to the Central Bench. The hope of becoming wealthy lured them to Ogden, and the peacefulness of the highly expanding bench neighborhood led them to build a home and reside there. Fred Morgan Nye is a good example. He was born and raised in Eureka, Kansas, and received his higher education at Beloit College in Wisconsin, and at Knox College in Illinois. He resided at 2546 Jefferson Avenue. After completing school and hearing the news of Ogden’s boom, he moved to the city to open up a clothing store. Other notable businessmen moving to the district included O.A. Parmley (730 25th Street), S.H. Hendershot (1165 25th Street), James G. Paine (2103 Adams Avenue), and John T. Hurst (2535 Adams Avenue). The individuals aforementioned were not the exception to the rule in 1889, the story was repeated over and over again as Ogden and the Central Bench District expanded. In fact, the increase of total real estate sales in Ogden jumped up from just over 1.2 million in 1888, to over 5.6 million in 1889.

Change and Continued Growth

Liberal politics in Ogden, as opposed to the earlier predominately Mormon operated and run city, were transpiring as well. In 1889 the Liberal party of Ogden reached its pinnacle when every party candidate running for office defeated their rival Mormon People’s party candidates, with Fred J. Kiesel elected to the office of mayor. The following day the Utah Daily Union summed up the election on their headline, “Ogden Americanized.” Several of the party members lived in the bench neighborhood, including Mayor Kiesel, who resided on the corner of 25th and Adams (demolished), and City Recorder John W. McNutt, who resided in an attractive Eastlake Victorian dwelling at 614 24th Street. One of the most noticeable changes the Liberal Party brought about while in office was the changing of the street names in the city. Several of the original names were named after Mormon figures, such as Smith and Young; they were then replaced with the names of the United States Presidents. Not only were the Liberal party members involved in politics, they were also involved in business and most importantly real estate. For instance, in 1888 and 1889, when the city offered lots for sale in Plat C of the city (which approximately makes up the eastern quarter of the Central Bench District), four-fifths of the lots were bought up by Liberal Party members. By 1889, the Mormons and “Gentiles” (as non-Mormons were known locally) clearly started to mesh.

As the bench community’s expansion continued in 1889, the area was not free of problems. In addition to the sanitation and public health issues, in Ogden the question of how to build and how to divide lots and blocks became a key issue. The concern of dividing blocks and lots stemmed from the way the blocks were carved into lots from the original Mormon town plan. Each consecutive block was reversed in the laying out of the lots. For example in one-half of the blocks the lots were twenty rods north and south by eight rods east and west, with the other blocks just the opposite. Narrowing the, streets was also a popular topic of discussion. Many residents thought the streets to be a nuisance and that the cow-pasture and hay-wagon period had passed, thus the large streets were no longer needed. By narrowing the streets, property owners would have more land for their lots, and then sidewalks and roads could be paved with more ease. The construction of the era started to see new styles and better methods used in building. No longer were the shoddy building styles of the past acceptable, and builders were shied away from doing so, and according to a local newspaper, “They should be absolutely prohibited.” Indeed, the new buildings were constructed using better materials and craftsmanship never before seen in the city, and the hundreds of well-built Victorian homes remaining today in the district are testament of it.

More of the same continued throughout the end of 1889. Ogden was forging ahead and construction was vigorously underway by the early months of 1890. The population in Ogden was growing immensely, thus creating a pressing need for more housing. At one time the need for housing became so severe a group of men got together and formed a company that set out to import prefabricated homes from St. Paul, Minnesota. The homes were known as “famous” Totman houses, and were to be 1 1/2 stories tall with six bedrooms, costing $1000. At least one of these homes was constructed in the district in July of 1890, just east of Liberty Park.

Architects, builders, and realtors continued to flock to the city in record numbers. In fact, prior to 1888 real estate dealers in the city were very scarce, but by 1891 over 100 dealers could be found within the city. One of the most famous events held in Ogden during its boom days occurred in July of 1890, when Ogden realtor William Hope “Coin” Harvey, along with his fellow boosters the Order of Monte Cristo, tried to promote an economic Mardi Gras in Ogden, calling it the Rocky Mountain Carnival. Through the carnival, although it was not the success Mr. Harvey had hoped, Ogden received national attention and sold its position even more as a significant railroad and manufacturing center in the western United States. The city continued to grow, as did the bench neighborhood, and by 1890 the population in Ogden was up to 12,000. William H. Harvey left Ogden in 1893 to pursue his ambitions in the fight for the coinage of silver and in 1932 ran for the President of the United States under an independent party. While living in Ogden Mr. Harvey, who came to the city in 1888 from West Virginia, resided at 2671 Jefferson Avenue. It was in the atmosphere of the boom in 1890 that several of the residences on Jefferson Avenue were built. The line of homes, particularly between 25th Street and 27th Street, were referred to as “banker’s row,” as many of the people who lived in the area were bank personnel or others involved with the financial affairs of Ogden. The Jefferson Avenue District has previously been placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Indeed, 1890 marked another record year for Ogden. Ogden more than doubled total sales of real estate from just 5.6 million dollars in 1889 to over 12.1 million dollars in 1890; and in 1891 building and sales increased by an even greater percentage. In that year alone over 50 dwellings were constructed in the district. And in 1892 the district continued to grow. By the end of the boom years, which lasted from 1888-1892, Ogden had grown and prospered quickly; the city went from a more rural community with a thriving industry, to a full urban commercial and manufacturing center with an attractive residential neighborhood. There had been steady and continuous growth in commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, railroading, building, and in all sorts of other industries, most doubling to quadrupling in size. The Central Bench neighborhood’s foundation was quickly formed by the rapid development and creation of subdivisions, leaving the street and block pattern primarily how it is found today.

One-half of the district’s twenty-six subdivisions were developed over these five years. Bichsel’s, Capitol Block, Chamberlin’s, Corey’s, Dankowske’s, Dundee Place, Maguire’s, Moffit’s, Park Place, Rider’s, and Rushton Subdivision were all developed during the boom years. Realtors and investors of Ogden City developed many, and several were created by out-of-townsmen. Investors outside of Utah included, among many others, Hiram C. Rider (Rider’s Subdivision) from Denver, William F. Thompson and James C. Scott (Rushton Addition) also from Denver, arid Ronnie and Rose Moffit (Moffit’s Subdivision) from Wyoming.

The phenomenon of non-Ogden investors in the city may have started during this era, but it continued on throughout the later development of city. For instance in 1915, 1600 people from outside of Utah were listed as owners of Ogden real estate, with 400 of those residents from Colorado. Maguire’s Addition was developed by Don Maguire, a Vermont native who was highly educated, a writer, geologist, businessman, builder, and scientist, developed a subdivision then attempted to sell his individual lots to people from out of state. One advertisement placed in the newspaper states, “Attention Excursionists, we will sell for five days only, two or more lots in Maguire’s addition for $150.00 per pair.” People from other cities besides Ogden, in Utah invested in Ogden property as well. Reed Smoot, a one-time prominent banker, LDS Church leader, and United States Senator who lived in Salt Lake City and Provo, was a good example. Although Mr. Smoot never developed a subdivision in Ogden, his property holdings in the city were numerous, particularly in the Central Bench District.

The largest of all the subdivisions developed in the district, and one of the largest in the entire city, was the Rushton Addition, which encompassed an area of four blocks in the northeast corner of the district. Though many subdivisions were platted, many were not developed for several decades. The subdivided land planned for use as Ogden’s population grew, particularly on the eastern quarter of the district, never reached full capacity and thus did not require development at the time. Ogden had rapidly descended into an economic , depression. For as the boom was a reflection of a large increase in population, development, and building, and many profited from it, the growth was just that a boom. And as quickly as it came it disappeared even more quickly.

Economic Depression
By 1893 Ogden had sunken into a major economic depression. The Panic of 1893 that had hit the rest of the nation also took its toll on Utah, and especially Ogden. During the Cleveland Depression an unprecedented 15,200 American businesses went into receivership, 18 percent of the national work force did not have a job, and those who remained employed saw their wages cut on an average of 10 percent. Utah was facing a severe winter in January and February, which put a hold on the building in Ogden. Due to this and the economic and financial problems facing the nation, the city never quite regained its strength. Many people lost their homes, and those who moved to the city in hopes of building a home and starting their lives in the city put those plans on hold. A good indicator of the troubling times occurred with a newly built Ogden Hospital (demolished), located on 28th Street between Madison and Monroe Avenues. In 1892 the hospital was constructed at a cost of $25,000, and the following year the hospital had to shut its doors because of a lack of funds. The hospital eventually reopened in 1897, and was the primary Ogden hospital until 1910, when the Dee Memorial Hospital opened.

By mid-1893, builders in Ogden became disillusioned with the city as no effort was being made to keep these industries in town. In frustration one Ogden man explained, “Ogden can’t raise $50,000 to maker her own doors, but she can raise $150,000 every year to buy the doors and sashes made elsewhere; Ogden ought to adopt her motto, ‘Millions for foreign industries, but not a cent for home manufacturers’.” The Ballantyne family recalls the turbulent years of the early-1890s, “It was truly an era of booms and bust, bread lines and soup kitchens sprang up to take care of the unemployed…the Ballantyne Brothers Lumber Company was swallowed up in the national crisis, its receivables became worthless pledges and its inventory values had shrunk to only a fraction of the original cost, and sales dropped so low that the firm could no longer meet its obligations.” By the time the depression was over Richard Ballantyne had lost both of his homes and his company.

It is apparent that building did not altogether stop in the city during the time of depression and discouragement. Some of the leading financial men of the city had first rate residences constructed, taking a stand that they believed the future was bright and they wanted to be a part of that future in Ogden, bringing some sign of hope to the despaired community. A good example of the homes built in the district during this time was the Vernacular-Victorian Eclectic style home constructed for George C. Bent, the manager of the Ogden Paint, Oil, and Gas Company. Subsequently, the house, which lies at 2071 Madison Avenue, would later become the home of one-time Weber Stake Academy President and LDS Church President David O. McKay. Despite this and other examples, the boom by all accounts was over. Building throughout the mid-1890s would be much slower than the earlier years of the decade.

Education
The district is significant in that it was home to one of the largest educational campuses north of Salt Lake City, the Weber Stake Academy (now Weber State University), run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its development changed the face of the Central Bench District.

In 1888 the Weber Stake Board of Education was formed, and soon thereafter a small building was designated to be rented for classrooms, and supplies were ordered in order to open up a school. By January of 1889, the school had appointed its principal, Louis F. Moench (who resided in the district at 26th and Jefferson), and classes had begun. Ninety-eight students attended the first semester, and at the beginning of second semester in March enrollment climbed to 137. The first year’s enrollment at the school far exceeded expectations, so during the fall of that year the church secured the Weber Stake Tabernacle in order to make room for the students who wished to attend. In 1890 the school moved its classroom again, to the Fifth Ward Institute building. And finally, in 1892 the school moved to its new and long-time home on Jefferson Avenue between 24th and 25th Street. The academy was officially recognized as a high school in 1895, and in 1916 it was officially recognized as a normal school and raised its rank to a junior college.

In addition to Louis F. Moench, several other presidents of the school resided in the district. Aaron W. Tracy of 2332 Jefferson Avenue, and David O. McKay (later he became President of the LDS Church) of 2071 Madison Avenue are two of the most noted to do so. Several teachers and students also resided in the district. For those students and teachers who did not live in the vicinity, the Ogden Rapid Transit Company offered good rates for round trip fares. Dormitories were also located in the district to help suit students. The most noted dormitory was the Bertha Eccles home located at 2580 Jefferson Avenue, which was used as a women’s residence hall during the 1940s. From its precarious beginnings in the late 1880s the school had its up and downs, but its importance and influence in the district was extraordinary. During the depression years the school made the transition from a church school to a state-run institution, and by the early 1950s due continued growth the school moved from its location in the bench district to its current home on Harrison Boulevard. A good remnant of the school today is the neoclassical style gymnasium, c. 1925, located at 550 25th Street.

As the district developed into the residential hub of the city, several other schools were constructed to meet demand. The most impressive remaining structure of this is the Madison School, located at 2418 Madison Avenue. The emergence of public “free schools” was a long process in Utah and by 1889 the issue heated up in Ogden. After Utah enacted the free school law in 1890, the public school system took off in the city. For instance in 1890-1891, 1600 students attended public schools and by the following year 2853 were listed on the rolls of the schools, and the next year, in 1892-1893, 4,000 were attending public schools in the city. New schools were needed, particularly in the bench neighborhood. During the spring of 1892, plans were displayed for the Madison School, by Francis C. Woods. The large building Was done in the impressive Richardsonian Romanesque style. The school was built on a site that had been the location for an earlier school, known as the Fifth Ward School, the Fifth Ward School was typical of the earlier schools in the bench district in that it was built in the late-1870s and was a small, one or two classroorn, adobe or wood frame building. In addition to the Madison School and Weber Academy other schools built in the district during this boom era include the Sacred Heart Academy and the Quincy School (both demolished). The Madison School building has since been adapted into apartment use.

Architecture
The architecture of the boom years was quintessential Victorian. The popular styles during the Victorian era, the era in America during the closing decades of the nineteenth century, epitomized the self-confident optimism of that time period. The dwellings were a physical embodiment of prosperity. The Central Bench District is home to various Victorian era styles, hundreds of which remain from the boom years between 1888 and 1892. Two of the best-known styles of the period include the Eastlake and Queen Anne. A good example of the Eastlake influence can be found at the J.W. McNutt House, located at 614 24th Street. The home is highly decorated with various shapes of wood shingles covering the house, ornate lathe-turned columns, spindles in porch friezes, and carved panels. The Queen Anne style is common in the district. Notable examples include the Samuel T. Whitaker home at 874 23rd Street and the Andrew J. Warner home at 726 25th Street. Mr. Whitaker was an architect who came to Ogden in 1890, and soon after had this large two-story wood shiplap home with a round turret constructed. Mr. Warner was a realtor who came to Ogden during the boom era and had this classic Queen Anne style home built. It has a sandstone foundation, stain-glassed windows, decorative veranda, onion dome turret, and decorative wall and shingle patterns. Other Victorian styles found in the district include the Richardsonian Romanesque style such as the Madison School at 2418 Madison Avenue; Victorian Gothic style house at 2332 Adams Avenue; and the Shingle style at the Wright home at 566 24th Street.

By far the most popular style during the era was the Victorian Eclectic, a catchall category for buildings that exhibit features from various Victorian styles as well as Classical and even Picturesque styles. During the late 1880s and 1890s the Victorian Eclectic home became popular in all urban settings in Utah, and builders in the Central Bench welcomed the style as it allowed builders and architects great freedom in selecting decorative motifs to achieve a high degree of picturesque intricacy and enhancement of the irregular massing of their design. As numerous Victorian styles were popular, so were various house plans and types. The central block with projecting bays was a particular favorite in the neighborhood, as was the side-passage/entry hall, and also the cross-wing form. As the homes are a beautiful remnant of that era today, the homes were highly regarded during that era as well. As one gentleman who was publishing the city directory of 1890 remarked, “I have never seen a city in which so many men with small incomes own their own houses and have them neatly furnished,” and went on to talk about the magnificence of the residential neighborhood Ogden had established.

The Neighborhood Reaffirmed: 1900-1920

Social History

Rebirth of the City and District
Although times were tough for residents living in the Central Bench during the mid-1890s, by the turn-of-the- century the neighborhood started to regain vitality. Business had been steadily improving during the late-1890s, albeit times would not be as they were during the era that made Ogden a “modern” city (1888-1892). Ogden had reaffirmed itself as the railroading, manufacturing and industrial center of the Intermountain West, and construction of new structures was on the rise. Many looked to Ogden as the place to live in 1900. Turn-of- the-century Ogden was becoming the center for sheep and cattlemen who had been prosperous throughout the United States, to build their homes. The railroad, with its distribution possibilities, made it possible to bring them here permanently. For example in 1902 one of the successful sheep raisers, P.M. Mattson, sought to create a subdivision and have several cottages constructed within the Central Bench District. The land to be platted was to lie between 28th and 29th Streets and Jefferson and Madison Avenues. Although the plans never actualized, serious talk of platting land was being discussed for the first time since the boom days of 1890.

Another factor drawing residents to the city was the fact that homes had deflated in price over the past decade, giving prospective buyers the opportunity to buy a nice home without the sacrifice over former prices. Even though people were continuing to move into the affordable homes over a short amount of time in Ogden, there were not enough homes to house them, either for rent or for purchase. Demand had been steady over the years just preceding 1900, and as many of the construction businesses failed during the depression in the mid-1890s, the supply could not be met. However, after 1900, the tide started to change and many residences started to be constructed and real estate prices subsequently elevated.

Neighborhood Demographics
By 1920 the district started to become a good representation of the city as a whole, and could start to be seen as what Clix Swaner, a long-time Ogden citizen, considers the area, “A history of the families of Ogden.” By now the community had a broad make-up, people of all classes lived in the district. The elite of Ogden had established themselves in the magnificent homes of the Eccles Subdivision and surrounding area; the middle- class found a large number of attractive homes and oftentimes moved into the homes of the people who moved to the Eccles subdivision used to live in, such as those on Jefferson Avenue; and the lower class and working people started to fill in the rest of the neighborhood opting to live in the now more affordable, yet well-built bungalows that had begun to be built. Many Ogden pioneers and early-comers still lived in the district in their original homes, dating back to as early as the 1860s; however, the old homes were soon demolished to make way for the new homes of 1920s. People of non-European descent, however, rarely resided in the district until the early 1900s. During the early years of the district, the line that separated the Central Bench District from the commercial and industrial sector of town also divided people by race.

People of color almost always lived within a matter of blocks near the Union Station, with only two non-white individuals living in the district in 1900. According to the 1900 Census the make-up of the district was as follows: approximately one-third of the district’s homeowners were born in Utah; one-third were born outside of Utah, but from another state in America; and one-third were born outside of the United States, generally from European countries. However, by the 1910s this started to change as more and more Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, and others moved to the city in larger numbers because of the railroad, and soon started to spread out into the bench area. A case in point is that of a Japanese Hospital that was located in the district, on the corner of 22nd Street and Quincy Avenue. Physician Silgaji Suzuki had immigrated to the United States in 1904, and by 1915 had made his way to Ogden, along with his family, and opened up the hospital at 2204 Quincy. In addition to running the hospital, the Suzukis lived in the home with three other Japanese men until 1925, when they apparently moved out of the city. Prior to this, almost Japanese people had lived on 25th Street near Kiesel Avenue, remembered by many as “J-town.” There they had shops and restaurants catering to Ogden’s Japanese community. The Japanese hospital/house at 2204 Quincy was replaced by a duplex, c. 1945.

The role of women and the impact they had within the district cannot be overlooked. One of the better-kept homes in the district was the one-time home of two of Ogden’s leading businesswomen, Maude and Mary Wykes. The home is a two-and-a-half-story rectangular block shaped wood Victorian era building, located at 1068 23rd Street. The Wykes sisters were natives of Salt Lake City. Their parents had migrated to Utah, from New York City with a Mormon party during the 1860s, although they were not LDS. The Wykes then moved to Ogden in the early 1900s and opened up the M.M. Wykes Company, specializing in ladies furnishings. They stayed in operation until retiring in 1939. In addition to running the store, they were also involved with organizations such as the Women of the Woodcraft and Women’s Relief Corps. The sisters were members of the Congregational Church, and often times associated themselves with the Japanese Church in Ogden.

By the early-1900s an interesting development started to take place with Dutch immigrants. In the late-1800s the LDS Church had started to send a large number of missionaries to Holland. Consequently, the Dutch that had converted to the LDS Church more often than not found their way to large population centers in Utah, primarily Ogden. After making their way to Ogden many of the immigrants slowly started to migrate to the area of 21st Street and Gramercy Avenue. By the early-1900s the majority of Dutch families living in Ogden resided in that vicinity. Well over one-dozen families lived within approximately five blocks of one another, likely the largest cluster of LDS Dutch immigrants in the country at the time. Many of the original homes still exist in the area, an important remnant of LDS Dutch history. As time passed on, however, the Dutch started to live largely throughout the entire city and in other places such as Salt Lake City.

Nonetheless, by the end of World War I, the Central Bench in Ogden was unequivocally one of the most attractive residential neighborhoods in the state (more of the same continued after the war and throughout the 1920s as well). A newspaper article in the “Industrial Review” section of a 1917 edition of the Ogden Standard highlighted five of the homes found in the Central Bench District on its front page, proclaiming, “Ogden an Ideal Home City-Many Beautiful Structures.” By time the 1920s arrived, many in Ogden, particularly those living in the district were doing well and having much success. The district, with its numerous and large variety of homes, solidified itself as the place to live in the “Junction City.”

Architecture
The architecture seen during the very early 1900s was reminiscent of the design during the 1890s, particularly the Victorian element. Homes built now were generally more utilitarian. In contrast to the homes built of wood a decade prior, homes in the early 1900s were almost always made of brick. Although many homes were made of brick in the early 1890s, its use became more ubiquitous in the new century. A good example of the architecture in 1900 can be found at the James G. Paine House at 2103 Adams Avenue. It is a one-story brick Victorian cottage using very little decorative detail, and has a basic rectangular floor plan with a small bay on the north side.

Within a few years the outlook in Ogden, and particularly the bench area, looked even brighter in terms of building. In 1904, a time when new businesses and shops opened up in Ogden to cater to the railroad, several realtors gave their views of the upcoming building season. Some of the remarks were as follows, “The building of houses will increase until houses get to be more numerous, the contractors will have more work than they can handle.” “Real estate is increasing in value and I expect to see a prosperous year.” “Prospects for a great year in real estate never looked more promising.” And, “Ogden has a bright future in the view of real estate, I expect to see a very prosperous season.” This sentiment appeared to be true, as new homes in the bench area, for the Central Bench District continued to reign as the residential hot spot in the city, proceeded to be built.

A good pictorial representation of the era can be found in the book entitled Architecture of Ogden, 1906-1907, highlighting the works of Ogden architects Julius A. Smith and Leslie S. Hodgson. By 1906 it was clear a new wave of architectural type and style was on the city’s forefront. The Victorian element of the past, with its irregular floor plans and highly ornamental styles, started to be rejected and was replaced by the bungalow. It was a phenomenon that was occurring throughout the United States; Ogden was no exception. A good majority of the homes featured in the book are within the district’s boundaries. Some of the homes featured include the H.H. Rollapp House at 2520 Madison Avenue, the F.L. Wright House at 574 23rd Street, and the Ira L. Reynolds House at 2533 Adams Avenue, all three of which were built in the large two-story foursquare configuration. Some early Ogden bungalows Could also be seen, with the J.A. Smith House at 2177 Jefferson Avenue and the Mrs. W.H. Harris House at 873 25th Street. Other fascinating new styles of architecture could also be seen in the district, including the large two-story Dutch Colonial Revival influenced cottage located at 675 25th Street. The city and district was clearly on the verge of resurgence in building and a transformation of styles.

Several other notable homes were constructed in the district during the period. The John Browning House (John Browning being a son of famous gun inventor John Moses Browning) at 2720 Adams Avenue was built in 1905. The home is a bungalow with several dormers and has elements of the Victorian Eclectic style that was so popular in Ogden during the 1890s. To prove that the Victorian era in Ogden was not completely over, some Victorian rectangular block cottages were constructed in 1907, including the Jesse H. Brown House at 2215 Madison Avenue, the Mrs. Annie Andrae Burt House at 2053 Adams Avenue, and The Alma D. Chambers House at 887 23rd Street, which was one of several Chambers family homes on the block.

Another important movement in the Central Bench District starting in 1908 was the building of three-story apartment buildings that designed to help provide housing for the many new workers who had moved to the city. Housing was still not as available as many wished, thus rents rose, and finding a home to own was now difficult to do. Many of the workers who moved to Ogden were constantly on the move, never at one place for an extended amount of time. Thus in 1908, starting with the construction of the Avon Apartments located at 961 25th Street, large 3-story apartment buildings started to be built. The individuals involved in contracting for the apartments ranged from grocers and clerks to the city’s most prominent families, including several former or future mayors. Because of the scarcity of house rentals in Ogden prior to 1908, the contractors could speculate with very low risk. To this point, Ogden apartments were one and two-story vernacular buildings with only a small number of units in each. Thus, a concerted effort was made to provide first-rate housing for the major influx of workers who had come to Ogden. Overall twenty-one 3-story apartments were built in the city between 1908 and 1928, with 15 being located in the bench area. Most of the apartments were done in the basic block style, Prairie style, or Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture, and were done in brick. Rentals in the district were not limited to the era between 1908 and 1928; they had been a phenomenon in the district for years. According to the 1900 census, over half of the homes in the district were rented out instead of owner/occupied. The trend of rentals would continue as the bungalow and period revival era of the district would come to light, as several duplexes and more multi-family residences would be constructed.

By 1909-1910, due to the strength of railroad and industries related to it, Ogden had once again become a “Queen City of the Rockies.” In fact, during the years 1909, 1910, and 1911, a subdivision was platted in each of those years. The most noted being the Eccles Subdivision, in 1909; the other two include the Manhattan and Hoff subdivisions. Due to its significance, the Eccles Avenue District was placed on the National Register in 1976. Leslie S. Hodgson and Eber Piers were the two architects credited with the design of the homes on Eccles Avenue. They also designed several other buildings in the district, including the LDS Church Branch for the Deaf located at 740 21st Street (designed by Hodgson), and the Albert Scowcroft home located at 2350 Adams Avenue (designed by Piers). The district is also known for the significant families who resided on Eccles Avenue, who were prominent in local, state, and national affairs.

As can be seen through the Eccles Subdivision, and the other subdivisions platted in the district during the era, architecture took on a new clear form in Ogden. The bungalow, synonymous with the Central Bench District, became a giant in the area. In addition to the Prairie style bungalow, which was common in the bench area, other early forms of this style took shape. Prior to 1910, small basic bungalows started to replace the Victorian cottage of the era before. The Arts and Crafts-style bungalow made its appearance, although it never had a huge influence in the district. A good example of this can be found at 2255 Madison Avenue, the home of architect Leslie Hodgson. He designed and built the home in 1913 and in 1934, in one of his most offbeat business dealings, traded this home with his business partner Myrl McClenehan. Other distinct forms of bungalows were also built, and by 1910, as the population in the city grew to over 25,000, the district filled in with these homes.

Architects/Builders
Other architects began to make their names in the Central Bench District during the 1910s. Arthur Shreeve is a prime example. He was born in Ogden in 1885, a son of Thomas and Emma Shreeve. His father owned a grocery store for several years in the district at 2546 Madison Avenue, it had an apartment attached where the family resided. Arthur Shreeve was educated in Ogden city schools and attended the Weber Academy, from there he attended the International Correspondence Schools in Pennsylvania, and later studied in San Francisco under J.W. Foresight and then in Chicago at the Armour Institute of Technology. In 1910 he then returned to Ogden and established an office with fellow Armour graduate D. Leo Madsen. Shreeve, along with Madsen, built several homes in the district, including several on the 2500 block of Van Buren Avenue. After Art Shreeve’s marriage to Inez Farr in 1911, they built several homes in sequence in the district, living in each one until they built a new home and sold the old one. This cycle continued until they built a home on the eastern boundary of the district, at 2415 Harrison Boulevard, in the early 1920s.

In the late-1910s, Mr. Shreeve also teamed up with Fred Froerer, president of the Ogden Home Builders Company, in building several homes in the district. Mr. Froerer was a well-known builder and realtor in Ogden for several years. Subsequently, Art Shreeve’s brother Leland later became the accountant for the firm and their sister Myra Shreeve later married Mr. Froerer. During the 1910s, Mr. Shreeve designed several types of bungalows in the district; some examples lie on the north side of the 1100 block of 24th Street. A good representation of a Prairie style home he designed is found at 884 24th Street. After 1920 he began to design several attractive period revival style homes in Ogden, as well as other places throughout the western United States.

The Wheelwright and Ballantyne families are worth noting as being active builders in the district during this era. Mathew Bristow Wheelwright, the family patriarch, made his way to Ogden in 1855. He was active in the coal and kindling wood business for many years in the city. Shortly after moving to the city, Mr. Wheelwright and his family moved to the vicinity of 25th and Quincy Avenue, starting the family’s legacy in the area which still survives today, as the Wheelwright Lumber Company is located on west side of the 2400 block of Quincy Avenue. Mr. Wheelwright had several children and many of them chose to build and live in area of 23rd to 26th Street and Quincy Avenue in the early 1900s. M.B. Wheelwright’s children opened up a small mercantile store in the 1890s, and in the early 1900s organized the Wheelwright Construction Company. In 1912 the Wheelwright Lumber Company was created and several of their children started to build homes in the district. A few examples of the several homes they built in the district include the Thomas B. Wheelwright House at 2532 Quincy Avenue, and the James L. Wheelwright House at 2562 Quincy Avenue, Hyrum B. Wheelwright House at 2425 Jackson-located just one block directly east of the Wheelwright Lumber Company, and the Wilford Wheelwright house at 2431 Jackson Avenue. Some of the homes they built were unique in the fact that they were vernacular throwbacks to the Victorian era in Ogden. For example, the home at 2562 Quincy Avenue, similar to a shotgun type house with Victorian elements, was built in the mid-1910s. The family continued to be instrumental in the building and remodeling of homes in the district throughout the twentieth century. It has also been noted that Joseph F. Wheelwright, eldest son of M.B. Wheelwright, constructed the first brick house (located somewhere on 26th Street) in Ogden, in approximately 1870.

The Ballantyne family is another notable family. Richard and Caroline Ballantyne came to Ogden in the late 1860s and later resided on 24th Street just east of Adams Avenue, where they raised several children. The Ballantyne family then became very involved in various types of building in the district by the turn-of-the- century, at first with public utilities such as bridge building and street grading. They organized a lumber company (previously mentioned), a real estate office, and a plumbing company. By 1910, Thomas H. Ballantyne, as son of Richard and Caroline, became a well-known contractor and worked as one until as death in 1923. A good example of his work sits at 762 27th Street, a bungalow that he built for his sons Leroy and Thomas C. Ballantyne in 1909. At one time a portion of what is now Gramercy Avenue, between Monroe Boulevard and Quincy Avenue, was known as Ballantyne Avenue due to the building and homes owned by the family in the vicinity.

Community Development and Planning

Public Services in the District
Important to the development of the district, especially during this era, was public utilities. By 1914 the water system of Ogden was fully operational in the district. The city exploited the underground waters of Ogden, as opposed to the rivers and streams flowing from the mountains to the east, as artesian wells were used for the first time within in Ogden, within the district. Ogden’s electric light system was inaugurated through the lighting of an electric light tower in the center of the city in the early 1880s. The steel tower was located on the western boundary of the district, on 24th and Adams Avenue. Following that a hydroelectric plant was established near Ogden Canyon. By the early 1900s these facilities were taken over by the Utah Power and Light Company, a major Utah power utility that served Ogden for many years. The telegraph and telephone also played an important role in the early history of utilities in the district, and natural gas would also become a major factor in many homes in the following decade.

Equally important to the developments previously mentioned, is that of the streetcar system. As the district had grown throughout the late 1800s and into the 1900s, transportation to the commercial and industrial sector of town became an important issue. Street railroads started in 1883 with a mule-powered rail line, and by the turn- of-the-century prominent businessmen Thomas Dee and David Eccles created the Ogden Electric Railway Company, which continued to grow and expand over the next couple decades making an impact in the district and influencing development. Rail lines served the Central Bench District until the early-1930s, when they started to be replaced by gasoline buses. The last tracks of the old rail lines were taken out in the early-1940s.

Commercial Development
Due to the growing development in the bench neighborhood, and as people started to live more and more in the eastern part of the district farther away from town, local grocers and meat markets started to rise up in the area to cater the community. Several started to be built in the 1910s, including the Sawyer Bros. Grocery at 1012 22nd Street, c. 1912; Farnsworth Grocery at 2162 Monroe Boulevard, c. 1914; and the Mollerup Grocer at 2669 Jackson Avenue, c. 1915. Some precursors were the Kasius Grocery at 743 23rd Street, c. 1905; and the Poulter Grocery and Dry Goods Store at 2570 Gramercy Avenue, c. 1893. The Kasius Store was built in 1905, a small commercial block constructed in front of Andrew Kasius’s home. Mr. Kasius, a Holland native, moved to Ogden, with his family, during the boom years to run an umbrella market on Washington Boulevard. In the early 1900s he then moved to the Central Bench District, where he then opened up the grocery store. Mr. Kasius is a good example of a common story in Ogden and the Central Bench District. As many newcomers made their way to Ogden they usually stayed in the industrial/commercial sector of town west of the district. As they continued to live in Ogden, they often worked their way up to the more stable and peaceful community that was the bench.

The Poulter Grocery and Dry Goods store was one of the very first markets east of the commercial/industrial sector of town. The matriarch of the family, Elizabeth Poulter, opened it in 1893 in the Poulter family home. The Poulter’s were Mormon pioneers, coming to Ogden in 1855, and settling in the bench neighborhood as early as 1870. They built several homes in the vicinity of 25th Street and Gramercy Avenue, as is the case with the home and grocery at 2570 Gramercy. While George Poulter went to England for a couple years to serve a mission for the LDS Church, Mrs. Poulter opened up the market to create some revenue for her family at home and to help support and pay for her husband’s church mission in England. The store was a mainstay in the district for seventeen years, until several others were built in its vicinity.

Churches
Most of Ogden’s historic churches are found in the Central Bench Historic District, almost all of which were built by the year 1920. Several of the churches were noted in the Ogden Chamber of Commerce’s 1930 Ogden: the Gateway to the Intermountain West. In fact, all five churches featured in the pamphlet were located in the district. Including the magnificent St. Joseph’s Church at northwest the corner of 24th and Adams Avenue; the Presbyterian Church at the southwest corner of 24th and Adams Avenue (now heavily altered); First Baptist Church of Ogden at southwest corner of 25th and Jefferson Avenue; First Church of Christ, Scientist, at 780 24th Street; Methodist Church at 2604 Jefferson Avenue (part of church was originally J. Pingree’s home built in 1908, then the church purchased the property in the 1920s); and several LDS meetinghouses. Another interesting religious facility was the LDS 4th Ward Theater located at 2323 Monroe Boulevard, which was used as an amusement hall until 1900, when it was then sold and converted into a home.

The District’s Fruition: The 1920s

Community Development and Planning

New Growth
By the time the 1920s rolled around Ogden was doing comfortably well in terms of industry and business, and the Central Bench District was witness to more development than it had seen in years. As many enjoyed good times throughout the rest of the United States, those in Ogden were no different. And in terms of house construction in the bench area, the 1920s were very important, as the district started to fill up and fill in with a “bonanza” of bungalows and period revival homes, for which the district is well known. It was the decade that really focused on the district, as it was the time in which the area became a new home to many. It was also the era just before the city expanded every direction surrounding the Central Bench. As the economy was burgeoning because of the impact felt by the railroad and related businesses, the working class in Ogden welcomed the comfortable and affordable appeal of the bungalow. The bungalow found its way into the American mainstream in the early 1900s, and from 1905 to 1925 it became by far the most popular house type in Utah. Ogden was no different, and many builders, architects, contractors, and construction companies began to surface in the city during this era to provide this highly popular housing style, especially in the early 1920s. The Taylor Building Company, and the work they produced, is a perfect example of the building craze that hit the district in the 1920s.

The Taylor Building Company had made its way to Ogden, from Salt Lake City in late 1921 responding to Ogden’s housing needs. By 1921, Ogden realtors and homebuilders had joined together to find ways in which housing could be obtained by those who needed it; to them good affordable housing was essential. Thus came the Taylor Building Company, which was headed by Harold Bowerman Taylor, who had moved to Salt Lake City in the early 1900s from South Dakota. By the spring of 1922 the company had started building several homes in Ogden, targeting the Central Bench District. Throughout the 1920s the company continued to develop numerous undeveloped subdivisions in the district, constructing over a total of one hundred homes within the area. They specialized in bungalows, but also a built a number of period revival homes. The houses were touted as being well built, affordable, modern, convenient, and attractive. Most the homes were complete with oak floors throughout, tile bathroom floors, enamel finishes, modern lighting and bath fixtures, full basements, and furnace heats. Indeed, the homes were well built and received praise from the Ogden City Building Inspectors.

The homes attracted a wide range of people, including Ogden mayors, businessmen, and a wide range of working and middle class families. The company did as much as they could to sell their homes, such as creating the Taylor Sales Company, a financial division that took care of most mortgages for prospective buyers. The company represented a change in the district; homes in the district were previously built generally for individuals in the location of their desire and liking. Now various homes were built in large quantities in hopes that demand would meet the supply. The company was a mainstay in the city until 1930, when, as was the case with many builders, it went out of business as a result of the Great Depression.

Large building companies were not the only ones to take part in the building action of the 1920s. Local citizens that previously had no real estate or building experience became involved, as was the case with Henry Skinner and his son-in-law Albert Erickson. At the time the two were involved in Ogden with entertainment and performing arts, Mr. Skinner was the manager of the popular Colonial Theater at 2465 Washington, and Mr. Erickson was a musician and music teacher. Their building endeavors started in 1923, when they collaborated with the Taylor Building Company and had a home built at 2710 Brinker Avenue. They owned the home and occupied it for a year and then sold it for a profit to Leo Peck. Then in 1926 the two contacted the Taylor Building Company again and had seven homes built in a small subdivision between 22nd and 23rd Streets, just below Harrison Boulevard. The area was called Rue Anne Court, named after Mr. Skinner and Mr. Erickson’s daughters. After selling the homes in Rue Anne Court, the Skinners and Ericksons moved to Hollywood, California.

Several other builders from Ogden took part in developing the district during the 1920s. Wilford Bramwell is a good example. Wilford Bramwell was born in Plain City, just west of Ogden, in 1881, a son of George and Isabelle Bramwell and was the brother of one-time Ogden mayor Kent Bramwell. He attended Ogden schools and graduated from Weber College in 1898. During the early 1900s, before becoming involved in building, Mr. Bramwell had owned and operated Bramwell’s Books and Stationary Company, and as a hobby raised pedigree chickens for exhibition throughout the country. Drawn by the opportunity of the building industry in the 1920s, he became a contractor. One of his earliest and largest undertakings occurred in 1926, when he designed and started construction of the Bramwell Court, located between Monroe Boulevard and Quincy Avenues and 26th and 27th Streets, the land surrounding his family home. Bramwell’s Court was a bungalow court, a type of development that was popular in the United States but rare in Utah.

Bramwell initially opened up Binford Street then Bramwell Street and started the court by building two homes, then ran into financial problems with the lending institution Beneficial Life. He then opened up and paved Gramercy Avenue (which was where his prized chicken coops once stood), while his financial situation improved. Within a short amount of time his loan was cleared and over a dozen more homes were constructed. Each home had a small driveway, shed, and yard. Later, during the 1930s, the court extended and construction of four new duplexes and other bungalow type homes were completed. In recent years, the Ogden Redevelopment Agency has renovated the homes and improved the streets and sidewalks, revitalizing the area. Mr. Bramwell continued to build homes in Ogden and in the Central Bench District until the 1940s, when he then moved to Los Angeles, California to manage the Franciscan Apartments.

Charles A. Udy, Joseph A. Wright, and Ray O. Whitmeyer were other Ogden individuals who also became involved in building during the 1920s. In addition to the individuals, several families of builders became active during this era, including the Postma brothers, McGregor brothers, and Saunders brothers.

The Great Depression: The 1930s

Social History
The years of great expansion were quickly brought to an end shortly after the stock market crash in October of 1929. Even the most successful building company during the twenties, the Taylor Building Company, could not keep its business going, closing down in late 1930. Many families lost their homes in the district due to unpaid mortgages and taxes, as was the case with the David H. Peery’s house, known as the “Virginia House.” Mr. Peery was heavily involved in Ogden politics, business, and real estate, and in 1893 he had the home built at 24th Street and Adams Avenue. Resembling a Victorian castle, at the time the home was one of the largest and most magnificent mansions in the state. Mr. Peery had the home built in such great size partly in order to provide work for many men who were unemployed during the 1893 depression. The Peery family continued to own and occupy the home until the 1930s; they also owned over forty other properties in the city they used as rentals. While hard times continued during the 1930s, the Peerys had a difficult time collecting money from the other forty-plus rentals they had throughout the city. As the family started to accumulate debt due to the loss of income of the other properties, they were unable to pay the taxes on the Virginia House and turned it over by the late-1930s. It was soon thereafter demolished.

Another family to lose their home was that of Edward T. Saunders. They had moved into the district at 706 21st Street in 1934 due to the loss of their home located a couple blocks away, on 20th Street. Although the family was doing fairly well, they had problems with a mortgage and due to the economic effects of the depression it was almost impossible to get anything refinanced, so they had to move. The Peerys and Saunders examples illustrate that families of all classes and backgrounds had difficult times in the 1930s holding on to their properties.

Community Development and Planning

Despite the hard times construction did slowly continue in the district throughout the decade. Some of the more prominent builders during the era include Louis N. Meid, Alfred Stromberg, and later Samuel L. Stephens and Earl S. Paul. The building of the 1930s in the bench area was much less defined than it was during the first half of 1920s, with its emphasis on bungalows, and the second half of the 1920s, with its emphasis on historicism (period revival styles). The aforementioned builders had a unique touch with their architecture and are representative of the building during the decade.

Architecture
In the late 1930s the International style started to make a presence in Ogden, particularly within the district. The very southeast block of the district is where several of the International style homes are found, most of which were constructed by local contractor and county planner Earl S. Paul. Some of the homes he built were unique in that they are duplexes, as is the case of the home at 2910 Brinker Avenue. Duplexes were extremely popular in the district, and just as the home on Brinker Avenue was a duplex, a couple hundred other multiple-dwelling units were constructed in the district using various styles popular throughout the twentieth century. Duplexes and other multi-family homes were built using the Bungalow (i.e. 2736 Brinker Avenue), English Tudor (2605 Jackson Avenue), Neoclassical (2701 Fowler Avenue), Prairie School (2438 Madison Avenue), Spanish Colonial (2564 Van Buren Avenue), and several other styles in various locations throughout the district. The three-story apartment buildings already mentioned were built to help create affordable housing in the area for those who moved here to work for industries related to the railroad; duplexes and other types of multi-dwelling structures were also constructed for the same reason. Multi-dwelling units and duplexes remain to be a continuing issue in the Central Bench District. As the city has started to look to the future, a rezoning has recently been completed in the district now limiting the number of duplexes that can be created and used in the district in the future, thus helping preservation goals.

A modern style closely related to the International style is Art Moderne. Although the Art Moderne style is not found in great numbers in the district, a good example lies at 541 23rd Street. Preston A. Blair built this apartment in the mid-to-late-1930s. Mr. Blair had bought the original property in 1920, in which an apartment block building already stood since the late-1800s. It is probable the Art Deco style Blair Apartments were built on the old foundation and over the old building; an extraordinary renovation job.

Another important architectural style of the 1930s is locally known as PWA Moderne, which was used primarily for public buildings during the Great Depression. A good example of this lies at the Weber College mechanic arts building, found at 2450 Adams Avenue. This two-story brick building has a symmetrical façade, flat roof, framed entrance, vertical molded ornamentation, and has several windows throughout.

An important development in 1930s Ogden was that of federal aid. With the onslaught of depression in the United States, beginning in 1929, the federal government eventually sought to create work and construction projects designed to help the nation’s rising unemployed. In the early 1930s, Congress appropriated $250,000,000 for construction projects, one of which was the U.S. Forestry Building located in the district at 507 25th Street. In 1932 the architectural firm Hodgson and McClenahan was commissioned to design the structure, and by 1933 the construction of the building was underway. The building is done in the Art Deco style and is one of the three most significant Art Deco style buildings in the state, with the other two being the Ogden Municipal Building and Ogden High School.

By the 1930s the use of streetcars was limited as automobiles became more common. With the automobile several types of buildings/structures came along with it and began to be seen ubiquitously throughout the district. Garages, which started to accompany homes more and more in the 1920s, started to be commonplace in the thirties. Gas stations also started to take form in Ogden during this decade. A good example of this lies with the Reed A. Nelson Gas and Oil Station, located at 704 23rd Street. The station was built by Mr. Nelson in 1933 to help service those who lived in the bench area. The station was a small 600 square foot structure, resembling almost an English Tudor style. It later became a Conoco Service Station in the late-1950s, and by 1980 it had been transformed into a livable home, being one of the most innovative adaptive reuses in the district.

By 1939, even though the effects of the depression were still gripping Utah and the rest of the nation, things were starting to look better for Ogden, especially in terms of home building. According to the city’s building permits, during the first five months of the year almost a quarter of a million dollars was planned for various construction projects in the city. And as one of the city engineers remarked, “It is one of the best records the city had seen during the past decade.” However, nobody was likely prepared for the population and building boom that was to come due to World War II and the defense industries that followed it to Ogden.

World War II and Post War: The 1940s

Social History
The district played a vital role in Ogden’s history during the 1940s. The district became the first destination for many of the defense workers who landed jobs in the area during the war years. Old Victorian homes and, apartments were altered to rent to singles and new home were built to house families. The renaissance in residential life also revitalized the other areas in the district as well, making this one of the most popular places to live, not only in Ogden, but in all of Northern Utah.

World War II and the Defense Industry
By 1941, the slow-to-moderate building the Central Bench had witnessed in the 1930s was well in the past. With the United States joining the war effort, federal money was on its way to Ogden and that as has been well documented, “No place in Utah was more successful than Ogden in attracting federal dollars.” Ogden’s geography was key in attracting the defense industry, just as it was in attracting agriculture and the railroad in the past. The Ogden area was also aggressive in efforts to entice industries to the region, and successfully so. Some of the defense industries drawn to the area in the early 1940s were the Ogden Arsenal, Ogden General Depot, Hill Air Force Base, and the Naval Supply Depot; these brought tens of thousands of new workers into the city looking for housing. And Elizabeth Tillotson remarked, “Ogden is nationally known as the Gateway to the Intermountain West and is now one of the exciting new missile centers of the world. But Ogden is also a city of beautiful homes, schools, and churches, and a dependable citizenry,” as many newcomers soon noticed.

Without sufficient housing, the government took several approaches at handling the housing crisis caused by the influx of thousands of new workers created by the new wartime industries. Thus in the early 1940s the federal government stepped in and built a housing development just south of the city called Grandview Acres, a short time later annexed to the city, just north of 39th Street and below Harrison Boulevard. Still short on housing, the federal government constructed other housing projects in and around Ogden City during the 1940s. In addition to the various housing projects federally developed, the government also urged local citizens to become involved as well. One such person to become involved was J. Francis Fowles, who developed a block of land located in the very southeast corner of the district that had been previously untouched. Mr. Fowles had long been a realtor in Ogden, starting business after returning home from World War I. He was also a key member of the Democratic Party, serving in the state senate for over 20 years. In 1941 the land was deeded to Mr. Fowles, who then took out mortgages from the Federal Building and Loan Association, and had several homes built on the south side of the 1100 block of 20th Street and vicinity. The homes were purchased as soon as they were put up for sale.

The homes built by Mr. Fowles look remarkably like the model dwelling featured in an early 1942 Ogden Standard-Examiner advertisement, claiming, “What Ogden needs today is hundreds of houses for defense workers, this does not mean, however, that houses cannot be attractive as well as practical.” Other articles written surrounding that particular article in the newspaper include one instructing citizens to “timber up” their basement or other room for protection and emergency shelter, and another article urging citizens to convert their attics into a bedroom for workers in need of housing.

Another interesting phenomenon changing the architectural face of the district came when the federal government requested that owners of large houses lease their property to the government for conversion into housing units. This usually meant the old large Victorian-era homes of the boom era, of which the district had many. Thus, during the 1940s a good percentage of the one-and-a-half to two-story Victorian dwellings in the bench area was divided into apartments. Although the interiors were altered, most of the exteriors remained intact. In a March 1943 article in the Standard-Examiner, one such renovation of an old home was chronicled. It stated that sixty-five other jobs like it were slated for the near future and that many jobs were open for those who wanted to work on the renovation projects. The home was turned from a single-family to a three-room apartment, fully loaded with a kitchen, front room, bedroom, and bath. Incentives usually involved tax breaks and renovation work paid for by the government. One of the first homes in the district to be renovated during the this era was the historic Emerson residence located at 2325 Madison Avenue, which had been built in the early 1880s (since been razed and replaced with a senior citizen’s center). This large twelve-room mansion was transformed in 1940 by architect Art Shreeve into four apartments, a sign of things to come in the district.

Indeed, housing became a large concern for the city in the early 1940s. As the older residential sectors of the city, especially the Historic Central Bench District, began to fill up, a building expansion began to develop throughout the rest of the city and county; for the first time people started to look conceitedly outside of the district for housing, as the district had finally reached near capacity. In the 1940s, the surrounding area outside the district continued to expand; the district area has changed very little since.

Architecture

The new homes built in the district during the 1940s are considered World War II Era cottages or Minimal Traditional style houses. The homes are generally small one-story structures. They are either in a rectangular or square floor plan. Most homes are made of brick, however, several are covered in asbestos shingles or aluminum siding. The reconnaissance level survey completed by the Long Range Planning Department in 1999 recognizes over 300 World War II era homes in the district. However, those numbers also reflect homes built during the mid-to-late-1950s, which falls just outside of the contributory era. Most of the homes built during Ogden’s war era were practical, building was usually easy and expeditious, and the prices were affordable. Spin-offs of the Art Moderne/International style were also built during the decade in limited numbers. Some of the builders and investors involved with development in the district during the 1940s include Raymond Shupe, J.E. Lichfield, W.E. Thatcher, Simmons and Thompson, the Wade Brothers, and A.H. Summerhill.

The Modern Era: 1950 and Beyond

The District Since 1950
The Crouch Subdivision was the last to be developed in the Central Bench District, being recorded in 1951. The subdivision is located on the site of the old brickyard that used to be situated near 29th Street and Jefferson Avenue. Plans for the subdivision originated in 1947, the year the 179-foot smokestack, standing since 1916 was demolished. After the demolition of the tower the then current owner of the site, Essie Crouch Auffhammer, decided that she would have a subdivision developed, titling it after her maiden name. The tower that had been razed contained over one-million bricks, and many of those bricks were salvaged and used on the homes that J.E. Lichfield constructed in the late 1940s, on the 2900 block of Madison Avenue-just above the Crouch Subdivision and where the old brickyard and tower once stood. The Crouch subdivision contains 25 lots and at the time was modern in every aspect, particularly in regards to the two small cul-de-sacs contained within it. The developer, Mrs. Auffhammer (who also resided in the district at 735 23rd Street), was the only female building contractor in Weber County during the time the homes in the subdivision were constructed.

Architecturally, the Central Bench District has not changed much since 1950. Many of the historic homes have been adapted into more duplexes, apartments, law offices, and various other businesses. During the 1960s, a large library was built on a portion of Lester Park (it was built by the son of Eber Piers, John Piers). Some preservation activities have taken place in the district, primarily with two areas-the Eccles Avenue Historic District and the Jefferson Avenue Historic District (both on the National Register of Historic Places). Between the two districts, seventy properties are contributing resources listed on the National Register. In addition to those homes, twenty other historically significant buildings have been previously researched and placed on the National Register, fifteen of those twenty are apartment buildings that are included on the Ogden “Three-Story Apartment Building” National Register nomination.

It could be said that the district is now in its fourth wave of historical eras, spanning the second half of the nineteenth century throughout the twentieth century. It began with the homes of early pioneers; then moved through an industrial era with the coming of the railroad and the workers moving to the district. By 1941 the defense industry created another housing boom in the area; and today it is largely a Latin-based community housing Ogden’s vast and growing Latin population.

Narrative Description

The Ogden Central Bench Historic District is an 80-block residential area developed between the 1860s and 1940s, comprising of nearly 3300 buildings. On all sides, the Ogden Central Bench Historic District differs noticeably from the neighboring areas. It includes the area between 20th and 30th Streets, from Harrison Boulevard to Adams Avenue, and encompasses both the Eccles Avenue and Jefferson Avenue Historic districts. It is bounded on the north by the Ogden City Cemetery, which blankets the north side of 20th Street. To the west lies Adams Avenue, the beginning of the residential neighborhood that sits one block east of the commercial sector of town and the largest commercial street in Ogden, Washington Boulevard. To the east lies Harrison Boulevard, which is one of Ogden’s more highly used roads, and separates the district from the more modern homes that lie above the boulevard. To the south lies 30th Street, which provides a good boundary for the variety and concentration of historic architecture found in the Ogden Central Bench District.

Architectural Styles

Numerous architecture styles make up the Ogden Central Bench Historic District. The majority of buildings were constructed after 1888, a pivotal year in Ogden when it became less of a rural town and witnessed a large boom that lead to steady growth; however, a small number (approximately 75 contributing buildings) predate that year. Some of the homes built pre-1888 were built using elements of Classical, Picturesque, and early Victorian styles. An example of the Classical type with Gothic Revival detailing can be found at 667 26th Street, the Arthur Wade House, one of the oldest homes remaining in the district. Another example of a Picturesque style is located at 2121 Adams Avenue; it is representative of the style of homes built in rural Ogden during the mid-1880s, just before Ogden’s great building boom. The Hathron Chauncey House, located at 478 28th Street, is a good example of a Classical and early Victorian style.

The changes that marked an end to isolation of Utah and Ogden during the late nineteenth century are also reflected in the architecture of the Central Bench District, namely the Victorian style. The availability of building materials, by means such as the railroad, and the production of numerous popular magazines and stylebooks at the national level made possible the mass-production of the new Victorian style. With roughly 300 contributing Victorian residences, the homes built ranged in size from large elaborate Queen Anne dwellings to smaller Victorian Eclectic cottages, with everything in between, including Eastlake and Victorian Gothic.

Marking an end to the Victorian era in the district during the early-twentieth century was the proliferation of the “everyman’s house,” or bungalow. The bungalow is the most common dwelling within the district; with nearly 1200 remaining contributing buildings. Several variations of the bungalow exist in the district. The Arts and Crafts bungalow is found in limited numbers. Vernacular Prairie School style bungalows are more common, with a large concentration of them in and around the Eccles Avenue Historic District. Another notable concentration of bungalows is found in the Bramwell Bungalow Court, located near the center of the district, containing over two-dozen homes. The homes found in the bungalow court are common to the majority of bungalows located in the district. They are brick, one-story in height, have rectangular floor plans, low-pitched roofs, and are adorned with a small front porch. Other examples of bungalows in the district include those with steep pitched roofs with large eaves, many are done in shingle siding and/or wood banding, some have projecting bays on the main floor, and many have minor ornamentation such as stained-glass and casement windows or exposed rafters and beams. Indeed, the term bungalow is a catchall term that describes these more economical, informal, and open style homes that blanket a large portion of the Central Bench District.

Following and occasionally occurring simultaneously with the largely popular bungalow era in Ogden was the movement towards Period Revivalism. By far the most common contributing Period Revival home in the district is the English Tudor/English Cottage with 75 contributing examples, followed by the Colonial Revival with 25. Other Period Revivals found throughout the district in smaller numbers include Neoclassical, Spanish Colonial Revival, Mission, and French Norman.

The International and Art Moderne styles were mildly popular, with a total of 20 contributing homes in the district. Although these modern styles were not largely popular in all of Utah, one of the largest concentrations of them in the state can be found at the southeast portion of Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District. Examples of these modern styles include the International style Paul Duplex at 2910 Brinker Avenue and the Art Moderne style Blair Apartments at 541 23rd Street. Two other modern styles can also be found in the district, including the Art Deco United States Forest Service building at 505 25th Street and the PWA Moderne former Weber College Mechanic Arts Building at 2450 Adams Avenue.

World War II had a great impact on Ogden and its building construction. A large number of homes were built in the Ogden vicinity throughout the 1940s to help house the workers of the newly established defense industry. The Central Bench Historic District is a good example of this phenomenon. All land in the district that was still available in the 1940s (which was not a very large portion) was finally completely used up to build homes for defense workers. As a result approximately 300 World War II-era cottages in the Minimal Traditional style were constructed; 259 of those still retain their architectural integrity. A good number of the homes, which were generally smaller dwellings done in brick or aluminum siding, can be found concentrated in the northeast corner of the district.

Architectural Types by Popularity

Bungalows

Just as a large mixture of styles composes the Ogden Central Bench Historic District, a large variety of architectural types can be found within its boundaries. The bungalow, as it is both a type and style of building, is by far the most common. Three main bungalow types are found in the district, as was briefly mentioned above. First, one has its narrow end placed toward the street and may have either a low-pitched hipped roof or roof that is detailed in the Arts and Crafts vein. The second is a one-and-a-half-story house with a broad gabled roof that extends over the front porch. The third is a small gabled cottage fronted by a wide front porch.

Multiple Dwellings

Another common type of building in the district is the duplex/double house. The majority of duplexes in the district were originally built for use as duplexes; however, a large number of former single-family residences have since been turned into duplexes (the same is true with a number of apartments in the district as well). Most of the homes that have been converted from single-family to multi-family were done so during the 1940s, to create more housing for defense workers. Many types of duplexes are found in the district, including double- houses that have the appearance and size of a single-family house, but have two different entries to the home, often called “double cottages” or “pair of houses”. Another common type of double house in the district is one that two stories in height that appears to be two similar houses joined at the end, creating a self-contained unit.

Other multi-family units found in the district include several row houses and various types of apartment buildings. The buildings are not lumped together in a particular spot in the district, as many times is the case with apartment buildings, but can be found scattered throughout. Just as those people who lived in single-family homes enjoyed the tranquil quality of this neighborhood, so to did the large number of renters. Large three-story apartment buildings became widely popular during the 1910s and 1920s, with 15 of them found within the district. In 1987 these were listed in the National Register of Historic Places nomination “Three-Story Apartments in Ogden, Utah, Built 1908-1928.” Although the building of apartments steadily rose from the 1910s to the 1940s (slumping a bit during the 1930s), construction of several multi-family residences started as early as the 1880s in Ogden, with a good number of them being built during the boom years of 1889-1891, to cater to the railroad employees and Ogden’s large working-class community.

Cross-wing

Cross-wing type buildings are a common type of structure in the district. The cross-wing configuration, usually an L or T shape and one-and-a-half-stories tall, is most commonly found on the earlier Victorian homes in the district. Oftentimes cross-wing dwellings in the district were built during two different time periods. For instance, a single-cell house could be built in the 1870s or 1880s, and then years later the owner of the home would add a cross-wing section.

Other Residential

Various other types of buildings are found in the district in smaller numbers. Some other earlier types in the district include the central block with projecting bays (found with many Victorian Eclectic homes), several hall parlor (found with many Classical homes), and also the side-passage (a popular type found with some of the larger Victorian homes). After the turn-of-the-century, foursquare homes became prevalent; many of the large, two-story, cubed-shaped, pyramidal roof variety of this can be found in the Central Bench District.

In the 1910s period cottages started to become widespread throughout the district. These homes generally had rectangular floor plans and they extended deep into their lots.

Commercial Buildings

A number of commercial buildings are also found in the district. Starting in approximately 1910 these one-part and two-part commercial block buildings started to dot the area as the population started to expand in this portion of the city. The one-part block is a small single street-level structure, many of which have large-plate display windows. The two-part block is very similar to the one-part block, only it is composed of two distinct vertical zones and may range from two to four stories in height. Most of the commercial buildings in district were originally used as grocery stores or meat markets. The buildings were often used for more than one purpose. For instance, the building at 1012 22nd Street was used as a grocery store in the front half while the rear half was used as a Post Office. And in the two-part block buildings the bottom level was generally used as some type of retail store while the upper area was used as a living unit. Over two-dozen of the commercial type buildings remain in the district.

Ecclesiastical Buildings

Twenty-two ecclesiastical buildings are found in within the district boundaries and are spread fairly evenly throughout. Of the twenty-two buildings, fourteen are eligible, two ineligible, and six out of period. The buildings represent a range of architectural styles, from Victorian Gothic, to Period Revival and Minimal Traditional. The earliest and most visible religious-use building in the district is St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, which was constructed in 1899 and is an excellent example of the Victorian Gothic style.

Construction Materials

Brick was by far the most popular type of material used by Ogden builders. One of the largest brick plants located in the western United States, during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, was located in the Central Bench district (between Jefferson and Madison Avenues and 28th and 29th Streets). Regular brick, mostly red in color, was the most common kind of brick produced at this and other brick plants in Ogden. Brick started to be seen in the district as early as 1870 (the first brick plant in Ogden was completed in 1868 near current-day 12th Street and Grant Avenue), and over one-half of the homes in the district were constructed using brick.

Wood-framed/sided houses only comprise a small percentage of the buildings in the district. At one time during the earlier periods of the district, however, wood homes were the most common type of home. Many have since been razed and replaced by more modern brick structures. Adobe homes, like the wood homes, were also widespread in the district; they have all since been demolished or replaced with new siding. Stone was another popular building material at one time, and while no homes in the district are made entirely out of stone, the majority of the homes predating 1910 have stone foundations. Other types of materials found in the district in larger numbers include aluminum, asbestos, and stucco. Aluminum and asbestos were popular materials used during the World War II era, while stucco has been used throughout the twentieth century.

Throughout the Ogden Central Bench Historic District the blocks, streets, and walks were established in a grid pattern as was typical of the majority of Utah’s early settlements that were based on Joseph Smith’s “Plat of the City of Zion.” The streets are wide and are lined with many trees. Lot sizes and shapes in the district were once fairly uniform but now vary due to the district’s growth, expansion, and subdivision over the decades. Nonetheless, the majority of the district maintains the overall residential appearance that it had over fifty years ago, seeing relatively little change.

Pleasant Grove Historic District

02 Friday Feb 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts, NRHP, Pleasant Grove, Pleasant Grove Historic District, utah, utah county

Pleasant Grove Historic District

The Pleasant Grove Historic District is locally significant, both historically and architecturally. Under criterion A, the area is significant in describing the early development of the town in a settlement pattern that departed from the standard Mormon town grid. The center corral, divided into four blocks, remained undisturbed when growth occurred and provided the nucleus from which commercial, public, institutional, and residential building grew. Pleasant Grove is the only town in Utah known to have developed its business district within its fort wall boundaries. Under criterion C, the district is significant because of its concentration of commercial, public, institutional, and residential historic buildings. The buildings span a period between 1853 and 1945, and their architectural types and styles express the social influences and growth of this small farming community.

The Pleasant Grove Historic District is roughly bounded by 100 North, 500 South, 300 East, and 100 West in Pleasant Grove, Utah and was added to the National Historic Register (#95001434) on December 13, 1995. The text on this page is from the nomination form for the historic register.

HISTORY:

Pleasant Grove was first founded by Mormon colonizers on September 13, 1850, and became an incorporated city on January 19, 1855. In 1852 George A. Smith, the Mormon apostle appointed to regulate the affairs south of Salt Lake City, wrote that he had “located a site for a town . . . about a quarter of a mile square to possess the conveniences of a town and the security of a fort.” A fort was built in Pleasant Grove and most other Utah towns in 1853 due to an escalation of conflicts with Native Americans known as the Walker War. That fort survey ultimately shaped the town; the established fort was the nucleus from which the town grew.

Smith’s fort plan specified fifteen lots of three rods by ten rods arranged on the four sides of the fort. Most of the fort wall, built only four feet high, did not afford much protection except as a gathering point where a united effort could be launched in case of trouble. All lots and houses faced a large central square that served as a public corral. Outlying residents quickly dismantled their houses and moved them inside the fort. Four large corner lots were reserved for public buildings and community functions. The school house was relocated from outside the fort to the southwest corner lot of the fort. The northeast corner became known as Union Square, where the town’s militia drilled, and a small building was built c.1865 to deposit guns and ammunition. The building still stands at the same location, 64 North 200 East. Four roads exited near the corner lots and a wide road ran inside the fort between the houses and the feedlots.

Thomas Bullock, President Brigham Young’s secretary, reported on the fort ten months after its conception. “Trees are planted inside the fort all around, five rods from the houses, with water ditches running by their side. It measured eighty rods square with 106 houses, and it boasted a population of 149 females and 166 males. This is decidedly the cleanest, neatest, driest and prettiest fort we have yet visited.” The 106 houses almost doubled the sixty lots of the original fort plan, and by that fall 120 houses had been built. The original intent may have been to survey a grid townsite separate from the fort-site, in keeping with traditional Mormon settlement patterns. However, the quick growth forced a second survey to create new blocks to the north.

Development of a city inside a fort survey is unusual in Utah. Most towns throughout Utah abandoned fort sites completely after the fear of Indian attack ended. People either moved back to already surveyed town sites or established town sites through grid surveys. Some used a corner of their fort as a point to survey new town sites and continued to live in houses already established, but all other Utah communities built their business and community centers outside fort boundaries.

Pleasant Grove was not surveyed on the Mormon grid as were other towns in Utah, but developed on a quasi-grid from the fort and subsequent surveys. The established house placement remained with the exception of new outlet roads adjoining the four right-angle streets of the fort to create square, or almost square, city blocks. New surveys outside the fort designated four-acre blocks divided into one-acre building lots and extended mostly to the streets north and east, and to some degree south. These various surveys account for the lack of block uniformity. The average street in Pleasant Grove is only sixty-six feet wide-only two-thirds the width of typical Utah towns that were initially laid out with one-mile square grids and streets ninety-nine feet wide.

Pleasant Grove’s unique fort site development is still evident. The wide fort roads that ran around the central corral perimeter are now 200 South, 200 East, Main Street, and Center Streets. Here fort roads narrow at the junction of the new roads to provide access to the later surveyed area outside the fort. Since houses were already established, narrow accesses to the new surveys outside the fort had to do.

Although the physical nature of Pleasant Grove varies from most Utah communities, its social structure followed typical Mormon farm towns. Small one-acre farmsteads were established inside Pleasant Grove City where houses were built on the corners of the newly surveyed blocks. Kitchen gardens and orchard plots were situated near the houses and the barns and corrals were located at the rear of each acre lot. Farmers commuted daily to their fields surrounding the settlement, a Mormon town settlement pattern that differed from most American West settlements where houses were established on farm lands.

COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC DEVELOPMENTS:

The business district and community area of Pleasant Grove developed from the lower part of the public stock corral that comprised the fort center. The first church house was built, and rebuilt after burning, on the southwest corner of the stock corral at what is now the city park at 200 South and Main. The church basement housed tithing storage and space for a small post office. A blacksmith shop stood two blocks north of the church. George H. A. Harris, in the late 1850s, built the first commercial outlet in town- a two-story rectangular adobe store with a hip-roof and a lean-to at the rear. Harris ran this store, and with his partner, Jacob Foutz between 1860-78.

In 1869, John Brown, Mayor and Bishop, built the second commercial building, the Pleasant Grove Cooperative Mercantile. Directly east of the Pleasant Grove Cooperative Mercantile, the LDS Churchwide Cooperative Movement built the United Order Hall in 1869, the first documented building of soft-rock. In Pleasant Grove thirty-nine men bought stock in the store with the goal of brotherly unity for the welfare of the whole town rather than individual profiteering. The United Order, an extension of the Cooperative Movement, became the fiber of the town from 1874 to 1880 when the large majority of men over eighteen joined. These organizations played a part in the slow growth of merchandizing in Pleasant Grove where individual ownership was looked upon as unbrotherly and boycotted by town residents.

In the 1880s at a time when the Order was beginning to fail, the lone independent store owner, Harris, declared bankruptcy; Franklin Beers and Benjamin Driggs purchased his store, sold stock in it, and renamed it Battle Creek Co-op. A law suit from the Order’s co-op broke up the Beers and Driggs cooperative partnership. In 1884, however, Franklin Beers persisted and opened his own modern department store (razed) on the northwest corner of what is now First East and Center Street. He later built a two-story combination hotel and family house directly north of his store. His wife, Elizabeth, operated the hotel along with a hat shop in his store. The Beers House/Hotel (National Register, 1994) is now restored and used as office space for West Enterprises.

Other commercial buildings in the business district included 1880s frame western-style false front shops built at the sides and fronts of houses on the present Main and Center Streets. One example was the small post office operated by Parmelia Sterritt that stood next to her house. Another was the millinery shop operated by Rosalia Driggs who lived in the Cyrus Benjamin Hawley house at 55 East Center. Shown on the 1890 Sanborn Map, a string of wooden buildings existed across from the Hawley house, housing a barber shop, a dental shop, and a meat shop. A frame saloon stood at the intersection of Main and Center.

Fire changed the character of Main Street in 1890 as frame buildings were lost and brick and stone buildings were constructed. New Victorian block-form buildings replaced these stores. Near the turn of the century Cornelius Baxter moved to town and with mining money he purchased a house and property at the head of Main on Center. He replaced the frame saloon with a brick Victorian block-form building (1 East Center). He soon built a larger more ornate block-form building (3 East Center) next to it. David Adamson, a sheep man from Heber, moved to town about this same time. He built an even larger and more ornate building (15 East Center) next to those of Baxter’s. The three buildings still stand like stairsteps at the head of the street.

In 1917, the Bank of Pleasant Grove introduced a completely new design to the street-the Prairie-style business building (2 South Main). This building retains its historic integrity. Because of bank’s financial success and the location of the building, it became the business anchor of the community.

A Spanish Colonial Revival style movie theater and two new block-form buildings on either side of the bank were built in 1927. The depression that followed in the 1930s devastated a number of the businesses on the street and a “Modern” look was established through the auspices of a government sponsored program-the Works Progress Administration. By 1940, an Art Deco style city hall was built at 35 South Main. The new city hall housed all departmental units of city government: police, jail, court, fire, library, and city offices. This building retains its historical integrity but is unused at the present. Other than a medical center and a new bank building built on the southwest end of the street built during the 1950s, little new construction or alterations have occurred in this business block since 1940.

Near the central business district the social center of the town developed during the city’s formative years. A grove of trees planted behind the rebuilt church (along Main between 100 and 200 South) became the first city park and the only city park for many years. The park, combined with the 1909 Orpheus Dance Hall built to the east, now serves the community as the recreational and social center along with Pleasant Grove’s first LDS seminary building constructed in 1922. The seminary contains the office of the Department of Recreation. (Both of these buildings retain their original architecture.) The high school was also located in this block.

One of the oldest known school houses in Utah is located one block east of the business district. The Old Bell School, built c.1861 with additions in 1880 and 1887, houses a pioneer museum. Directly south is a small complex of representative pioneer buildings commemorating the history of the town. Also located on this street is one of the best examples of early soft-rock use-the 1886 town hall that served as such until 1940. The school and city hall have alternately housed the library over the years.

The first Sanborn Maps of Pleasant Grove dated 1890 and 1917 show that the central business district was on 300 West and the crossroad to the north was 100 North. In 1946 a new house numbering system was to be established. The one-block “business main street should be named Main Street as every activity of the town radiates from here, and that the intersection of the highway coming into town at the bank corner is the center of that activity.” Therefore, the road intersecting the new Main Street became Center Street. The new numbering of Pleasant Grove streets began at the Pleasant Grove Bank building. House numbers were assigned for the first time and street numbers were painted on corner Utah Power and Light Company poles. The change in street names created no end of confusion at the Utah County Courthouse with property registration, but the town’s new street names more correctly described the function of the town.

ARCHITECTURE:

The Pleasant Grove Historic District is an important resource where the buildings reflect the architectural and historical development of the town. The residences, commercial buildings, institutional structures, and outbuildings within the district provide a complete representation of a wide range of architectural styles and plans popular in the local region between 1853-1945. The evolution of styles and use of local materials reflect the builders’ desires to remain abreast of “modern” techniques. The primary building material used until 1870 was adobe. Adobe blocks were produced in local yards as well as in an adobe pug-mill near Utah Lake. Adobe was still used to line rock buildings, and to build entire buildings as late as 1885 when the Franklin Beers House/Hotel was built

In 1869, soft-rock quarried from the hills northeast of Pleasant Grove began to be used to construct commercial buildings and houses. Many homes of all sizes were constructed of soft-rock. Cyrus Benjamin Hawley’s house, c.1869, at 55 East Center, is a 1-1/2 story, soft-rock house, one of the first in the and trend-setting residences in Pleasant Grove. Very little of the exposed soft-rock is left the community, but the use of it in Pleasant Grove buildings was extensive until the 1890s, creating a distinctive Pleasant Grove characteristic in building material. At least 125 houses were built of this unique stone.

Again in 1890, a change in architectural styles coincided with a new building material when brick began to be produced in Pleasant Grove. Before this time, the cost of shipping brick or coal to produce brick was prohibitive. When brick yards began production in Pleasant Grove, a noticeable change towards more decorative Victorian houses can be seen. Victorian asymmetrical features and decor, which began in Salt Lake City in the 1870s, took time to filter down to small farming communities. This trend is seen in Pleasant Grove’s downtown district in both the commercial buildings and the houses.

The early twentieth-century styles popular in Utah between 1905-25 began to overlap the Victorian period as Pleasant Grove’s architecture continued to reflect state and national building styles. The Bungalow, Arts and Crafts, and Prairie School styles were absorbed into the state’s building tradition during the first part of the twentieth century. The Period Revival styles, mostly during the 1930s, and the Modern styles, during the early 1940s, are evident in Pleasant Grove as well. The period of building in Pleasant Grove corresponds with its period of significance, 1853-1945, and reflects the way in which the city grew.

AGRICULTURE/INDUSTRY:

The topographical location of Pleasant Grove is a prime factor in the development of small-acreage farms that became prominent fruit and berry producers. Initially agriculture was the primary income producing activity in the area. The early 1890s Utah sugar industry proved a boon to some farmers. Sugar beets provided a labor-intensive crop for the lower, heavier soils, more suited for potatoes and beets. Many of the farmers and laborers worked at the Lehi, Utah, processing plant of the then Utah Sugar Company, and at the company’s Pleasant Grove beet cutting station. Around the turn of the century, some stock raising and dairy farming began to develop and has been carried on through two or three generations in some families. The establishment of brick yards was the only other early industry developed within the community in the 1880s and ’90s.

With the coming of inter-state railroad in 1873, several packing companies formed c.1900 to encourage the shipping of the abundant fruit crops by rail to national markets. These were centered around the railroad depot at 200 West and 200 South. By 1913, the Orem Interurban Railway depot was built in that same area. This short-haul railroad with cheaper rates helped considerably in marketing produce and milk within the state. Many of the farmers, however, relied on marketing products through their own resources; farmers hauled produce by wagon and later by truck to mining towns, and personally peddled to households and stores in smaller towns not reached by rail service. In 1915, the Pleasant Grove Cannery was built near the Union Pacific Railroad line; it provided an outlet for row crops, i.e., peas, green beans, corn, tomatoes, and pumpkins, as well as large fruits. With the development of freezer preservation, the cannery also served as a market for fresh-frozen strawberries.

From the 1920s through the 1950s Pleasant Grove farms were major strawberry producers. To promote their product in 1921, the Wasatch Club, a forerunner of the Chamber of Commerce, established a mid-June Strawberry Day celebration. The town became known as Utah’s Strawberry City.

With small farms and little other industry, many men sought work outside the community in logging, mining and railroading. Geneva Steel began its plant three miles south of town in 1941. It was the largest and most significant of several defense-related industries developed in Utah during the World War II period. It was opened in December 1944 but operated as a U.S. government facility for only two years. U.S. Steel bought out the government in 1946 and the company was converted to accommodate peacetime operations. Geneva’s construction and operation significantly impacted the local economy of Utah County by providing jobs and attracting a number of ancillary industries such as fabricating plants. Farmers and their families in Pleasant Grove saw an opportunity for higher wages with fewer work hours invested and many were enticed into giving up small-acreage farming. Farming as a full time area occupation diminished rapidly.

Since World War II, Pleasant Grove has experienced an ever increasing subdivision of farms for residential development. Some light industry slowly crept into the west industrial. Utah Valley as a whole is experiencing increased industrial growth and work opportunities. Growing industrial opportunities have added greatly to the population explosion since 1940; coupled with fast and convenient transportation, Pleasant Grove has been transformed into the third fastest growing and most desirable living area in Utah County in the 1990s. Today few farms remain. Increased commercial growth in closely situated Utah County towns diminished the shopping amenities of Pleasant Grove, changing it into a bedroom community. As a bedroom or residential community, the town has eight parks, a new public library, numerous recreational facilities, and a low crime rate.

The historic district remains amidst the changing surrounding landscape to provide the community of Pleasant Grove with a distinctive sense of place. The heritage of the community is reflected in the commercial, public, and residential buildings that exist within and immediately around the old fort walls. This area has retained the historic qualities of the period 1853-1945 that describe a unique sense of place.

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS:

Cornelius Baxter Commercial Buildings, 1 East Center Street and 3 East Center Street
The first of the two buildings is a small two-bay brick commercial-block building at 1 East Center built sometime after 1893. By 1910, Baxter built a similar two-bay brick commercial-block at 3 East Center. The newest built stands snugly against the 1 East Center building; it is twice the size of the first and trimmed more elaborately with Victorian Eclectic features. Both are single street-level two-bay buildings.

David N. Adamson Commercial Building, 15 East Center
The Adamson building, built in 1910, stands against the building at 3 East Center. Adamson’s is also a two-bay brick block-form but twice the size of the building next to it and even more elaborately decorated with Victorian eclectic features. All three buildings share the single street-level structured appearance with plate-glass display windows, each building with an increasingly larger window. Each also features a flat sloping roof, stepped cornices and brick dentils. The similarly structured but graduated size gives these buildings on Center a stair-like appearance at the head of Main Street.

Clark Brothers Store. 43 South Main
This two-part commercial block was built in 1895. The building has the long back portion constructed of soft-rock and the façade of brick masonry. This was the first brick used for commercial building in Pleasant Grove. It remains the largest and most ornate of the early commercial block-form buildings. Its Victorian eclectic features include six arched windows above the three bays of the street level. These second level windows, in sets of three, each feature a larger center window. Decorative brick form the front cornice and arched window lintels.

Bank of Pleasant Grove. 2 South Main
Built in 1917 on the corner of Main and Center, the building introduced a new style to Main Street-a Prairie School commercial building. Other banks and commercial buildings built during that time in Utah County were classical architectural designs rather than the “modern” Prairie School. A full basement under the bank of stuccoed concrete raises above the sidewalk line; a half-flight of exterior stairs descend to the basement’s Center Street north side entrance. The Main Street building entrance is through an east front recess up a short flight of stairs. Dark brown brick against contrasting cream colored vertical and horizontal stucco panels emphasize the sharply angular yet rectangle Prairie School style; two top horizontal panels are divided by a brick dentiled cornice. Other Prairie School features are a five bay row of vertical casement windows extending the full length of the building with corbeled brickwork above each. Four of the bays have leaded glass panels with diamond patterned glass; a center blind panel, containing the vault, is of recessed brick. A flat-roofed canopy extends over the entrance with a diamond shaped panel set above the porch, linking these geometric designs with the building style. The roof is flat, sloping slightly to the rear.

Pleasant Grove City Hall. 35 South Main
Built in 1938-40, this two-story city government building was financed with money obtained through the Federal Works Project Administration. This WPA Moderne style was often built during the 1930s financed by the Federal Government. Native Soft-rock was salvaged from Clark Hall, the building it replaced, sawed into blocks, and reused in the city hall. Other stone was taken from the hills northeast of town. The Soft-rock building is stuccoed. This building shows the modern streamline design of that period, and is void of ornamentation.

Alhambra Theater. 20 South Main
Van Wagoner brothers built this silent movie theater in 1927 in a Spanish Revival style, the first and only distinctly Spanish architecture in town. The top-half of the building is stuccoed and a dark modeled brick lower-half create a contrast. A center top portion features a front-sloping red tile roof. Between the tile roof and the marquee is a row of recessed arches. Flanking the center portion are two higher square columned parapets with decorative arched brick center cornices creating a symmetry. The two side-fronts have recessed arches matching the center arches. Wrought iron balconies decorate the side arches.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS:

Cyrus Benjamin Hawley House, 55 East Center
Built in 1869 of soft-rock this one and one-half story house with a steeply pitched cross-gable roof illustrates the subtle use of Gothic Revival styling for a vernacular house type. The Hawley house is representative of several houses built near that year. With these houses an attempt began to stylize vernacular house types in Pleasant Grove. Before this year, gable-roofed houses were lower-pitched and undecorative. Near the 1890s, a frame lean-to attached to the rear of the house was replaced by the existing two-story section. At that time Victorian porches were added to the back and front, a second story walk-out porch placed above the front porch, the soft-rock stuccoed and splotched with black paint to resemble granite, and corner quoins scored. The house was extensively renovated and restored in 1984; new decorative wood replaced the old, using the elaborately saw-cut ornamental originals as patterns. All original outbuildings were removed from the property at that time.

Elijah Mayhew House. 214 South Main
Built around 1860, this frame house remains one of the oldest in Pleasant Grove. It is representative of the very few early frame houses built. The rather plain rectangular one and one-half story Federal style features smaller windows above the full windows of the street level, a hip roof, and porch.

Otto L. Mayhew House. 49 South 200 East
Built in the 1870s, the Mayhew house is a temple-form type; a building style used extensively in Utah during the 1850s and 1860s. Few temple-form buildings remain in the state, having been replaced with later building styles. The one and one-half story rectangular clapboard house with the gable-end facing the street and cornice returns is reminiscent of the Greek temple style. A bay-window addition was built on the south side near the back at some undetermined time.

William Black/Reuben Weeks House. 151 East Center
Built in the 1860s or early 1870s probably by William Black, the owner of the property, and from whom Reuben Weeks purchased it in 1873. This is a well preserved example of the hall-parlor plan, the most popular and most often built house in town and on the outlying farm areas of Pleasant Grove. This one level hall-parlor type with a three bay symmetrical facade contained two rooms, the hall room slightly larger. Owners accommodated growing families by building additional rooms onto the back. An addition of log and one of rock (stuccoed) were built at undetermined times before 1890. The front porch with Victorian eclectic styling was added toward the first part of 1900. A barn and stables in the deep lot behind the house have been removed.

Pleasant Grove Hotel/Franklin Beers House. 65 North 100 East
Built in 1885, this two-story hotel and house was built for the family and business purposes. The walls are of oversized adobe brick The Italianate-style detailing includes the hip roof, bracketed eves, and pediment window heads. The house exterior was stuccoed in 1928 and corner quoins added in keeping with the styling. French doors on the front were also added at that time.

Joseph Silas Hillman House. 244 East 200 South
This one and one-half story cross-wing house was built in 1894 with Victorian eclectic stylistic elements. There are Queen Ann shingles inside the triangular pediment above the front window, and a stained glass window below the arched brick lintel. A plain porch is built over the recessed wing.

Edward F. Wadley House, 110 East 200 South
Part of this double cross-wing house was built in 1900, and a second wing added in 1903. The finished house is a one and one-half story variant of the cross-wing form, with two symmetric forward-projecting wings. The gabled ends of the wings have small arched windows surrounded by Queen Ann shingles inside the triangular pediment; These smaller windows sit directly above the lower but larger arched windows that have arched brick lintels. Side columns support the portico between the projecting wings.

Alexander K. Thornton House, 111 West 200 South
Built in 1905, the Thornton house is one of eight central block houses built in Pleasant Grove between 1902-08. Each features one and one-half or two stories, pyramidal center roof with gables over side and front projections, and round-arched or pointed-arch windows in gable ends. Most have the added feature of eyelid dormer windows. This exclusive design is rarely found outside of Utah County.

Harvey M. Vance/Burleigh C. Linebaugh House, 79 West 200 South
Built in 1917 for a combined house and medical practice. It remains one of the best examples of the California Bungalow style south of Salt Lake City. It is built of native soft-rock, giving it the cobbled texture often used in the California Bungalow. Although widely used for forty years in Pleasant Grove, the stone had been a discontinued building material for some twenty years, since brick began to be produced locally. Other stylistic features are the exposed purlins and rafters under the broad low-pitched gable roof, and bands of casement windows. Built on a corner lot, the lower west elevation accesses a walk-in full basement.

John L. Huchel House, 90 East Center
This one and one-half story Arts and Crafts Bungalow style was built in 1920. The porch base and first floor is a distinctive dark brick unlike other used in Pleasant Grove. Contrasting cream colored shingles cover the front of the porch and the top half-level of the house. The porch wraps around from the façade to the east side. Three moderately pitched gables on different levels display wide overhanging eves and purlins. The lights in numerous casement windows vary in size on different levels. The bungalow stands on a slightly raised corner lot accommodating a walk-in basement at the east back while maintaining a low bungalow profile façade.

Clifford L. Wright House. 90 North 100 East
Built in 1933, this brick masonry English Tudor-style house is representative of the few period cottages built in Pleasant Grove. This one-story vernacular expression of earlier medieval building forms combines the hall-parlor and a variant of the cross-wing. The long narrow building has the narrow end facing the street. The facade is asymmetrical styling with a brick chimney to one side and two steeply pitched gables. The smaller of the gables features an arched entrance. Although the house appears small from the facade street view, it extends deeply into the lot.

Carl Smith House. 155 East 500 South
Built in 1948, this one-story Art Moderne house style is rare in Pleasant Grove. The stucco masonry house displays aerodynamic imagery popular before World War II. A striking asymmetrical facade displays the unusual architectural features: three rounded corner windows set in metal casements, a chimney, glass blocks flanking the main entrance, and a second entrance on the facade, each one covered by an unsupported partially circular porch. An attached garage is on the east side. The flat roof and plain cornice are in keeping with the modern styling.

PUBLIC AND RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS:

Pleasant Grove School/Old Bell School, 65 South 100 East
This stuccoed adobe one-story schoolhouse is a vernacular folk-form set with the narrow gable end facing the street. A symmetrical facade was achieved by flanking the center door with two long narrow windows. Each side of the west wing has the same number of long narrow windows; this rectangular part of the building was built in 1864. A middle section was added in 1880 and a cross-wing added to the back in 1887 with a bell tower and bell added on the south gable-end roof. The entire building is of adobes and is stuccoed.

Pleasant Grove Town Hall. 107 South 100 East
Built in 1887 from the widely used native soft-rock. The one-story rectangular building has the block massing of early Utah civic buildings. The symmetrical three bay façade features the center door covering of an angular pediment portico supported by Roman Doric columns. The angular pediment is repeated on the hip roof as a decorative dormer directly above the portico. Under the roof is a wide plain entablature.

The Orpheus Dance Hall/High School Gym. 55 East 200 South
Built in 1909, this one and one-half story brick masonry building has the classical characteristics of arched pediments displayed in Beaux Arts Classicism. During the first decade of the century this decorative styling was used on public and commercial buildings with spacious interiors. In 1921, dressing rooms were added to the front interior of the building and a smaller addition was built to the rear of the building some time later.

Old Second Ward Chapel. 125 North 100 East
Built in 1930, the chapel is Colonial Revival styling typical of Latter-day Saint churches in Utah around the quarter century. The round arched windows and doors and the cornice returns emphasize the styling of the cross-wing gabled building. This building is of dark brick.

Narrative Description:

Pleasant Grove is located in Utah County twelve miles north of Provo and thirty-six miles south of Salt Lake City. The town is situated along the northeastern edges of Utah Valley and Utah Lake and rests on the western slope of the Wasatch Range at the foot of Mount Timpanogos. The Pleasant Grove Historic District combines the business, public, and the residential core of the city. The one-block historic business section and much of the first residential and public areas were developed within the 1853 fort wall boundaries. Buildings within the historic district were constructed between 1853-1945, with eighty percent built between 1865-1920. They show diversity in materials and style, reflecting this period of development. Residential structures range from the earliest 1853 vernacular style adobe building to Period Revival style brick buildings. The district covers an area of approximately 16 blocks of varying size, with 257 primary buildings and 40 outbuildings. Of these, 133 of the buildings and 18 of the outbuildings, or fifty-one percent, contribute to the historic character of the district. Although out-of-period structures are found throughout the area, the district retains its overall historic feeling and association and its distinctive town grid configuration.

The commercial buildings are located primarily in the one-block business district on Main between Center and 100 South. They are constructed mostly of brick and are typically one-part block Victorian Eclectic buildings. The majority of the one- and two-story buildings are in excellent condition and maintain their historic integrity. The corbelled brick work on many of these buildings provides a decorative quality that illustrates the historic nature of the commercial downtown Pleasant Grove. A good example of a one-part block building is the David N. Adamson Commercial Building (c.1895) at 15 East Center, featuring Victorian eclectic features and stepped parapet walls with brick dentils. The Clark Brothers Store (c.1895) at 43 South Main is an example of the larger two-part commercial block building that is constructed of soft-rock side walls and brick masonry façade and includes Victorian eclectic features such as arched windows and decorative brick work. Various other styles in the commercial area of Pleasant Grove include the Prairie School style commercial Bank of Pleasant Grove (1917) at 2 South Main, the PWA Moderne style City Hall (c.1938) at 35 South Main, and the Spanish Revival style of the Alhambra Theater (c.1927) at 20 South Main. This grouping of commercial buildings provides the range of building types and styles popular in Utah between 1895 and 1940.

Outside the commercial block are public and institutional buildings that also include a representative range of styles and materials that span a wide period of development in Pleasant Grove, c. 1864-1930. A vernacular stuccoed adobe school, built c. 1861-1887, known as the Pleasant Grove School/Old Bell School is located at 61 South 100 East. The Pleasant Grove Town Hall, built in 1887, at 107 South 100 East is built of native soft-rock in the Federal style with Victorian ornamentation. A Colonial Revival chapel, the old Second Ward Chapel at 125 North 100 East, was built in 1930 and is typical of Latter-day Saint churches in Utah at that time. A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) church at 494 South 300 East was built with Art Deco stylistic features c.1940 and has since been turned into a mortuary.

The types, styles, and materials used in the residential buildings in this district cover a broad spectrum. The turn-of-the-century dwellings include hall-parlor, temple-form, crosswing and double crosswing, and central-block-with-projecting-bays house types employing Gothic Revival, Federal, Italianate, and Victorian styling. Various bungalow types and styles built between 1914 and the early 1930s, English Tudor and English Cottage styles built in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and an Art Moderne International style built during the 1940s, are also represented within the district boundaries. These types and styles are built in a variety of building materials throughout the district. Many of the houses built before 1890 are of adobe or a locally quarried stone known as soft-rock. Many of these have been stuccoed. After 1890 the houses were built almost exclusively of locally manufactured brick. Frame construction was used less often. Most of the buildings constructed before 1915 have rubblework foundations.

The residences in Pleasant Grove span the historic period, c. 1860-1945. Approximately ten percent of the houses constructed in town and on outlying farms of Pleasant Grove (and throughout Utah) is the hall-parlor plan, represented by the Black/Weeks House at 151 East Center. Originally built c.1870, log and rock additions were built c.1890, and the front porch with Victorian eclectic detailing was added c.1900. The majority of the historic structures are Vernacular style with modest Classical elements, usually Greek Revival (approximately thirty-three percent). The Cyrus Benjamin Hawley House at 55 East Center is a good example of an early stuccoed soft-rock residence. This one-and-one-half story, crosswing house illustrates the vernacular and Greek Revival styles and is representative of several houses built during the late 1860s and early 1870s in Pleasant Grove. An early frame house is represented by the Elijah Mayhew House at 214 South Main. This house was built c.1860 and is a simple Greek Revival style, one-and-one-half story, rectangular type residence.

Residences built after the turn of the century are also well-represented in Pleasant Grove. The Thornton House at 111 West 200 South, built in 1905, is one of a number of central-block-with-projecting-bays houses constructed in the Pleasant Grove Historic District between about 1900 and 1910. These homes feature one-and-one-half or two-story central block form with pyramidal roof and projecting bays with gable roofs, rounded-arch or pointed-arch windows in the projecting gables, and many have included an eyelid dormer.

Approximately fifteen percent of the homes are constructed in the Bungalow style. One of the best examples of the California Bungalow style in this area is the Vance/Linebaugh House (c.1915) at 79 West 200 South. This house is also built of the native soft rock that was used effectively for creating a natural texture, a common Bungalow style feature. It also includes exposed purlins and rafters under a broad low-pitched gable roof and bands of casements windows.

Approximately ten percent of the houses built during the historic period in Pleasant Grove are in the Period Revival style. The Clifford L. Wright’s House at 90 North 100 East is representative of this style and was built in 1933 of brick in the English Tudor style. It features the typical steeply pitched gable entry with an asymmetrically placed rounded arch doorway.

More examples of commercial, residential, and public buildings are highlighted in Appendix A. The majority (fifty-one percent) of the buildings within the Pleasant Grove Historic District retain a high degree of integrity and contribute to the historic association and feeling of the area. The out-of-period buildings in the district are similar in scale and do not diminish the district’s historic qualities. Seventeen of the buildings within the historic district are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The landscape features of this district help to define this area as an historic community. Although a grid system was used, the overlapping of several surveys created blocks of irregular size. Irregular spacing of buildings, open green space within the interior of the blocks, and the blending of residential buildings with public and commercial buildings, all work together to provide a unique character to the area. The original fort boundaries are delineated by the change in the width of the roads at the fort’s edges, another character-defining feature of the Pleasant Grove Historic District. The imprint of the original 1853 fort is still reflected in the current grid system. Sections of Center Street and 200 South are wider between 200 East and Main where the interior roads of the old fort were laid out.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Follow Jacob

Follow Jacob

Come wander with me on Youtube.

Blog Stats

  • 2,105,114 hits

Social and Other Links

BarlowLinks.com

Recent Posts

  • Scout Monument
  • Provo High School Seminary Building
  • 821 E 100 S
  • 820 E 100 S
  • 817-819 E 100 S

Archives

Loading Comments...