• 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

University Neighborhood Historic District

12 Friday Jan 2024

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 38 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts

The University Neighborhood Historic District, mostly in the University Neighborhood of Salt Lake City, Utah. The text below is from the nomination form for when the district was added to the national historic register.

The University Neighborhood Historic District is significant under Criteria A, B, and C. Under Criterion A, the district is important as it reflects the history of Salt Lake City during a period of growth and changing demographic patterns. The neighborhood largely grew during a period (1905-1925) when the city’s population doubled and the economic base shifted from agriculture to industry. By the turn of the century Salt Lake was no longer an isolated, religious community; it was in the political and economic mainstream of the country. The influx of professionals and the establishment of the University of Utah on its current site in 1900, itself an indication of the progress the city was experiencing, greatly influenced the growth and social fabric of the neighborhood and ensured its viability. The area has been home to many faculty and staff members, as well as many professional people not affiliated with the University. 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 contributions of the people living the University Neighborhood Historic District to the city and associated physical improvements within the neighborhood reflect this national trend. It is also significant under Criterion A in its description of a self-contained or self-sufficient neighborhood. This area is one of only a few self-sufficient neighborhoods that developed just outside the core of Salt Lake City at the turn of the century. The University Neighborhood Historic District contains mostly residential buildings built around the University of Utah and incorporates commercial, public, and religious structures to support the residents within the area.

Under Criterion B the University Neighborhood Historic District is significant because of its association with prominent Salt Lake City residents who contributed to the educational, artistic, and professional communities. Many residents of the area taught at the University of Utah and were influential in the fields of medicine, theater, dance, art, architecture, and science. Other professionals in mining, business, political, and medical fields also lived in the University Neighborhood Historic District and influenced the growth of the area and Salt Lake City.

The district is important under Criterion C because of its large number of excellent examples of the styles popular in Salt Lake City and Utah during the first quarter of the twentieth century and because it contains numerous buildings that are both significant and modest examples of the work of prominent Utah architects. Most of the houses display the craftsmanship of design and construction materials associated with the era of the significant period, 1883-1941. The range of residential building types includes small workers’ cottages, Victorian cottages, moderate-sized bungalows, larger two-story more elaborate homes, and apartment buildings. The majority of the buildings date from the 1905 to 1925 period and represent the hallmark styles of the Progressive Era: Prairie, Arts and Crafts, and Craftsmen bungalows. The styles and types of structures in the neighborhood portray the sequence of its development and its association with the growth of the city during a prosperous and forward-thinking time.

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY:

Salt Lake City saw a quickly changing demographic pattern during the first part of the twentieth century. A shift in the socio-economic environment away from the city’s earlier agricultural emphasis occurred along with the increased presence of the mining industry in Utah, improved rail transportation, and rising industrial activity. With the arrival of the railroad in 1869, the mining industry grew on a large scale and Utah’s economy took on a new dimension. Mining became a major industry in Utah, second only to agriculture and a major shift in demographic patterns in Salt Lake City was underway.

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 land higher east of the original town grid. Acquiring a suitable water supply for the bench lands and in the areas immediately surrounding the city continued to be a problem, as did the establishment of a suitable sewer system. The accumulation of a smoke haze over the city was a problem before 1900, but motor vehicles and smoke-producing industries exacerbated the problem and 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”. There was a need and desire for residents of Salt Lake City to move to higher ground for cleaner air and water.

Civic improvements in the University Neighborhood Historic District and throughout the city included the planting of trees and building of sidewalks. The patterns of subdivision and land utilization were worked out by 1911, and zoning was established in 1922 in large part in response to the problems of indiscriminate commercial, industrial, and residential development in all parts of the city. A bill was introduced to zone the city into two categories, residential and industrial, in all parts of the city, however, enforcing zoning regulations continued to be a problem.

The streetcar system, first established in the city in 1872, played an important role in the development of the University Neighborhood Historic District. A trolley line ran around the University Neighborhood Historic District, along 100 South, 500 South, 1100 East and 1300 East. With the alteration of some city streets to accommodate the new street car system (1906-11) electrical wires and poles were moved from the center to the sides of the street or buried underground. Concurrent with those alterations was the creation of “parkings”, or grass medians, down the center of several streets, introduced for the benefit of those who could not seek recreation elsewhere. The parking at 1200 East between 100 and 200 South was developed in the 1920s as a block play center. A retaining wall was built and plans were made for wading pools, ball diamonds, winter toboggan slides, and shelter houses. Although the play center continued to be operated by the city throughout the 1930s, most of those plans were not realized. All of these improvements-zoning, better utilities, and the availability of more green space-­ are examples of public works efforts that were instigated at the insistence of residents of Salt Lake City and the University Neighborhood Historic District during the first quarter of the twentieth century.

A result of the World Columbian Exposition held in Chicago in 1893, the City Beautiful movement not only encouraged large-scale grand boulevards, classical memorials, and formal landscaping, but also elevated the status of the nascent planning profession and contributed to the realization that the physical elements of a city affected its citizens. While the University Neighborhood Historic District does not contain examples of this movement on a grand scale, and there may not have made a concerted effort to employ the specific components, the features mentioned above are significant because they represent small scale examples of the City Beautiful movement and reflect the trend toward improving neighborhood conditions.

A look at the lives of many of the residents in the district (brief synopses with addresses and dates of the construction of the house are listed in Appendix A) reveals that the district was home to many prominent citizens involved in mining, business, politics and law, medicine, and teaching at the University of Utah. Their success indicates the prosperity that the city enjoyed during the period of significance c.1893-1945. In many instances their professions and civic activities indicate their desire to improve their community through more responsible government, improved education, and more opportunities for the general population. For example, Charles Loffbourow (54 South 1200 East) was a district attorney, a district judge, and a Congressman who also served on the board of education and volunteered for the Children’s Service Society. Frank Stephens (169 South 1300 East) was Salt Lake City Attorney and was instrumental in Salt Lake City’s adoption of the commission form of government. Dr. Leslie Paul (258 South Douglas) was a volunteer clinical faculty member at the University of Utah College of Medicine who helped establish the Intermountain Red Cross Blood Bank and served as commanding officer of a U.S. Army field hospital in Iran in 1944.

In many instances their professions, interests, and civic activities were in keeping with the Progressive Era. This loosely-defined but effective movement addressed many of the concerns held by the middle class from about 1900 to 1920, including corruption in government, exploitive and hazardous working conditions, the effect of immigrants on American society, and the influence of corporate monopolies on consumers and private enterprise. Although differences existed among progressive reformers, they shared an important common value-that society was malleable and could be improved if molded in the property way. To this end reformers modernized urban government by extending merit systems, streamlining administrations, and transferring power from mayors to city managers and commissions. They enacted better working conditions by regulating hours, restricting child labor, and providing compensation for injuries. The participants brought about the first measures of consumer protection, and improved the appearance and safety of cities by enacting building codes, zoning ordinances, and urban planning guidelines.

The accomplishments of many of the women who lived in the district illustrate the prominent role that women played in the social and civic concerns of the Progressive movement, and indicated that more opportunities were available to them to effect change outside the home. Maud May Babcock (273 South 1100 East) established the University of Utah theater in 1895 and was long associated with the speech and drama department. She wrote several books, chaired the board of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind, and served as the first woman chaplain of the Utah Legislature. Loree Forsyth Snow (219 South Elizabeth) instigated the first high school model U. N. Assembly in the country, was the first woman chairman of the Utah Association for the United Nations, and spearheaded the establishment of the new medical-surgical building at the Utah State Hospital in Provo. Lois Hashimoto (315 South 1200 East) was instrumental in raising the money to construct the Japanese Church of Christ (268 West 100 South, National Register, 1982).

SELF-SUFFICIENT NEIGHBORHOODS:

The University Neighborhood is one of Salt Lake City’s more substantial “self-sufficient” neighborhoods that contain residential, commercial, public, and institutional buildings. Several other pockets of commercial development emerged in residential neighborhoods away from the central business district during the early twentieth century. Some, such as the area at 1500 East and 1500 South, consisted of only a few small commercial buildings to service the neighborhood’s residents. Others were more substantial. The commercial hub at 900 East and 900 South, for example, had a few two-story commercial buildings, several one-story buildings, and one industrial building, a flour mill. An area along the west side of the city had a few small commercial buildings plus a church, theater, and library spread along 900 West between about 400 South and 600 South.

The most fully developed neighborhood commercial center in Salt Lake City was (and still is) Sugar House, centered at 1100 East and 2100 South, approximately 4-1/2 miles southeast outside the central business district. In addition to a large number of commercial buildings, the area had a fire station, library, post office, churches, schools, and several industrial buildings. For a brief period in the early twentieth century, Sugar House had even been incorporated as the town of Forest Dale.

Though not nearly as large or diverse as Sugar House, the University Neighborhood Historic District was still one of the most notable of the city’s self-contained neighborhoods. The university, which relocated here in 1900, stimulated the growth of both residential and commercial buildings, which in turn justified the construction of “support” structures such as the fires station and churches. The development of Reservoir Park, with its green space, playgrounds, tennis courts, and art center, provided another urban amenity to this and surrounding neighborhoods.

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH INFLUENCE:

The establishment of the University of Utah on land acquired from Fort Douglas is a major factor in the neighborhood’s development. The Fort Douglas military reserve, established in 1862 to protect the Overland Telegraph from Indian and Confederate attack, had blocked residential building in the area east of 1300 East and north of 500 South until Congress appropriated sixty acres of land from the western part of the Fort Douglas reserve for a new University of Utah campus in 1894. The need of a large campus had been considered for a number of years before the land was made available. University President John R. Park had considered the western part of the Fort Douglas Military Reservation as the best available land for a new campus. He asked the United States Congress for a grant of land from the Reservation which was passed in the 1892 session of the Territorial Legislature. The bill provided for the granting to the Territory of Utah “a tract of land containing not less than 60 acres off the west side of the reservation known as the Fort Douglas Reserve, which tract shall adjoin the east boundary of Salt Lake City”. The sixty-acre tract was between 100 South and 400 South with a western boundary 400 feet east of 1300 East. The funds for establishing the university on the new site were allocated by a bill passed by the Utah legislature in 1899.

The official opening of the university at this site occurred on October 1, 1900, even though the buildings were not quite ready for occupancy. Four of the five major buildings planned for the new site had been completed by 1902. The university continued to grow as an additional thirty-two acres of land to the east and south was granted in 1906. The number of collegiate students in the university increased from 183 in 1900-01 to 1,602 in 1915-16. It dropped to 1,029 in 1917-18 and after the end of World War I, then rose to 1,628 in 1919-20. In the decade from 1921-22 to 1930-31, the increase was 78 percent. There was a drop during the depression but it was less than anticipated partially because of a widespread conviction among people that their time would be best spent improving their education and training when jobs weren’t available, and because of the loans and part-time employment set up by the federal government through the various New Deal era agencies. With a slight drop between 1933-34, the attendance steadily increased to 4,445 in 1940-41.

“During WWI, enrollment had been somewhat slowed. The end of the war brought an influx of students. The increase in size and complexity of the student body brought new and complex problems.” Meeting student housing demands was one of the problems. The Emery Memorial Home for Men (1327 East 200 South, now the Newman Center), built in 1913 by the Episcopal Church, was one of the first dormitories to house male university students. Dormitory accommodations for women had been recognized but were limited after the university moved to its new campus in 1900. It wasn’t until 1938 that, with the help of Public Works Administration funding, Carlson Hall, “built in the style of ‘adapted modern Italian’ and provided all modern conveniences and equipment, was completed.” A few of the fraternities and sororities provided housing for their members.

Many of the students commuted to the campus using public transportation systems, minimizing the need for on-site housing. “The university drew its undergraduate membership in large measure from Salt Lake City and near-by communities. As merely day-time members of the University community, students did not curtail their activity in the social life of their home associations to become integrated with the campus bloc.”

The size of the faculty was naturally dependent on the student population.

The remarkable growth in the collegiate student body and a great increase in financial support extended by the Legislature made possible an enlargement of the faculty from nine professors, one associate professor, five assistant professors, and twelve instructors exclusive of the special teachers in the Training School in 1900-01, to twenty-nine full professors, five associate professors, one assistant professors, and sixteen regular instructors, not including assistants and special lecturers in 1914-15.

With the development of the University came development of the land to the west as a residential neighborhood. In the 1890s several (17) larger homes had been constructed by businessmen and professionals, but the area saw its greatest development between 1905 and 1925 when subdivisions were platted and built up and the University of Utah professors, and those working in responsible positions at the facility, looked for homes close to the school. Approximately one-third of the faculty listed in the 1918-19 University of Utah General Catalogue resided within the University Neighborhood Historic District boundaries.

The growth and maturation of the University of Utah greatly enhanced the cultural and intellectual life of the city, and the expertise of many of its faculty became available to local businesses and government. Elias Beckstrand (244 South Douglas), a mechanical engineering professor, served as the consulting engineer for the Utah Copper Corporation and for the Utah State Road Commission. LeRoy Taylor (258 South University Street) was also on the engineering faculty and was involved in the planning of the Central Colorado-Great Basin Development, a project that culminated in the construction of Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon dams.

The influence of the University of Utah on the University Neighborhood Historic District’s social fabric is reflected in the number of prominent educators who built homes or moved into existing homes in this area during the early decades of this century.

ARCHITECTURE:

Residential Development:

After the accessibility of water and transportation had opened the area to development, the small-scale real estate developer was able to purchase individual lots and build a few homes at a time. This trend took hold at the beginning of the area’s building (1883), was substantial between 1905-1925, and continued throughout the 1930s. Builders constructed four to six houses on a block in anticipation of the influx of students, teachers, and university employees. The time frame for the majority of the speculative building, 1900-1920, coupled with the extensive use of the bungalow and foursquare house types, popular in Utah from 1900-1920, corresponds with the patterns of growth in the neighborhood. The Victorian houses (1880-1910), followed by the Bungalows (1905-1925), and the English Tudor/Period Revival Cottages (1915-1935), illustrate three major periods of growth that reflect city-wide development patterns for this period.

The Victorian styles, popular in Utah between 1880 and 1910, were used in nearly twenty percent of the homes built in the University Neighborhood Historic District. The goal of the Victorian styles was one of visual complexity and was achieved by using a variety of different house types, such as the side-passage plan, the cross-wing house type, and the central-block-with-projecting-bays plan. With the availability of mass-produced millwork and decorative ornamentation, the stylistic developments changed during this period on both the national and local levels. The use of Victorian styles reflects the ending of isolation in Utah as pattern-book styles were utilized extensively throughout the state.

Examples of Victorian style houses in the University Neighborhood Historic District include some larger, two-and-one-half-story, ornate homes such as the house at 1111 East 100 South. This home was built in 1893 by Abraham Hanauer, Jr., who performed legal and secretarial work in the mining industry. Another example is that of the George and Mabel Osmond house at 127 South 1200 East. This home was constructed in 1890, this two-story frame house also incorporates the asymmetrical plan and wrap around porch. The pattern-book stylistic influence is also seen in the smaller, one-and-one-half story home at 1115 East 500 South. Built in 1908 by Fred C. Hadder, this more modest wood frame home continues to use similar features and detailing that represent this period of development in the University Neighborhood Historic District.

Nearly forty percent of the contributing residential structures in this district are built in the Bungalow, Arts and Crafts, and Prairie School styles. These styles were popular in Utah 1905-25 and incorporated many similar stylistic features such as low, hipped roofs and wide, overhanging eaves. The wide porches helped to create an impression of informal living and in uniting the house to its site. The bungalow plan is open, informal, and economical and was the most popular house type in Utah during the first quarter of this century. The bungalow 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.

The David and Alice G. Smith House at 1257 East 100 South, built in 1909, is a good example of an Arts and Crafts Bungalow with its exposed rafters and purlins, half-timbered dormer, and full-width porch with paired square columns on rough stone posts. This one story brick home was designed by Bernard O. Mecklenberg and built as a speculative house by Albert S. Erickson. A Craftsman Bungalow with similar but more modest detailing at 441 South Douglas Street was built in 1910 by a speculative developer, H. Bynir. The first residents were Sylvan, a department store manager, and Elizabeth Leon. Another Bungalow at 1224 East 100 South was built c.1925 of brick with half-timbered, clipped gables, as an investment by Willard B. Richards. Clarence J. (a bandmaster) and Josephine Davis Hawkins lived here from 1926-50.

The most extensive use of the Period Revival in the University Neighborhood District dates from the late 1920s through the 1930s. Approximately thirty percent of the buildings in the district are Period Revival English Tudor, Neoclassical, and Colonial Revival characteristics. Period Revival styles were popular in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah between 1890-1940, with most of this style home in the University Neighborhood Historic District being constructed after 1925.

Various explanations have been offered for the popularity of these styles and one opinion is that national pride following World War I led to an increased used of the Colonial Revival and Neoclassical styles, while another states that the English Tudor and French Normal were favored by doughboys recently returned from Europe. These designs almost always displayed the architect’s or builder’s familiarity with the external, decorative features of the historical style rather than with the building tradition, its formal features, or plan types. They were simplistically massed, suggesting the informality that various architectural writers of the period stated was appropriate to the American way of living.

Representative examples of the Period Revival styles include the house at 1219 East 400 South that was built in 1929, probably as a speculative house, by Henning Henderson. The steep gable entrance and tudor arched doorway in this brick house is typical of the English Cottage. The one-story house at 1155 East 400 South is another model of a English Cottage that has included decorative brickwork on the bottom wall courses and brick lintels. It was built c.1932 by Tressa A. Dontre. The house at 175 South 1200 East is a one-and-one-half story version of the Tudor Revival style. The builder and first resident of this house was Glenn R. Bothwell, a developer who also built several other residences in the neighborhood.

This neighborhood reflects these three periods of growth through its numerous examples of well-preserved buildings and its overall strength in historical integrity. The University Neighborhood Historic District illustrates its historic feeling in part because of the range of styles. Its appearance is unlike other suburban neighborhoods that are much more uniform in architectural styles and plans. An important aspect of this historic district lies in its reflection of a period just prior to the suburban development after WWII. There is a balance between the diversity seen in urban development with the uniformity seen in suburban development. There are various types and styles spanning a period of nearly fifty years that reflect this changing pattern of residential development and demonstrates the transition between the urban and the suburban image of the outlying areas.

Several urban apartment buildings in this area were built close to the University primarily during the early twentieth century. Urban apartments are significant for their association with the rapid urbanization of Salt Lake City during the 1890-1930s. Apartments document the accommodation of builders and residents to the realities of crowded living conditions and high land values. The apartments in the University Neighborhood Historic District fall within the two periods of construction, 1902-1918 (University and Cluff Apartments) and 1922-31 (Edgehill and Commander Apartments), a break in building that was caused by WWI. Dwellers in apartments are more transient in nature than suburban homeowners and reflect this area’s need for some short-term living accommodations in a predominately single-family dwelling neighborhood.

The need for large numbers of apartments and student housing did not occur until after World War II. At that time many of the residences were converted into rental units to accommodate the increasing student enrollment. Most of those houses have maintained rental status, although, within the last few years, a number of homes west of 1300 East have been restored to single family dwellings.

Public, Institutional, and Commercial Development:

The residence at 1337 East 500 South originally housed the Emigration Canyon Railway’s headquarters. With the demand for quarried building materials increasing during the late 1800s, and the advent of an electric railway system, Emigration Canyon Railway was organized and incorporated in 1907. The house and the property to the east (current parking for the University of Utah), served as the station headquarters until 1917.

Fire Station No. 8 is the second oldest visually intact fire station in Salt Lake City, and is historically significant in documenting the expansion and development of the fire-fighting service in Salt Lake City. It also illustrate the city’s willingness to combine aesthetic considerations with functional needs. Designed by the city, it was built in 1930 to serve the “outlying” east bench area, one of the fastest growing residential areas at that time. With the need for a fire station, and because of its location, zoning on both sides of 1300 East Street between 200 South and 300 South was changed in November 1929 from Residential B-2 to Residential C-2. This zoning change has, over the years, allowed the growth of an island of commercial development along this block.

Commercial buildings are concentrated along 1300 East between 200 and 300 South, and on 200 South, between University and 1300 East. This L-shaped retail/restaurant/commercial strip has been maintained as a vital area that has served the University of Utah and the University Neighborhood District since the 1930s. Although changes in specific use have changed somewhat over the years, it continues to be a small-scale, pedestrian-based commercial strip. Business along 1300 East includes several restaurants, such as the one in Fire Station No. 8, a coffee shop, a bookstore, a record shop, a travel agency, and a clothing store. Along 200 South, the University Pharmacy and a pizzeria have long been associated with University students. Some intrusion of out-of-period buildings and alterations have influenced the appearance of this area, however, its historic integrity has not been significantly altered and it continues to reflect the activities that have long been associated with this district.

Other structures and sites:

One of the first reservoirs constructed to serve the increasing city population was located at 1300 East and 100 South, the area known today as Reservoir Park. A covered City Reservoir, constructed 1900-01, on the corner of 1300 East and 100 South is surrounded by a wall, built in 1914,39 which is a prominent visual landmark for the University Neighborhood Historic District. It is a unique example of this type of urban design element in the city.

Reservoir Park is incorporated in this block as well as the Art Barn, a building constructed c.1930 under the direction of the commissioner of parks, Harry L. Finch. The small street on which the Art Barn is located was renamed Finch Lane in 1933.

With the variety of building types, the University Neighborhood Historic District developed as a self-contained community. Primarily a residential area, the commercial, public, and institutional buildings in the area served the residential population.

Several architects prominent in Salt Lake City and Utah during the early years of the twentieth century were influential in the building of the University Neighborhood Historic District. Excellent examples of Prairie style houses designed by the firm of Ware and Treganza, one of the leading architectural firms in the state during the first quarter of the twentieth century, include the houses as 1211 and 1229 East 100 South. These homes were built for two Covey brothers, Alman and Hyrum, businessmen involved with the Covey Investment Company. The firm also designed more modest homes such as the one at 330 South Douglas Street, built in 1916 for John M. Murphy, a time clerk at the Union Pacific Railroad. They also designed the Queen Anne Victorian style house at 157 South 1300 East for Ira H. and Blanche S. Lewis. The firm primarily designed residential buildings and often incorporated the Arts and Crafts style.

Frederick A. Hale, a graduate of the architecture program at Cornell University and a prominent Utah architect between 1890 and 1934, designed the Craftsman and Colonial Revival style home at 162 South 1300 East for Andrew J. and Letitia Hosmer, and the Frank B. and Lumnette S. Stephens house at 169 South 1300 East. His commission, which included mansions along South Temple Street and downtown commercial structures, reflect his association with the city’s non-Mormon citizens who were influential in mining and business ventures. He used styles that were popular nationally, such as the Shingle and Queen Anne styles for residential properties and Beaux Arts classicism for institutional structures, thus contributing to the increasing urbanization that Salt Lake City and the rest of the state experienced at the turn of the century.

Other well-known architects designed residences and institutional structures in the neighborhood. Bernard O. Mecklenberg was a well-known architect who designed a number of notable buildings in Salt Lake City during the early twentieth century, including the house at 164 South 1300 East for Charles L. Rood. The University Ward Chapel at 160 South University Street is an excellent example of the late Gothic Revival style, designed by the firm of Pope and Burton, another prominent architectural firm in Utah during the period of the district’s formation. The Chapel was built in 1925 for the LDS Church. The cost of construction was $120,000.

Two architects who designed significant landmark structures in Salt Lake lived in the neighborhood. Carl M. Neuhausen, one of Utah’s most prominent architects, designed the Chateauesque style residence for his family at 1265 East 100 South. The estimated cost of construction in 1901 was $5,000. Some of Neuhausen ‘s notable works include the Kearns Mansion (now known as the Governor’s Mansion) (National Register, 1970) and the Cathedral of the Madeleine (National Register, 1971). David C. Dart built the house at 206 Douglas for his family in 1907. He was a well-known local architect who designed buildings around Salt Lake City, including the Judge Building (National Register 1979), Patrick Dry Goods Building, and Our Lady of Lourdes Chapel (all still in existence).

The University Neighborhood Historic District is significant in describing an important period of growth in Salt Lake City. Influences that were effecting change in many American cities are evident in the way in the University Neighborhood Historic District. Salt Lake City was becoming a cosmopolitan community and moving away from the isolationism that had been part of the initial settlement. The architectural styles, the people’s professional careers and contributions to the community, and the improved educational systems, were working together to help build a city that was connected to other American cities. The strength of that community is seen in its ability to provide amenities for the neighborhood, and the area has retained its status as a stable and contributory part of Salt Lake City evident in the architectural components within this area.

The boundaries of the district, as a result of the reconnaissance survey results, has been defined in part through the historic development patterns. In addition to being influenced greatly by historical data, the district reflects prominent visual boundaries in the area such as 500 South, University Street, and the bench area of the Wasatch mountains. Another important visual component in the district is the clustering of house types throughout the neighborhood. The variety of house types within these groups provides a unique character. Rows of trees lining the curbs and the scale and styling of the houses are connecting visual elements within the district which maintain the neighborhood’s setting. Most of the houses were built as single family residences.

The district is weakened somewhat by the obvious visual break of the later, non-contributory commercial buildings along the 1300 East between 200-300 South, but the architectural and historical character of the areas on both sides of 1300 East are united strongly enough to warrant their qualification as a single district. Additional non-contributory buildings, most either newer buildings or radically altered older buildings, are interspersed throughout the district, but are relatively few in number.

Narrative Description of the University Neighborhood Historic District

The University Neighborhood Historic District is located on a bench of the Salt Lake valley approximately two miles east of the central business district of Salt Lake City and immediately west of the University of Utah campus. The area contains several original square 10-acre blocks as well as a number of half-size rectangular blocks. It is primarily a residential neighborhood with a commercial strip of two blocks in the east/central part of the district. Out of the 586 buildings in the district, 452 buildings are contributing, 71 are non-contributing due to alterations, and 63 are out-of-period structures. There are also two sites (grass medians and a park) and one structure (the reservoir) within the district. While the period of significance for the district ranges from c.1883 to 1941, the majority of historic buildings (seventy-five percent) date from the 1905-1925 period. The tree-lined streets, grass parking medians, sidewalks, and uniform set-backs in the neighborhood are distinctive features that enhance its character. The district retains a high degree of its historic integrity with eighty-two percent of the buildings contributing to the historic association and feeling of the area.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS:

Single-Family Dwellings:

The architectural types and styles found in this district are typical of buildings constructed at that time in other parts of the city and throughout Utah. Victorian, Bungalow, and Period Revival styles and their associated types or plans dominate the district’s residential architecture. The Victorian houses incorporate the cross-wing, central-block-with-projecting-bays, and side-passage plans. The Bungalows’ rectangular block, open living area plans, are common throughout the district. The Period Cottages utilize the simple and practical plans similar to those of the Bungalows, but have incorporated stylistic elements on the exterior providing historical references that add to the neighborhood’s character.

The extensive use of brick throughout the area further strengthens the district’s cohesiveness. Seventy six percent of the buildings in the district are constructed of brick. The remainder include a number of buildings that have a stucco finish, with shingle and horizontal wood siding providing the remainder of the historic fabric in the district. A relatively small number (one-half percent) of aluminum-sided buildings appear in the district. Overall, the dominant use of brick throughout the area provides a strong sense of historic integrity.

Some grouping of houses by scale and ornamentation occurs. Groupings of smaller houses, simpler in design and execution of architectural details, on smaller lots, occur on Bueno Avenue and University Street between 400 and 500 South. The larger homes with more ornate architectural detailing on larger lots appear on Douglas Street, 1200 East, and especially along 100 South, the area nearest the South Temple Historic District.

Multiple Family Dwellings:

Historic apartment buildings that contribute to the area include the University Apartments (c.1907) at 201 South 1300 East, the Cluff Apartments (1911) (National Register, 1989), at 1270-1280 East 200 South, the Commander Apartments (c.1928) at 147 South 1300 East, and the Edgehill Apartments (c.1928) at 227 South 1300 East. A complex of apartments buildings on 100 South between 1100 and 1200 East was built c.1955, and although out of period, maintains the historic quality of the street. The infill of newer structures has included only a few large apartment buildings, with residences of similar scale and materials comprising the majority of out-of-period structures.

Commercial Buildings:

There is a L-shaped core of commercial structures within the University Neighborhood Historic District. The commercial buildings along 200 South between 1300 East and University Street are primarily one-story structures that were built as retail shops. Many of the buildings along 1300 East between 200 and 300 South were originally built as residences and converted to commercial, retail spaces in the 1930s. The L-shaped commercial strip is an integral part of the historic quality of the district. Alterations in the retail shop areas include store front changes, including outdoor waiting and dining areas and signage. These changes have not significantly impacted the historic qualities of the area and this commercial area continues to encourage pedestrian traffic.

Public Buildings:

The building at 1337 East 500 South was originally built as the Emigration Canyon Railway headquarters. This one-story building is of frame construction with Arts and Crafts styling. It is currently used as a residence.

Fire Station No. 8 (National Register, 1983), constructed in 1930, is a one-and-one-half story gable-roofed brick building featuring Period Revival styling. The building’s residential appearance reflects careful attention given to scale, setback, and design, contributing to the historic character of the district. Conversion of the building in 1982-83 for restaurant use left the exterior appearance virtually intact.

Religious Buildings:

The LDS Church University Ward Chapel at 160 South University Street was built in 1925. The silica block exterior shell expresses the tall and narrow nave within. Over the large double doors is a large tympanum, deeply inset within the wall that features a ceramic mosaic tile mural of “Christ.” The building’s scale and massing are in keeping with the neighborhood and it contributes to the historic nature of this area.

The Salt Lake Thirty-third Ward at 453 South 1100 East is a Victorian Gothic style church. This two-story building incorporates pointed arched windows at the front and side entrances under simple gabled rooflines. The rear addition, although not original to the building, is a product of the historic period and the building continues to enhance the character of the neighborhood.

The Emery Memorial Home for Men (1327 East 200 South, now the Newman Center), was built in 1913 by the Episcopal Church. It was demolished and reconstructed in the 1980s, and although no longer an original structure, it compliments the historic qualities of the neighborhood.

Sites/Structures:

The block between 1300 East and University Street, and South Temple and 100 South, encompasses a park, an enclosed reservoir and associated wall, and a c.1930 building known as the Art Barn. The park, Reservoir Park, is located at the corner of 1300 East and University is a large green space with lawn and mature trees.

The reservoir, located on the corner of 1300 East and 100 South, has a historic wall that rises from the street level at that corner. It serves as the western border of the enclosed reservoir that includes tennis courts on the concrete top. This wall is constructed of concrete and incorporates recessed geometric designs and evenly spaced posts with every other one capped with a tapered spire and an electric light.

One historic building, the Art Barn, built c.1930, exists mid-block on a small street called Finch Lane. It is a one-and-one-half-story, shingle-sided Period Revival style building with simple architectural detailing.

Streetscapes/Landscaping Features:

In addition to the structures, the district is enhanced by visual components that are important in the cohesive streetscapes, including tree-lined curbs, uniform setbacks, and compatible scale of the buildings. The grass medians, or “parkings,” that exist on 1200 East and 200 South are distinctive features within the neighborhood that date from c.1905. Other features include alleyways, driveways that extend from the street, retaining walls, and fences in a variety of materials.

The area in which the University Neighborhood Historic District is located has been called the east bench because of the noticeable change in topography. The steeply cut roads and terraced yards along 100-500 South east of 1100 East illustrate the dramatic rise in the landscape. These features respond to the geography and help to define a distinctive area.

The architecture in the University Neighborhood Historic District continues to depict the period of its significance, c.1883-1941. The structures and sites compliment the buildings and help define a turn-of-the-century community in Salt Lake City.

Bountiful Historic District

29 Friday Dec 2023

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bountiful, Davis County, Historic Districts, utah

Bountiful Historic District, one of Utah’s Historic Districts, roughly bounded by 200 West, 500 South, 400 East and 400 North in Bountiful, Utah and added to the National Historic Register in 2005. The text on this page is from the nomination form from when it was added.

The Bountiful Historic District is located in the historic city center of Bountiful, Davis County, Utah. Bountiful was Utah’s second settlement and is located just ten miles north of Salt Lake City. Bountiful’s historic city center is significant in the architectural, economic and social history of the Bountiful. The historic district is significant under Criterion A for its association with the development of the community from a satellite pioneer settlement to independent suburban center. Bountiful’s proximity and economic ties to Salt Lake City informed the development of the community, but the city center has retained its historic character despite growth pressure, which began in the historic period and continues today. The historic and architectural of the district resources are eligible within the following areas of significance: Community Planning and Development, Agriculture, Commerce, and Social History. The district is primarily residential with a commercial corridor along Main Street and the boundaries follow the outline of the town’s first plat. The area includes 779 contributing buildings, including 520 primary buildings and 259 outbuildings (66 percent of total resources). Despite a high number of out-of-period buildings, the Bountiful Historic District is also significant under Criterion C for an intact concentration of historic buildings, which exhibit a high level of integrity and craftsmanship. The contributing buildings represent Bountiful’s major historic construction phases, which resulted in an impressive range of architectural styles, types, and materials. Prior to this nomination, two buildings within the district were individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Early Settlement Period, 1848-1869

The settlement of Bountiful began with the family of Perrigrine Sessions, who brought a herd of 300 cattle to the area on September 27, 1847, approximately two months after members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church) entered the Salt Lake Valley. He camped in the area near today’s 300 North and 300 West, just outside of the historic district. The Sessions family spent the winter in a dugout on the side of the creek bank, which marked the beginning of what became the second Mormon settlement in the Utah Territory and the first one in Davis County. In March 1848, the herd was given up so the Sessions and five other families could begin farming. Twenty-five families spent the winter of 1848-1849 in the area. In 1849, the Whipple saw mill and a log schoolhouse were constructed in what known as Sessions Settlement. Three years later a public building was built for school, church and socials. At first the settlers lived in wagon boxes, tents, or crude dugouts. Perrigrine Sessions built a log cabin in the spring of 1848. Others soon followed. In 1854, Jeremiah Willey built a log cabin at approximately 495 E. 500 South, which was renovated and displayed at the Bountiful City Park for many years (The cabin was moved to the city hall complex in early 2005 and is no longer within the boundaries of the historic district). The area was organized as an LDS Ward, and in 1850, John Stoker was named as the third bishop. He presided over the community for twenty-three years, and was instrumental in uniting the scattered community of farmsteads under a common name. Bountiful was the name of an ancient city described in the Book of Mormon. Prior to this time the families were scattered throughout the area currently known as Bountiful, Centerville and Woods Cross.

In the 1850s, the community became more organized. Road districts were established in 1853, and a post office designated in 1854. That was the same year as the first town site survey. The boundaries of the first town site, known as Plat A, encompassed the area designated for the Bountiful Fort. Based on early models of Mormon town planning, it was believed that the community’s social, cultural and educational development would be better served by concentrating the residences within the town site with farming in the outlying acreage. The fortified town would also provide protection from the perceived threat of Native Americans, who had previously used the land for hunting and camping. The fort wall was designed as a dirt embankment along the Plat A boundary streets: 200 West, 400 North, 400 East and 500 South. The mud wall, as it was called, was only partially completed and eventually demolished by 1900. The settlers were advised to move into the fortified city and lots were sold for $5.00 to $25.00 per lot. John Stoker was one of the first residents to move his family to the fort. Of the 150 families living in Bountiful in 1855, only 36 had built homes inside the fort.

The settlement was tied to Salt Lake City and the greater community through dirt roads, the Pony Express (1860) and the Desert Telegraph (1867). The dedication of the Bountiful Tabernacle on March 13, 1863, was an impressive two-day event, which brought many visitors to the community. The Bountiful Tabernacle, built of adobe brick on a stone foundation and designed by Bountiful resident Abraham Farnham, is one of the largest surviving adobe buildings in Utah. The National Register-listed buildings is also one of the oldest LDS Church meetinghouses in continual use. [Photograph 10]. The tabernacle replaced an early log building (corner of 400 North and 200 West, demolished) and an adobe schoolhouse (same area, demolished), which had been used for church and community meetings. Hannah Holbrook is credited as the first school teacher in Bountiful.

Within a few years, the settlers were able to move from their rough hewn log cabins into more substantial homes made from adobe and stone. In 1850, Sessions built a two-story adobe house in 1850 on the main Territorial Road from Salt Lake to the northern settlements (200 West). Until its demolition around 1900, the house was the home to several families of Sessions and also served the community as an inn, Pony Express stop and post office. The adobe bricks were made from clay in area near today’s 500 North and 100 West. John Crosby, a farmer, and his wife Mary Jane Johnson, had a two-story adobe home on 100 West [Photographs 23 & 1A]. Stone masonry was also favored by early Bountiful settlers. Jeremiah Willey began constructed a stone house in 1868, the year he died. It was completed by his sons, and is occupied by a descendant today [Photograph 25]. The stone barn, located on 200 West, was part of the Daniel and Cordelia Carter farmstead, and is the oldest stone building in Bountiful [Photograph 26]. Brick-making began in Bountiful during this period. Henry Rampton, the town’s most prominent blacksmith and a polygamist, had two of the earliest brick homes built for his wives, Frances Dinwoodey and Ada McDuff [Photograph 34].

Water for irrigation came from the canyons to the east. Barton (later Holbrook) Creek ran diagonally south to north through the platted town. Mill Creek ran just to the south of the town site. Stone and North Canyon Creeks brought water to the lands north and south of the town respectively. Heber C. Kimball built the first grist mill in Bountiful, and there were several lumber mills located, on the creeks. Early industries also included a broom factory, blacksmithing, weaving, and molasses mills. The first store was located at what was called Old Boynton Corner where the Bountiful Third Ward was built (400 North and 400 East). Subsistence agriculture at the family level was the main occupation of Bountiful’s settlers during this period. Those who produced for commodities relied on grain and cattle. But the population grew quickly and a few mercantiles and other businesses began to open shop on Main Street, thus preparing the town for the coming of the railroad, which began a post-pioneer era of growth and economic diversification.

Agriculture, Railroad and Commerce Period, 1870-1891

The coming of the railroad changed the economic base of Bountiful dramatically, and within this period the historic district was established as the commercial and social center of the community. A large number of Bountiful laborers worked on the construction of the Utah Central Railroad, and several men supplied the lumber for railroad ties. The first immigrants to arrive by train were the family of Jacob Gierisch, marking the end of the settlement period. The first non-LDS church was established in Bountiful when the local Protestant congregation stone meetinghouse, known as Bliss Hall, in 1$72 [Photograph 39]. On June 20, 1877, members of the LDS Church were divided into three wards, with the East Bountiful Ward located in center of the city. Richard Duerden, a store keeper, had the first telephone in Bountiful installed in his home in 1883. His store had the first safe. Steven and Alice Hales built Hales Hall, a large building for dances and plays, in 1884-1885 (corner of 200 West and 500 South, demolished). During this period, brick-making became a major industry with five brickyards in Bountiful.

The Main Street commercial business district began to take shape after the dedication of the tabernacle. A large number of enterprises began and had buildings of frame and brick erected during this period. Unfortunately, many have been subsequently demolished or altered. The largest was the People’s Opera House and Mercantile Company, which was built in 1891 between 100 North and Center on Main Street (demolished). The co- operative movement began in Bountiful in 1869 and a two-story brick store was built in 1873 (demolished). The Jack Lewis Hotel and Saloon (built of brick in the late 1880s) still stands at the corner of 200 North and Main [Photograph 38]. The Bountiful Lumber Company was organized in 1890 and continues in business today.

According to Leslie Foy, the first gardening for marketing purposes in Utah was begun in South Davis County. Irrigation and transportation improved during this period, and Bountiful farmers benefited from fertile ground and a ready market in Salt Lake City. The farmers organized a Grower’s Market to help them store and sell their produce in downtown Salt Lake. The vegetables and fruits produced in Bountiful included peas, beans, cucumbers, peppers, onions, carrots, corn eggplants, tomatoes, melons, and cantaloupe. Orchards for apples, pears, peaches, and cherries became so ubiquitous that one east bench road was named Orchard Drive. The Woods Cross Canning and Pickling Company was started in 1891, and although not within the city limits, it was an important employer for many years.

The most important architectural contribution of this period to the historic district is the number of stately residences built, mostly on prominent corner lots, throughout the town site. Joseph Holbrook built a stone house on a parcel of land he acquired in 1872 as the first recorded land transaction recognized by the , government [Photograph 28]. Prior to this time, land was distributed through the LDS Church hierarchy. David Stoker, son of John Stoker, built a fine brick home for his wife, Regina Hogan in 1871 [Photograph 29]. Brick mason, James Green, built a number of residences in Bountiful, including the home he built for his daughter in 1887. Emily Green’s home was a showcase for her father’s talents as a mason and carpenter. The home is listed on the National Register and the property includes an unusual brick smokehouse [Photographs 30-31].

By the end of this period, Bountiful’s population was over two thousand. The 1880 census enumeration gives a glimpse of the demographics. The older population consisted mostly of immigrants from England and the eastern portions of the United States; however the majority of children were born in Utah. The population was white with the exception of Ruth Davids and her children. Ruth was a full-blood Piede Indian. Bountiful resident, Anson Call traded a sack of flour for Ruth when she was a small child in Utah in 1853. Call adopted her and she was raised as a daughter. She married James Henry Davids, an Easterner who came to Utah as a soldier and later worked for the Call family. They lived in Bountiful where James farmed and Ruth became a mid-wife. James and Ruth Davids left Bountiful with several other families to colonize southern Idaho in the early 1880s. The average family size was about six children. There are several female heads of households, mostly widows or wives of the town’s polygamists. Though the practice was not wide spread, a number of prominent Bountiful citizens were polygamists until 1890 when church-sanctioned polygamy was discontinued.

The majority of workers were farmers or farm laborers. At least two men were described in the 1880 census as “market growers.” The large lots found within the historic district allowed for an agrarian overlay that allowed for small gardens, orchards, and even livestock on the family’s plot of land. This was an important part of the community economy, but many also worked at specialized occupations. James Weight was a carpenter and his wife, Dinah was a milliner. Many of the young women were employed. Phoebe Wood and Ellen Muir were dressmakers, while Ann Layton was a telegraph operator. A dozen men were making bricks or in the building trades. Several members of the Thurgood family ran a store. Alfred Putnam made a living as a musician.

Incorporation and City Improvement Period, 1892-1925

The year 1892 was marked by two important events in Bountiful. The first was of the incorporation of the City of Bountiful, on December 28, 1892. The first city council meeting was held at the home of Charles Pearson on that day. Three years later, mainly because of disputes over water rights, the communities of West Bountiful and Wood Cross broke away from Bountiful.

The second was the arrival of the Bamberger Railroad. Simon Barnberger, a businessman who later became governor of Utah, established the railroad as a way to link the numerous farm communities between Salt Lake and Ogden, while promoting his Lake Park resort near Farmington (today’s Lagoon Amusement Park). The railroad was nicknamed the “Dummy” because the steam engines were encased in wood to look like the cars they pulled. The station was located on 200 West and 200 South (demolished). The Dummy was an important factor in the community’s economic growth because it had both freight and passenger service. It allowed Bountiful farmers and merchants to more easily ship commodities and export produce. For ten cents, Bountiful residents could ride into Salt Lake City for work, school, or an outing, allowing the newly formed city to function as a streetcar suburb. The steam railway was electrified in 1910, by which time it was known as the Bamberger Electric Railroad. One of the most popular services, it ran a regular schedule until 1952 when service ended. Along with the Bamberger, Bountiful had streetcar service provided by the Utah Power and ( Light Company. The streetcar ran along Orchard Drive and down the center of Main Street until service was discontinued in 1926.

With only a few exceptions, all of Bountiful’s major public amenities were established during this period, with much of the improvement concentrated in the town site and adjacent neighborhoods. It was an era of firsts: electric power in 1896, sidewalks in 1897, a public watering, trough in 1898, public water system and plumbing began in 1906, and streetlights installed in 1908. The Bountiful Light and Power Company started in 1907. The city also instituted>a library in 1900, a volunteer fire department in 1911, a park system (1918) and a city dump (1922). In 1908, the Bell Telephone Company established the Bountiful Exchange. The sidewalks were laid with cement beginning in 1909. The beginning of the automobile culture was marked by a gasoline, stand (1914), the first street paving (1918), and bus service, which began in 1920.

Business flourished in Bountiful during this period and many of the buildings remain. Two examples still in use by their original occupants are the expansion of the Bountiful Lumber & Supply Company (190 S. Main, built in 1919) [Photograph 51], the Davis County Clipper newspaper building (built in 1906, 1960s façade) and Carr’s Printing (circa 1920, altered). The city also had two banks, the Bountiful State Bank (1906) and the Union Bank (circa 1910). There were three competing furniture stores, two of which also provided mortician services. The furniture stores were consolidated into one company in 1923. There were also four mercantile or general stores, including an early J.C. Penney’s dry goods store. Main Street also included the more urban enterprises: a dentist, a theater, a florist, a drugstore, a confectionary, and a pool hall. By the end of the period, the town also boasted six separate automobile-related businesses.

The population of Bountiful doubled in this period. The LDS Church divided the East Bountiful Ward into two new wards on February 14, 1909. The Bountiful First and Second Wards continued to meet in the tabernacle until the Second Ward Meetinghouse was completed in 1914 [Photograph 51]. Many second-generation residents of Bountiful prospered and built large homes [Photographs 16, 36, 43, 45 & 47]. Others, including former Bountiful mayor Charles R. Mabey, who later served as Utah’s governor, had more modest homes [Photograph 44]. The Victorian cottage, and later, the bungalow were the most popular house types of this period [Photographs 46 & 48] for Bountiful’s emerging middle class. The Stoker School located just south of the tabernacle and completed in 1905, was the most prominent building constructed during this period.

Census records for this period show that the popular mostly consisted of Utah natives with only a small immigrant population. The number of common surnames suggests that a large portion of Bountiful residents were descendants of the first settlers. Farming was still the most common occupation, but there was a wide range of specialized workers in retail, industry, and civil service. Economic diversity was particularly apparent within the historic district. Families were much smaller than in previous periods, averaging three to five children per household. The family garden and orchard were still an important part of the landscape, but most of the agricultural outbuildings within the district disappeared during this period and were replaced by garages and tool sheds. The automobile was an important and growing part of Bountiful’s culture as it made the transition from semi-rural streetcar community to the early epicenter of the coming suburban boom in south Davis County.

Community Development and the Rise of the Automobile Period, 1926-1945

The late 1920s to early 1940s was an interesting period in Bountiful’s development. Leslie Foy described the effect Bountiful’s depression years in this way: “For the farm families of Bountiful, the depression was not characterized as much by a lack of food as it was a lack of cash to pay taxes, mortgages, or buy shoes. Person income was low.”8 He also noted that many families banded together to save farms and homes. The community participated in a number of WPA programs, mostly water-related projects. The 1930 census indicates, while farm occupations were still prevalent, many Bountiful residents were laborers or had odd jobs than in the previous enumerations. The ethnic make-up and family size of the community did not noticeably change. The value of the homes in the historic district ranged from $1,000 to $10,000 with a fairly high percentage of home ownership. Rental rates were about $5 to $30 per month. About eighty-five percent of Bountiful residents had radios. This period marked the peak of agricultural activity in Bountiful. The Chamber of Commerce instituted “Cantaloupe Days” to promote and celebrate one of the community’s most prolific crops.

Unlike many of Utah’s small towns, which had little building activity during the 1930s, the statistical count of architectural resources of the historic district indicate that construction activity remained steady. The number of period cottages built during this period rivals the number of bungalows in the previous period, a statistical anomaly compared to similarly sized Utah towns [Photographs 52 & 53]. By the early 1940s, the streets of the historic district were paved, had curb and gutter, and were lined with mature trees. Particularly in the west half of district, the semi-rural lots had been divided and subdivided with hundreds of new houses, including an unusually high number of pre-World War II-era cottages [Photographs 54-55]. In 1931, the period-revival Moss Apartment building was constructed at the corner of 200 North and Main Street [Photograph 56]. Hundreds of these walk-up apartment blocks were built in downtown Salt Lake City, but are rare in smaller communities. The Moss Apartments helped fill a need for housing, for young couples and singles during the depression years and is still occupied today.

Despite the depression years, Bountiful’s Main Street appears to have experienced a small building during this period. This type of 1930s-bopm is unusual for towns of Bountiful’s size, and is probably due the strong economic ties between Bountiful and Salt Lake in the 1930s. The Bountiful Theater and Union Mortuary were built during this period [Photographs 9 & 57]. Not surprisingly, the 1930 Sanborn map shows a high number of auto-related businesses on or near Main Street. The city moved its offices into a new city hall on Main Street. In 1932, the city acquired the privately-owned, Bountiful Light and Power Company. It also took over the operation of the cemetery from the LDS Church in 1939. In 1938, the American Legion built a meeting hall in honor of George R. Day, the only Bountiful man to be killed during World War I [Photographs 8]. Due to a steadily rising population, the Bountiful Third Ward was organized on April 10, 1938, and subsequently built a meetinghouse at the corner of 400 North and 400 East [Photograph 59]. In 1940, Bountiful Mayor Lloyd Riley instigated a numbering system for houses. The city had finally outgrown its rural roots. In addition to its proximity to Salt Lake, World War II defense plants in northern Davis County and Weber County helped attract new residents with convenient employment. With waning rail service, paved streets and stop signs (first installed in 1928), the community was primed to become one of the Wasatch Front’s most popular automobile suburb.

Post-War Expansion Period, 1946-1955

Post-war expansion in Bountiful can be more accurately described as a post-war explosion. For returning GIs ready to begin, families, Bountiful was the ideal location, close to employment center and enough available land for large-lot subdivision development. The population of the city grew from 3,557 in 1940, to 6,004 in 1950,’to 17,039 in 1960. In his history of Bountiful, Leslie Foy titled one chapter “The Challenges of Rapid Growth.” In it he states, “Entire subdivisions grew up almost over night.” Thousands of homes appeared on the land north, east and south of the town site on land which had been previously occupied by orchards and fields. In the early 1950s, the first zoning ordinances were passed. The city worked on numerous water and sewage projects. In 1954, the power plant was modernized and the first city manager was appointed.

Remarkably the historic character remained intact under the onslaught of suburban development. The Sanborn map, covers only a portion of the historic district, but indicates that very few older homes were torn down for new residential development. Post-war cottages and early ranch houses simply completed the infill of lots in the historic city center [Photographs 61-64]. Developers were able to build modest housing tracts (three to five houses) on the subdivided blocks of the town site. In particular, the east half of the district, where there was more vacant land, became very suburban in character, albeit with older stone and brick dwellings on most of the corner lots. Bountiful’s commercial district experienced a second boom during this period. There are numerous example of late 1950s and early 1960s commercial buildings [Photographs 65, 66 & 68]. The Bountiful Community Church at 100 N. 400 East, built in 1954 and expanded in 1961, is a notable institutional building of the period [Photograph 67].

Late-twentieth Century Development, 1956-Present

In the late-twentieth century, the population of Bountiful has continued to increase from 27,853 in 1960 to 41,301 in 2000; In an example of just how quickly the population has grown, when a new LDS church was built in the 1970s within the historic district (a non-contributing building on 200 West), it was designed for the Bountiful 26th Ward. Today, the 26th Ward shares space with the Bountiful 58th Ward. However, most of the residential construction within the district has been low-density multi-family housing, which has not had a great impact on the historic character of the district. More disruptive has been commercial encroachment from the west after 1960 when the Interstate 15 freeway system was built along 600 West. Spreading commercial development from the ramps at 400 North, and especially 500 South, has had a significant impact on the historic city center [Photograph 9]. Large commercial blocks on Main Street and 200 West also detract from the character of the district. The sprawling South Davis Community Hospital complex at the corner of 400 East and 500 South has also impact that corner of the district. The new post office complex [Photograph 21], which takes up nearly an entire block at Main and Center, is somewhat intrusive; but it is also likely to draw more people to the downtown commercial district, which has survived economically with several long-time companies and newer specialty shops. The new fire station on 100 West, a brick structure, has been a more compatible sympathetic addition to the district [Photograph 7]. Most recently, the city has contemplated moving city hall from the complex at 700 South, where it has been since the early 1960s, back to the city center. Hopefully, the new complex will be sympathetic to the neighborhood, which was designated by the city as the Bountiful Fort Historic District in 2004.

Liberty Wells Historic District

19 Tuesday Dec 2023

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts, Liberty Wells Historic District, Salt Lake County, utah

Liberty Wells Historic District was listed on the National Historic Register (#10000210) in 2010 with the boundaries being State Street to 700 East and 1300 South to 2100 South, in 2011 a section was added (#11001069) that covered State Street to 500 East from 900 South to 1300 South.

The text below is from the national register nomination forms:

The Wells Historic District is a residential neighborhood, composed primarily of single-family homes, located immediately south of Liberty Park and south of downtown Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. It is bordered on all sides by substantial transportation corridors: 700 East (on the east), 2100 South (on the south), State Street (on the west), and 1300 South (on the north). Although these boundary roadways have seen extensive modern development, the vast majority of the area between them retains its historic suburban quality due to its tree-lined streets, uniform setbacks, well-preserved architecture, and the similarity of scale in the housing stock. By far, most buildings were constructed during the first three decades of the twentieth century; thus the district is notable for its collection of Bungalow variations and Eclectic Victorian and Period Revival residences. Bungalows are the architectural strength of the neighborhood, comprising the single largest category of building forms and styles in the district. The most common alterations to buildings in the district are the application of stucco or aluminum, vinyl, or asbestos (also pressboard) siding and the replacement of original windows. Many of the contributing homes from the period have additions, frequently built during the historic period but also representing modern alterations.

The Wells Historic District encompasses approximately 61 acres spread over roughly 100 blocks containing individual lots of various sizes. This area is comprised of many small-scale subdivisions intermingled with individually built homes. Residential construction in the area began on a limited basis in the late 1880s, grew substantially between 1900 and the stock market crash of 1929, and by the late 1930s much of the area had been developed. Development increased slightly during World War II, and after the war construction occurred in only small pockets due to a lack of vacant land. Minimal construction continues into the present and consists of additions to existing structures as well as tear-down projects in which older structures are demolished to accommodate new construction. Many of the newer structures being constructed serve city and community purposes as well as provide low to moderate income multiple housing units.

The distribution of housing types and styles within the district echoes the broad time span over which construction occurred within the district but also clearly illustrates the periods of boom and bust in construction. All but approximately 1 percent of the properties in the district are residential properties, and among these, nearly 94 percent are single-family residential structures. The remaining 6 percent of the historic residences are multi-family properties, including an excellent array of double houses and duplexes representing a variety of time periods and architectural styles. A total of 23 historic commercial properties and 5 historic churches are also present, as are one historic school building and a commemorative park.

The Wells Historic District contains 2,829 documented primary buildings, of which the majority (2,639 or 93 percent) were constructed during the historical period (e.g., built during or before 1957). Of the 2,829 total buildings, 68 percent (1,924) contribute to the historical character of the district. Of the 905 buildings that do not contribute to the district, 715 are historical structures that have been substantively altered, and 190 are out-of-period structures, primarily built during the 1960s and 1970s. Three properties, all associated with the Wilford Woodruff Family, are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These are the Wilford Woodruff Farm House at 1604 South 500 East (listed July 14, 1982; NRIS No. 82004152); Woodruff Villa at 1622 South 500 East (listed July 14, 1982; NRIS No. 82004150); and the Asahel Hart Woodruff House at 1636 South 500 East (listed July 14, 1982; NRIS No. 82004151).

Twenty-four percent (475) of the contributing properties have not only primary structures but also outbuildings present on the property, for a total of 481 contributing outbuildings in the district. Most of the outbuildings are small, detached single-car garages, though small sheds and workshops are also present. Most retain their physical integrity, and they contribute to the visual unity of the district in a general way.

All of the streets within the district are paved with asphalt and most are lined with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mid-block alleys are present within most of the blocks to provide access to the rear of the residential properties where the detached garages and outbuildings are most commonly located. The street layout within the district is mostly rectilinear (with some blocks running lengthwise north-south and some running east-west). This layout is different from the dominant square grid-like nature of downtown Salt Lake City that was established upon the first settlement of the valley. The Wells area was originally platted during the mid 1800s as part of the Big Field, a mainly agricultural area, with plats ranging from 5 to 80-acre parcels. In the 1880s sections of the Big Field began to be divided into smaller, residential-sized blocks that were soon platted as subdivisions by developers from outside of Utah, who brought alternative concepts of community development and design to the area. Thus, the lot and block layout of Wells and similarly platted areas is clearly distinct from areas platted earlier under the Plat of the City of Zion construct of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who founded Salt Lake City.

With a few exceptions around the boundaries of the district, the Wells area is visually cohesive, with various styles of Late Victorian and Early 20th Century American style residences tying together the different areas of the neighborhood and providing aesthetic continuity within the district. This visual cohesion easily distinguishes the Wells Historic District from the surrounding neighborhoods to the south and west and to a certain degree from those to the north and east. Individual subdivisions within the district exhibit the different architectural focus of developers at the time each subdivision was developed, with some subdivisions dominated by Bungalows, others by Victorian Cross-wings, others by Period Cottages and Clipped Gable Cottages, and still others by World War II Era Cottages. Other subdivisions exhibit a more eclectic collection of architectural types and styles, reflecting the greater period of time over which the subdivision was developed. Despite the individuality of the various subdivisions, the housing stock within them represents a limited number of architectural types and styles that are present throughout the entire district and tie the entire area together.

Historic infill construction of single-family homes from the 1940s and 1950s is evident throughout the district but contributes, rather than detracts from the district, because the massing of the structures are consistent throughout the area, and these later structures represent a key period in the subdivision’s history, when most of the lots had been developed and only a few remained available for new construction. More recent (1960s+) infill projects, on the other hand, have introduced large, multi-family apartments, commercial buildings, and other structures, the scale of which is not in keeping with the rest of the district. This is particularly evident along the boundary streets of the district and is less common in the interior. Residential landscape is present throughout most of the district and is characterized by mature trees, which line the parking strips of most streets in the neighborhood. Planned or designed public landscaping is generally absent in the area except for First Encampment Park, a small park commemorating the approximate location of the first campsite of Mormon pioneers upon entering the Salt Lake Valley.

Historic, and modern, commercial development is largely centered on the major through-streets within the district: State Street, 1300 South, 700 East, 1700 South, and 2100 South. Away from these corridors, commercial development consisted of individual specialty shops, such as small groceries, scattered among residential structures. Many of these small shops arose as additions to residential structures, with the store front abutting the sidewalk and the residential structure set back from it.

Survey Methods and Eligibility Requirements

Buildings were classified as either contributing or non-contributing to the district based upon the results of a reconnaissance level survey of the Wells area in 2007.’ Each building was evaluated for its contributory status using a set of integrity criteria (i.e., a rating system) established by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. This rating system is as follows:

  • A Eligible/significant: built within the historic period and retains integrity; excellent example of a style or type; unaltered or only minor alterations or additions; individually eligible for the National Register under criterion “C”, architectural significance; also, buildings of known historical significance.
  • B- Eligible: built within the historic period and retains integrity; good example of a style or type, but not as well-preserved as “A”-rated buildings, though overall integrity is retained; properties may have some alterations or minor additions.
  • C- Ineligible: built during the historic period but has had major alterations or additions; no longer retains integrity.
  • D- Out-of-Period: constructed outside the historical period3.

Evaluations of individual buildings were based primarily on the known or estimated age of the structure and its architectural integrity (e.g., evaluations were based on physical characteristics of the buildings observable from public property, where access to the private property was not granted by the landowner). The tax assessment records for the properties were also consulted to identify/confirm probable construction dates.

The assessment of historical integrity for individual buildings was carried out within the context of the collective architectural nature of the entire district. That is, over the course of the survey, it became apparent what array of material types, window types, in-period additions, and other historical characteristics were common to buildings of particular types and time periods. Buildings that deviated from these norms in terms of their modifications were given greater scrutiny relative to their historical integrity.

When considering integrity and eligibility for individual architectural properties within the study area under the above rating system, several factors were taken into account, including frequency of occurrence of specific property types. For those building types and time periods that are well represented in the architectural record of the community in which the study corridor is located, stricter standards for defining historical integrity are appropriate. Conversely, for those building types and time periods that are not as well-represented, more lenient standards for defining historical integrity are appropriate.

Under stricter standards for defining integrity, fewer modifications of the primary historical building on a property are considered acceptable. Alterations such as enclosing or partially enclosing a porch, enclosing a carport, or converting an attached garage to additional living space, are considered unacceptable if the alteration causes the individual building to be visually distinctive from other buildings of its same type and style within the study area. Out-of-period additions are generally considered to be an adverse impact on the historical building’s integrity.

Under the stricter criteria, modification of the fenestration (enclosing or changing the size and shape of door and window openings) is considered a significant impact to the structure’s integrity. Finally, the use of aluminum or vinyl siding is considered an acceptable alteration only if the siding is of sufficient width to replicate historical clapboard, horizontal plank, or drop siding, and the application of the siding does not eliminate or reduce the aesthetic impact of architectural detailing around windows, doors, eaves, and other elements of the building. The application of other non-historical siding or exterior wall treatments is considered a significant impact unless the materials sufficiently replicate historical treatments in the overall appearance of buildings of the particular type and style to which they are applied.

Under more lenient standards of integrity, more substantial modifications are considered acceptable before integrity is lost. In order to be considered eligible under the more lenient standards, the primary historical building must retain sufficient integrity to represent the era in which it was constructed. The building’s overall form and massing must be discernable despite additions and other modifications of the structure. Out-of-period additions may be considered acceptable if the original form of the building is still decipherable. Under the more lenient standards, window and door openings may be enclosed, but their original form and size must remain discernable. Modification of exterior wall treatments, such as the application of modern aluminum or vinyl siding, is considered acceptable if the new treatment replicates historically appropriate treatments for the given building type and style represented by the property.

Architectural Styles, Types, and Materials by Period

Farms and Fields (1847 to 1870)

Prior to the platting of the Wells area beginning in the 1880s, the area, which was part of the Big Field, was only sparsely settled and primarily contained agricultural fields and communal livestock grazing areas. Extant buildings from this period in the district’s history are exceptionally rare. Only one known permanent residence from this time period, built between 1859 and 1860, remains standing in the Wells area today. This building is known as the Woodruff Farm House (1604 South 500 East) and belonged to Wilford Woodruff, who later became president of the LDS Church. The farmhouse, which exhibits simple Classical styling, was constructed of logs and is of the double-pen plan with a rear extension that results in an overall saltbox profile.

The building was later clad in stucco siding. Very few buildings were constructed in the Wells area during this time period, and all but the Woodruff Farm House were demolished to make room for later construction projects or have been so heavily modified over time that they are no longer recognizable as representatives of this period.

With rare exceptions, buildings constructed during this period were single cell or hall and parlor structures built from logs, adobe brick, and/or stone. During the earliest part of the period, semi-subterranean dugouts were common along foothills and terraces but less so in the flat lands of the Salt Lake Valley bottoms.

The Wells Historic District includes one contributing site, First Encampment Park. The park, developed in 1997, is located on the corner of 1700 South and 500 East and commemorates the approximate location of the first campsite used by Mormon pioneers when they first arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847 and determined to settle the area.

Initial Settlement (1871 to 1899)

The development of the streetcar system in the Salt Lake Valley in the early 1870s and the platting of the Big Field ca. 1890 spurred speculation by land developers. These developers purchased large tracts of land, platted subdivisions, and began promoting the establishment of the first real suburbs in Salt Lake City. At least 31 subdivisions, the majority of subdivisions in the Wells District, were platted during the late 1880s and 1890s. Actual development of the subdivisions was slow at first, but as the streetcar system expanded and reliable service was established in the area, more residents eschewed urban living for the still semi-rural atmosphere of the Wells area. Housing and commercial development in Wells during this period was most intense along the northern periphery of the area, the nearest area to the services of downtown Salt Lake City, during the early part of the period and closest to new streetcar lines along the margins of the neighborhood during the latter part of the period.

During this time, simple Classical styling in architecture slowly gave way to more elaborate Victorian styles across the state. Cross-wing structures in variants of “T-” and “L-cottages” and double cross-wings along with other typically Victorian forms such as rectangular blocks and central-blocks-with-projecting-bays became popular throughout Utah during these last decades of the nineteenth century and continued in their popularity through the early twentieth century. While some of the early versions of these structures saw little in the way of exterior adornment, others were endowed with the comparatively fancy dressings of the Queen Anne, Eastlake, Romanesque Revival, Victorian Eclectic, or other late Victorian styles.

Sixty-three (63) contributing properties are associated with this time period in the history of the Wells Historic District. Examples of Classical architecture are understandably rare, as little development occurred in the area during the early part of the period when Classical styles were popular. Only three contributing buildings from this period exhibit elements of Classical style, and these are, at best, muted examples such as the cornice return and denticulated cornice molding of the central block with projecting bays residence at 1781 South 500 East, which was constructed at the very end of the period in 1899.

Victorian architecture dominates the housing stock from this period. Of the 63 contributing properties from this period, approximately 42 (67 percent) are buildings representing Victorian forms and styles. Side-passage/side-entry residences and central-blocks-with-projecting-bays are equally common among the contributing properties of the period, with foursquare residences, various forms of cross-wings, and one Victorian double house/duplex also present. Most of these buildings reflect what can best be described as Eclectic Victorian style or vernacular expressions of Victorian styles. Shotgun residences were also constructed within Wells during this period, reflecting flexibility in the building “codes” and use of a variety of different designers and contractor/builders, though no contributing examples of such properties are present in the area today.

Three major examples of the Late Victorian architecture from this period are the Woodruff Villa (built ca. 1897), the Septimus W. Sears House (built ca. 1892), and the Dawes House (built ca. 1897). The Woodruff Villa, located at 1622 South 500 East, is a 2-1⁄2 story central-block-with-projecting-bays residence exhibiting Eclectic Victorian elements with an emphasis on the Eastlake and Queen Anne styles. The Sears House, located at 1902 South 400 East, is also a 2-1⁄2 story central-block-with- projecting-bays residence exhibiting Eclectic Victorian style, as is the Dawes House, located at 1590 South 500 East.

The Woodruff, Sears, and Dawes houses were exceptionally large and ostentatious for the Big Field area and are atypical examples of the average homes of the period, which were largely comprised of simpler structures. More common housing stock is represented by the 1898 brick and shingle central-block-with-projecting-bays residence at 1463 South Edison Street; the 1893 brick and shingle side-passage residence at 1455 South Edison Street; the 1892 cross-wing residence at 131 East Downington Avenue; and the 1898 brick foursquare residence at 350 East Wilson Avenue. While many duplexes are present in the district, only one contributing example of a Victorian duplex was identified. This single-story brick building, built in 1887, is located at 1618 South Park Street.

Regular brick and shingle siding were the predominant construction materials for houses built during this time period. Occasional wood frame examples are also present, and many buildings from this period have been clad in stucco during the modern era. Sandstone and concrete foundations are typical among the housing stock; with concrete foundations becoming far more common toward the end of the period.
Streetcar Suburbs (1900 to 1929)

The streetcar system continued to be a key factor in shaping the pattern of development of Wells during the early decades of the 1900s and can rightfully be seen as the single greatest impetus for a boom in construction during this period. Beginning in the early 1900s, a series of developments in electrical power generation and a realization among competing transit operators that their companies would fare better if they joined forces rather than each carving out a small piece of the market, caused several operators to merge their transit system, which created more powerful companies that had the ability to expand streetcar routes throughout Salt Lake City.

By 1919, streetcar lines extended along the east and west boundaries of the Wells area as well as into the heart of the neighborhood along 400 East. The presence of the lines through the area was a major selling point for land developers who painted a bucolic image of suburban living outside the polluted area downtown Salt Lake City and championed the convenience afforded by the streetcar in advertisements for their subdivisions. The promotions worked, and thousands of individuals and families flocked to the area, most with a particular desire to purchase houses along or near the streetcar lines. This meant that the greatest amount of development, both commercial and residential, occurred along the major streetcar corridors of State Street, 400 East, and 700 East, particularly in the early part of the period; later in the period, construction was well distributed throughout the district. Public facility development, including county infirmary (since demolished), also took advantage of the streetcar lines along State Street.

More than three-quarters (approximately 1,479) of all contributing buildings in the Wells Historic District were constructed during this period, primarily within subdivisions constructed adjacent to streetcar lines. All but four of these properties are residential structures. Four main architectural forms, adorned with a variety of different styles, dominate the built environment of the area. These include bungalows (the most common), foursquares, period cottages, and late versions of central-block-with-projecting-bays residences. Examples of this latter form as well as many foursquare residences took on decidedly more pronounced bungalow characteristics than the Victorian styles associated with them during the previous period in the district’s history.

Truly early architectural forms, such as rectangular block and shotgun residences became less common in the area while forms such as the foursquare, which persisted in popularity in Utah until the 1910s, became more common. Toward the middle part of the period, the new, home-grown American architectural form, the bungalow, rose in popularity in Utah. These bungalows were ubiquitous in the streetcar suburbs of Salt Lake City, with the period from approximately 1915 to 1925 representing the height of their popularity in such locations. In general, the Wells bungalows from this period conformed to the generic, mass production version of the form, which exhibited very little in the way of exterior adornment and maintained only the basic characteristics of the prototypical bungalow.

Of the 1,479 contributing properties in the district from this period, nearly 32 percent (614) are bungalow variations. Myriad styles were applied to the bungalow form, though most commonly they were unadorned and simply exhibited the basic bungalow characteristics of a low-slung roof, heavy porch, and deep eaves as represented by the 1918 and 1924 residences at 628 East Wilson Avenue and 156 East 1700 South. Others received greater stylistic treatment with details from the Arts and Crafts style, as seen in the 1916 residence at 305 East 1700 South and the Prairie School style, as seen in the 1923 residence at 1883 South 300 East.

Many bungalows built during the latter part of the period and overlapping into the early part of the next period incorporated Colonial Revival elements and clipped gables, resulting in a distinct form referred to locally as the Clipped Gable Cottage. The 1924 residence at 1948 South 300 East and the ca. 1925 residence at 535 East Browning Avenue are good examples of such architecture.

Toward the latter part of this period, a small number of period cottages were constructed within Wells (105 contributing properties). The vast majority were constructed after 1923. Such cottages were another very popular architectural form constructed by developers within the streetcar suburbs. Nearly all of the cottages were constructed of brick, mostly striated brick, and many exhibited designs that were conducive to “mass production” within subdivisions. These designs frequently incorporated only the very basic period revival elements such as multiple steeply pitched gables. Others incorporated elements of English Tudor and English Cottage design. Examples of such buildings include the 1928 residence at 562 East Browning Avenue and the 1929 residence at 428 East Cleveland Avenue.

Variations on the period cottage plan also appeared in large numbers in Wells during this period, though more were constructed during the subsequent period. This variation blended the rectangular plan and heavy porches of bungalows with moderately steep gables and Period Revival decoration. The 1923 residence at 563 East Cleveland Avenue is typical of such structures. Buildings of this nature are most prevalent in the west-central portion of the district.

In addition to the many single-family dwellings that are associated with this period district’s history are several double houses (duplexes). These double houses are somewhat unique within streetcar suburbs such as Wells, as they represent higher density housing that was typically found in more urban settings. However, several streetcar suburbs around downtown Salt Lake City are known to have included a surprising number of such multi-family residences, including Wells and nearby Forest Dale. Roughly two dozen contributing double houses representing this period are present in the district. Most, such as the ca. 1912 property at 661 East Downington Avenue and the 1928 property at 604 East Kensington Avenue, exhibit elements of Period Revival style. Others, such as the 1924 residences at 665 East Downington Avenue, incorporated the highly popular Bungalow style.

Construction of the most notable public building in the district, the former South High School building, began at the very end of the period, in 1929. The Period Revival-inspired building was constructed on the northeast corner of 1700 South and State Street between 1929 and 1931 and remains in use today as the main Salt Lake Community College campus.

Commercial development continued to be focused along the major roadways of State Street, 1300 South, 1700 South, 2100 South, and 700 East. Typical 1-Part Block commercial buildings, such as the 1926 O.P. Skaggs grocery building at 1435 South State Street were most common along these thoroughfares; however, small, neighborhood groceries and specialty stores were also built during this period, most frequently as commercial additions to residential structures. The ca. 1917 property at 405-407 East 1700 South is a good example of this phenomenon.

Brick was by far the most common building material used in structures from this period. Regular, fired brick continued in high frequencies, but striated brick clearly began to rise in popularity as a preferred material given its relatively extensive use on houses within the district as well as in other contemporary residential developments.

The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945)

Housing construction decreased dramatically during the Great Depression. Throughout the Salt Lake Valley, new house starts dwindled to record low numbers as financing became increasingly difficult to obtain. Fewer than 200 (10 percent) of the contributing buildings remaining in the Wells area today were constructed between 1930 and 1945. Construction during this period was distributed throughout the district and mostly consisted of small-scale subdivisions and individual buildings on the few remaining open lots in the area. The relative number of multi-family housing units to single-family houses increased during this period, as renting versus buying became the norm for cash-strapped residents. Of the nearly 200 contributing properties from this period, 12 (approximately 6 percent) are multi-family units. This is in comparison to a proportion of multi-family unit to single family units of just over 3 percent of all contributing buildings during the previous period in the district’s history.

While Period Cottages continued in popularity during the early years of the period, they soon gave way to more modern forms, including World War II Era Cottages. The transition between the two forms is evident in residences such as the 1936 home at 339 East Sherman Avenue, which possess a roof pitch between the steep pitch of a Period Cottage and the moderate to shallow pitch of a World War II Era Cottage and muted elements of Period Revival ornamentation on a World War II Era Cottage plan.

The World War II Era Cottage forms present in Wells are primarily small, simple residences with a basic rectangular plan oriented with the long axis parallel to the street. Most are only minimally adorned and have narrow to absent eaves. The 1945 residence at 471 East Wilson Avenue is a good example of the typical unadorned World War II Era Cottage in the district. Others have slight eaves and incorporate elements of Colonial Revival design; this combination of elements is often referred to as Minimal Traditional style. The ca. 1940 residence at 1413 South 400 East is typical of such buildings.

Other cottages of the period were constructed with square or square with projecting bays plans and low-slung hipped roofs more common to bungalows of earlier periods, though the deep Bungalow style eaves are absent. The 1942 residence at 162 East Wilson Avenue is representative of such buildings in Wells.

As noted, multi-family housing was more common as a ratio of all new housing construction in this period than in previous periods. Examples of such housing in Wells can be seen in the 1936 and 1945 double houses at 508 East Cleveland Avenue (1445 South 500 East) and 1331-1333 South 600 East. As can be seen from these two examples, multi-family housing constructed early in the period exhibited the more common Period Revival style while such properties constructed later in the period took on the elements of more modern styles, such as Minimal Traditional and Early Ranch – the latter of which did not appear in earnest in Wells until after World War II.

Public and commercial construction was relatively limited during this period. The Art Deco South High School campus, construction of which began in 1929, was completed early in this period, and a new form of commercial property, the motor lodge, appeared late in the period. The Zion’s Motel was opened in 1939 at 1829 South State Street and was one of the earliest motels in the area to cater to the growing popularity of the automobile in American culture and the emergence of the “road trip” as a specific type of leisure activity. The motel exhibits Period Revival style.

Brick continued as a popular construction material, but frame construction and aluminum siding began to overtake it during the latter part of the period. Other cladding materials such as asbestos shingles also grew in use.

The Post War Era (1946 to 1957)

The Wells area continued to grow and change following the close of World War II; however, the entire area, for all intents and purposes, had been developed on some level prior to the 1960s. Redevelopment occurred on a limited basis during the 1960s and 1970s. Older single family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial ventures such as convenience stores or small walk-up stores. In some cases, former residential buildings were converted into commercial enterprises. The larger and more trafficked streets, such as State Street, 2100 South, and portions of 1300 South and 1700 South have seen the most redevelopment within the Wells area.

One hundred and forty-seven (147, or 8 percent) contributing buildings affiliated with this time period are present within the district. Most are single-family residential structures in variations of World War II Era Cottage and Ranch/Rambler forms. By the early 1950s, the small, World War II Era Cottage plan was extended, making it longer, and cross-gables and cross-gable bays were added to create early versions of the Ranch house form. As time progressed, the plan was extended even further and took on the trappings of the more typical tract house version of the Ranch/Rambler form established in California by Clifford May. A good example of post-war World War II Era Cottages in Wells can be seen in the 1950 residence at 519 East Emerson Avenue, while a good example of the tract house version of the Ranch/Rambler form can be seen in the 1955 house at 1636 South 200 East. Similar characteristics are seen in duplexes of the period, such as the 1948 property at 223-225 East Westminster Avenue.

Despite the redevelopment, the Wells community continues to retain a residential atmosphere and zoning ordinances allow very limited commercial development in the heart of the community. Historical buildings, such as the ca. 1930 South High School building, which now serves as the Salt Lake Community College campus, are being used rather than replaced. However, this has not always been the case; the apartment buildings at 1488 South 400 East and adjacent lots are typical examples of modern (non-historical) multi-family housing that has been constructed in small numbers within the district. With few exceptions, such buildings are scattered individually amongst single-family homes rather than in complexes or clusters. Not only is the massing of these properties out of proportion with the predominantly single-family housing of the rest of the neighborhood, but the focus on accommodating the modern automobile culture results in property configurations that are inconsistent with those of the majority of residential properties; that is, automobile parking is situated in front of or directly adjacent to the buildings whereas the majority of historic properties have garages at the rear of the parcels, accessed by mid-block alley ways. Additionally, because of the narrow but deep nature of the platted lots in Wells, construction of these large apartment complexes required that they be oriented with their long axis perpendicular to the frontage road, creating a situation in which the primary public façade is the side of the building, devoid of doorways, porches, and windows that typify the single-family homes in the rest of the neighborhood.

New commercial construction during this period is designed to accommodate the automobile culture rather than pedestrian traffic. Historical commercial properties such as the 1947 Alta Motel Lodge at 1899 South State Street and more recent businesses incorporate parking lots for drive-up traffic where little such need existed prior to World War II. Other, more modern development that has encroached upon the historic character of the district, though only in limited fashion, includes the Catholic elder care facility – St. Joseph Villa at 451 East Bishop Federal Lane. Portions of this facility were constructed between 1957 and 1959, and it underwent substantial renovation in the mid 1980s.

Construction materials varied more widely during this period than in previous periods. New material technologies developed during World War II gave way to inexpensive aluminum and other metal siding and a variety of veneers in synthetic materials, including imitation stone veneers developed in the eastern U.S. prior to 1940 but only really becoming popular in Salt Lake City during and after the war. Oversized brick and concrete block are also common in historical buildings from this period. Stucco and stacked stone veneers became popular during the 1990s and have been used to renovate older buildings and clad new ones.

Architects and Builders

By and large, houses within the streetcar suburbs were constructed by a variety of different contractors using readily available commercial designs or simply constructed buildings based on past experience and accepted practice. Construction contractors were not the only ones contributing to the architectural development of Wells; land merchants, carpenters, and architects also played a large role. Several prominent local land merchants were responsible for the promotion and development of subdivisions between 1900 and 1929. These merchants include J.A. Fritsch, developer of the East Capitol and Kensington Subdivisions; Philip A. Finegan, developer of the Grand Haven Subdivision; F.A. Virtue, developer of the Avondale Park Subdivision; Edward Hackett, developer of the Hackett’s Addition Subdivisions and; William Hubbard, developer of the Thorndyke, North Waterloo, and Waterloo Subdivisions. Archelaus (Archie) Fillingan, a builder/contractor, was also active in the Wells area during the late 1910s and early 1920s, primarily in the construction of Bungalows and Clipped Gable Cottages in the eastern part of the district.

Hyrum J. Jensen, a prominent local construction contractor was responsible for several Bungalow subdivisions. The Kenwood Subdivisions located along between Milton Avenue and 1700 South, along 300 to 400 East; the Thorndyke Subdivisions located between Westminster Avenue and 2100 South, along 300 to 400 East (which Jensen helped to co-develop); and the collection located along the north side of Redondo Avenue, between 300 and 400 East. Thomas Campbell was a local carpenter who was responsible for many residences in the Wells area. Examples of Campbell’s work are present along 1700 South at 408 East and 412 East and along Blaine Avenue at 425 East. Philip A. Finegan, a land broker, developed the Grand Haven Subdivision, which encompasses the area from Browning Avenue to Emerson Avenue, between 600 and 700 East.

One prominent local architect, John A. Haedlund, an immigrant from Sweden, designed may local, private and public residences in the Salt Lake Valley, including the Immanuel Baptist Church building (401 East 200 South). Haedlund also contributed to the architectural history of the Wells area. Haedlund designed the ca. 1904 foursquare residence at 1538 South 400 East with a gambrel roof and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. Educated in Sweden and the U.S. (Chicago), Haedlund ventured west to Kansas City and then to Colorado Springs in the late 1800s, ultimately settling in Salt Lake City around 1889. The George M. Cannon House at 720 East Ashton Avenue in the Forest Dale Historic District southeast of Wells was among the first, if not the very first, house designed by Headlund upon his arrival in Salt Lake City. During his time in Salt Lake City, Headlund designed more than 500 buildings in Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and Wyoming. So exceptional was Headlund’s work, that three of his buildings in the Salt Lake Valley are individually listed on the National Register for their architectural merit. These buildings include the 1911 Immanuel Baptist Church at 401 East 200 South (NRIS No. 78002668), the 1906 Woodruff-Riter-Stewart House at 225 North State Street (NRIS No. 79002507), and the 1890 George M. Cannon House (NRIS No. 83004419).

Summary

The Wells Historic District comprises one of the best and most comprehensive collections of Early 20th Century American residential architecture in Salt Lake City. The array of architectural types and styles present in the district reflects both the protracted period over which the buildings in the district were constructed and the periods of boom and bust in new housing starts; however, it is the extensive collection of bungalows that are the district’s strength and which lend the area the unique feeling of a streetcar suburb. The continuous development of the subdivision throughout the historic period lends a visual cohesiveness to the neighborhood, as the transition from earlier to later architectural designs is visible in the district’s housing stock, the majority of which is considered contributing to the district. Both historic and modern infill projects are present in the district. The historic examples represent the final phase of full build-out of the Wells area and contribute to the district’s overall character. The modern infill projects, on the other hand, are not in keeping with the scale and stylistic continuity of the rest of the district. These structures are relatively rare and do not substantially detract from the integrity of the district. Finally, a variety of architects and builders are represented by the structures of the district and range from local carpenters like Hyrum J. Jensen and Thomas Campbell to nationally known and internationally trained architects such as John Headlund, whose influence and training is visible in the design of other prominent buildings in the Salt Lake Valley.

Narrative Statement of Significance


The Wells Historic District is locally significant under Criteria A and C for two primary reasons: 1) its key association with streetcar development in Salt Lake City; and 2) its well-preserved collection of Early 20th Century American housing stock.

Under Criterion A, the district is significant for its association with suburban (streetcar) development in Salt Lake City. The Wells area itself is a major contributing resource in the overall history of streetcar subdivisions in the city. The incorporation of the interurban street car system as a necessary and integral component of the subdivision paved the way for future development of streetcar suburbs in the surrounding area (e.g., the many subdivisions of the West Sugar House area: Sixth East, Wilmington, Country Club Place, Adamson, Fairmont Springs Addition, Forest Dale, etc.), thereby establishing a distinctive pattern of community expansion for the southeastern portion of Salt Lake City.

The Wells Historic District contains an impressive collection of Early 20th Century American residences that render the district significant under Criterion C. Further, the building stock represents the work of numerous architects and designers, including both locally trained draftsmen and nationally practiced architects, such as John Haedlund. The residences of the neighborhood, the vast majority of which are considered contributing resources within the district, are among the most well-preserved collection of early 20th century residential architecture in the Salt Lake Valley, lending visual cohesiveness to the district and distinguishing it from the surrounding neighborhoods. The patterning of architectural types and styles on the landscape within the district clearly demonstrates how the Wells area was developed over time. A few residences in the district are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their architecture as well as their associations with the Woodruff Family, who played an important role in local history.

As representative of the Early 20th Century American movement in architecture, the Wells Historic District contains an impressive collection of well preserved bungalow, period cottage, and clipped gable cottage residences. Collectively, buildings of these types represent approximately 1,065 (56 percent) of the 1,916 contributing properties in the district. The housing stock in Wells exhibits several different variations of these architectural forms and the application of myriad styles to them, illustrating how they were adapted to evolving residential needs and concepts of acceptable space, functional utility, and aesthetic appeal.

The period of significance for the Wells Historic District extends from 1871 to 1957. This time frame, and its relevance to the district, is best understood when divided into contextual eras based upon significant events and trends within the area’s history. Four specific periods of significance apply to the Wells Historic District, and they begin in 1871; however, the period prior to that, 1847 to 1870, is also discussed in this nomination in order to provide a context for the initial development of the area. Thus, for the purpose of this statement of significance, the following eras are discussed: Farms and Fields (1847 to 1870); Initial Settlement (1871 to 1899); Streetcar Suburbs (1900 to 1929); The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945); and the Post War Period (1946 to 1957).

The four primary contextual eras-Initial Settlement, Streetcar Suburbs, The Era of Infilling, and the Post War Period are marked by key milestones in the history of the district. The platting of the Big Field area encompassing Wells began in the 1880s during the Initial Settlement era but was initiated by the establishment of the streetcar system in Salt Lake City in the early 1870s. The Streetcar Suburbs era encompasses the expansion of multiple streetcar lines into the Wells area, while the Era of Infilling is highlighted by the Great Depression, the associated steep decline in development, and the wartime recovery. The Era of Infilling, the third period of significance, represents the first focus on developing previously undeveloped lots in subdivisions that had been platted during the earlier periods. The fourth period, the Post War Period, marks the final phase of historical development in the Wells area, when most of the platted lots had been developed and only occasional individual parcels or small sections of contiguous parcels were available for construction of the distinctive housing stock of the period.

History of the Wells Area

Farms and Fields (1847 to 1870)

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS; or “Mormons”) settled the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847, when the first contingent of settlers arrived under the guidance of church president Brigham Young. Within a few days of the pioneers’ arrival in the valley, the basic layout of Salt Lake City was in place. The city was laid out in plats; the platting of the city took three years, and one plat was laid out in each of the first three years the settlers were in the valley. The first three plats were designed in a grid of 10-acre blocks, each block containing eight lots, with dirt roads 132 feet wide and 20-foot wide sidewalks. The layout of the city was based upon the “Plat of the City of Zion”, a city plan with a configuration of lots and blocks and intended land uses put forth by Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS Church. The configuration of the City of Zion plat encouraged family-level subsistence, efficient land use, and social cohesion by avoiding individual, isolated residences outside of the city’s core area.

The original three plats for the city included the present downtown area and extending as far south as 900 South. The area to the south, platted in much larger lots of between 5 and 80 acres, was commonly referred to as the Big Field. The Big Field, which encompasses the Wells Historic District, was designated as an area within which primarily agricultural activities would take place in support of the residents living in the developing heart of the Salt Lake City. The smallest lots in the area, those of 5 acres, were to be located in the northern portion of the area closest to the platted portion of the city (between 900 South and 2100 South) and were to be used by “mechanics and artisans”. The larger lots, which were platted in 10-, 20, 40-, and 80-acre parcels, were to be allocated to farmers, most of whom lived within the platted city but farmed outside the city limits.13 The future Wells area was part of the Five-Acre Survey. Large portions of the Five-Acre Survey in which Wells is located were allocated to Brigham Young, then-president of the LDS Church; Wilford Woodruff, then-future president of the LDS Church; and Daniel Wells, future Bishop of the LDS Wells Ward. Smaller sections of the area were allocated to other individuals.

Of great concern agriculturally during this period was the appropriation of a valuable and limited resource, water. The Mormon Church is the first known entity to legally regulate water for agricultural purposes. Each farmer was granted land and water rights by the Church, which, in the absence of federal homestead laws, had laid claim to all land within the Utah Territory. In less than two decades, this system of land granting experienced serious disruptions when the area’s first federal land office opened following the passage of the Homestead Act of 1862. It was in 1870, after the passage of the Homestead Act and the establishment of a federal land office in Salt Lake City that the lands encompassing the Wells area were formally patented to Young, Woodruff, and the others.

The mere granting of water rights to individuals by the Mormon Church did not solve the problem of accessing that water. To their credit, the Mormon pioneers were ingenious in their creation of irrigation systems to address the issue. The settlers in the Salt Lake Valley, within days of their arrival, set about digging irrigation ditches from the numerous streams flowing out of the Wasatch Mountains. By the 1870s, an extensive network of canals designed to control the flow and amount of water carried to the numerous the homesteads extended throughout the valley. Farmers received water rights by digging sections of canals on their lands. The canal system was geographically widespread and stretched across many pioneer communities. Some of the irrigation ditches extended off of Parley’s Creek into the Big Field/ Wells area to serve the farmlands platted there.

Initial Settlement (1871 to 1899)

The expansion of the railroad into the West was one of the foremost events of the nineteenth century. In 1869, railroading entered the area with the completion of the first transcontinental line running through Promontory and Corinne, north of Salt Lake City. Recognizing the economic importance of being connected with the main national east-west transportation corridor, Brigham Young immediately initiated the construction of the Utah Central Railroad to link Salt Lake City with the northerly route.

In addition to the northern line from Salt Lake City to Ogden and points beyond, rail lines were constructed to the south as well, extending the reach of the national markets and social influence. Within a matter of years, Mormon-owned lines covered three-fourths of the Utah Territory. The railroads, in addition to servicing passengers and freight into and out of the Salt Lake Valley, began running lines directly to the mining communities located around the perimeter of the valley. By 1898, the Utah Central Railroad extended south into the Salt Lake Valley, passing to the east of the Wells area.

Mining also significantly contributed to the growth of Salt Lake City, and “suburbs” of the city, such as Sandy, Bingham Canyon, and Alta prospered from the mines. Sandy became a hub with its proximity to Alta’s silver mine and its service from the Utah Southern Railroad. Most of the mining operations were owned and operated by non-Mormons. The LDS Church did not support the mining industry because of what it considered to be inevitable social problems that accompanied it, problems such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol consumption. However, over time the economic benefits of the mines began to wear away at this opposition. The Jordan Silver Mining Company was one of the few Mormon ventures into the industry. Mining was so prevalent along the Wasatch Front that one visitor to Salt Lake City in 1880 described the area along Main Street as, “one large mining camp”.

By 1880, the core of the Salt Lake City business district extended south along Main Street and one block on either side to about 200 South. By 1890 it stretched to 300 South, and by the early 20th century to 400 South. Yet, while downtown Salt Lake City was booming and construction was occurring at a rapid pace, the Wells area remained primarily agricultural in nature; expansion of the developed portion of Salt Lake City was occurring to the east and west but far less so to the south (e.g., north of 900 South), at least until the end of the period.

The California gold rush of the late 1800s and the arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 led to the transformation of Salt Lake City from an isolated, agrarian religious utopia to a crossroads for travelers heading west and a major center for the movement of goods and people throughout the region. The development of the western rail system spread from the major north-south and east-west freight lines of the large railroad companies to smaller, interurban railways focused on transporting passengers and small amounts of cargo within and between Utah’s rapidly growing Wasatch Front communities. In 1872, the first interurban (street/trolley car) company, the Salt Lake City Railroad (SLCRR) was organized by two of Brigham Young’s sons and several other businessmen from the area. Standard gauge rail was laid over a few miles of the earthen streets in Salt Lake City, and mule- and horse-drawn cars transported passengers through the downtown area. Within a few years, several other short branches of the streetcar system had been constructed in the city. In 1889, SLCRR crews began erecting an overhead electrical catenary for what was to become the first electric trolley system in Salt Lake City. The trolley was an immediate success. The cars provided not only a faster means of getting about town, but also provided some relief from the dusty, often garbage clogged city streets that became veritable mud bogs during the spring and winter months. Soon, the trolley cars became crowded, and astute businessmen in the city recognized the opportunity to cash in on the new transportation craze.

In the late 1880s, largely as a result of the success of the transit system, but also to accommodate the rapidly growing population of Salt Lake City, which doubled between 1880 and 1890, portions of the Big Field area south of 900 South began to be divided into smaller, residential-sized blocks. Unlike the blocks within the original city plat area, which were configured as squares, the ten-acre blocks in the Big Field area took the form of rectangles, marking a striking divergence away from the Plat of the City of Zion concept championed by the Mormon Church, which called for this portion of the Salt Lake City settlement to be allocated to agricultural purposes. Within these new blocks, the residential lots were smaller than those downtown and streets were much narrower. This “new” configuration may have been at least partially the result of the many out-of-state, non-Mormon developers and investors who were involved in subdivision development in the area; this pattern was perhaps the most common subdivision grid in the nation at the time, largely because of its “simple layout, its efficient use of the land by eliminating ‘wasted’ property in the interior of blocks, and because it provided street frontage to every lot on the block. The departure from the Plat of the City of Zion in the streetcar suburbs “brought about a dilution of the city’s distinctive Mormon village appearance, setting it more in line with national patterns of development.”

Land merchants and speculators quickly identified the development potential of the open lands of the Big Field, and at the close of the 1880s, they began purchasing available tracts as quickly as possible. Dozens of individual subdivisions began to be platted within the newly surveyed portion of the Big Field. Between 1888 and the depression of 1893, approximately 300 residential subdivisions were recorded in Salt Lake County, representing 75 percent of the 400 subdivisions that would be platted in the area by 1900. The frenetic pace at which land speculation occurred is evidenced by the fact that between 1887 and 1888 the number of real estate firms in Salt Lake City grew from 6 or 7 to 75. Many, perhaps the majority, of these firms were run by non-Mormon developers from states such as Colorado and lowa, men who stayed in Utah only for a few years, until the housing boom ended. At least 31 subdivisions, the majority of subdivisions in the area, were platted within the Wells study area during the late 1880s and 1890s. The table below lists the relevant subdivisions from this period.

Subdivision Name and year Platted

Park Boulevard Addition 1889
Park Place Addition 1889
Rice and Gelder’s 1st Addition 1889
Rosedale Addition 1889
Alta Place 1890
Avondale Park 1890
Capitol Ave. Addition 1890
Chelsea Addition 1890
Chicago Addition 1890
Kensington 1890
Midvale 1890
Watkins Addition 1890
Webb and Palmer Addition 1890
Villa Park 1890
Acadia 1891
Broadway Addition 1891
Dankowske Park 1891
East Side Addition 1891
Fisher & Snowden’s Addition 1891
Nye’s Addition 1891
Waterloo Addition 1891
East Waterloo 1892
Hackett’s Addition 1892
North Waterloo 1892
Thorndyke 1892
Wellington Addition 1892
Kenwood Addition 1893
Sommerville 1894
Blythe’s 1895
Marlon Park Addition 1890s
Ouray Place 1890s

Many developers commissioned the construction of numerous single-family homes as speculative ventures, having them built before a buyer was identified and renting them out until the property was sold to a permanent owner. However, generally speaking, construction of housing within most of the subdivisions platted during this period was quite limited due to five major factors. First, while the population of Salt Lake City was expanding rapidly, the spate of subdivision recordings far outpaced the number of people looking to purchase new homes. Second, city infrastructure, including transportation options, well-maintained roads, effective sanitation systems, etc., had not been extended to the area south of 900 South by this time. Third, the nature of land speculation is one of minimal capital investment and frequent reselling of land for profit, which does not encourage the construction of large numbers of houses on the hope a buyer will appear soon. Fourth, Mormons, who comprised the majority of the population in the Salt Lake Valley at this time, were apparently reluctant to purchase homes in outlying subdivisions, with at least one out-of-state real estate broker commenting that “Mormons are sellers, not purchasers… in eighteen months our firm has been in business here, we have not made a single sale to a Mormon.” Finally, the financial panic of 1893, and the economic slowdown leading up to it, put a damper on the real estate market and led to the failure of many real estate deals. In the broader context, it wasn’t until roughly 1910 that subdivision development in Salt Lake City began to gather momentum again.

In 1891, the Salt Lake Rapid Transit Street Car Company extended service south of the downtown area along 700 East. This line passed along the eastern boundary of the Wells Historic District. During roughly the same time period, the Salt Lake Rapid Transit Company constructed trolley lines along State Street and 400 East, both of which passed through the Wells area. The presence of these lines created opportunities for residential and commercial development in Wells and the surrounding area that had not existed before. Despite the increased availability of transit in the Wells area, settlement in the Wells areas was generally limited to the periphery of the neighborhood, either along major east-west routes such as 1300 South, 1700 South, and 2100 South, or along the streetcar lines at State Street, 400 East, and 700 East. Large numbers of new subdivisions were platted along the transit lines and in the surrounding area during this period, including those listed in the table above. These subdivisions varied in size from a few lots to several hundred and most, as mentioned earlier, were developed by non-Mormon speculators from out-of-state and largely housed Salt Lake City’s growing non-Mormon citizenry.

These subdivisions would not have been nearly so popular with inventors and home buyers had the electric streetcar system not been established in Salt Lake City. “Without the fast and convenient service of the electric streetcar, there would have been little demand for building lots in the southeastern suburbs, and the land there would likely have remained farmland much longer. The popularity of such subdivisions stemmed from the fact that they offered “the fresh air and uncrowded conditions of country living, yet, with their streetcar access, they were only a short ride from the city center.” As evidenced by settlement patterns within the Wells Historic District, development was heavily focused in the portions of the subdivision nearest the streetcar lines. The residences that were constructed in the Wells area during this period, 63 contributing examples of which remain standing at present, are dominated by late-Victorian types and styles. The examples comprise an impressive collection of such structures compared to other Salt Lake City streetcar subdivisions and represent the broad array of Victorian forms being constructed in the valley during this period, including central-block-with-projecting-bays, cross-wing, side-passage/side-entry, foursquare, shotgun, and rectangular block forms.

Another major development marking the early-1890s in Salt Lake City and influencing the development of the Wells area was the establishment of electrical service, albeit unreliable at first, in March of 1891. Utility poles lined, and in some cases extended down the middle of, many downtown streets. Electrical service was immediately extended through the Big Field/ Wells area, though primarily for use in public facilities such as the Calder Park amusement center located to the south of Wells.

Although not located in the Wells study area, Liberty Park has played an important role in the development of the community. Situated on the northwest corner of 1300 South and 700 East, the park began as informal, privately owned open space held first by Isaac Chase, a prominent local businessman, and later by Brigham Young. In 1881, the Salt Lake City Municipal corporation purchased the 5-acre parcel from the then-deceased Young’s estate. Approximately a year later, the City formally established Liberty Park on the site.

During the last decades of the 1800s, simple Classical styling in architecture slowly gave way to more elaborate Victorian styles across the state.34 Within the Wells study area, examples of Classical and Victorian architecture from this period are present but rare, as little development occurred in the area during this time. Major examples of these architectural styles/forms are the Wilford Woodruff Villa (ca. 1891), the Septimus W. Sears House (ca. 1892), and the Dawes House (ca. 1897)

Streetcar Suburbs (1900 to 1929)

Beginning in the early-1900s, a series of developments in electrical power generation and an apparent recognition of the drawbacks of the head-to-head streetcar competition lead the SLCRR and the SLRT to merge into the Consolidated Railway & Power Company (Consolidated). In 1904, Consolidated merged with Utah Power & Light to form Utah Light & Railway. Fourteen years later, in 1918, Utah Light & Railway merged with a rival company, Salt Lake Light & Traction to form Utah Light & Traction (Carr and Edwards 1989). By 1919, streetcar routes extended throughout the city, offering service to Holladay, Midvale, Sandy, the University of Utah, Fort Douglas, and other points in the valley. As mentioned previously, these lines extended along the east and west boundaries of the Wells neighborhood as well as into the heart of the neighborhood along 400 East. The lines offered stops for would-be residents who worked in downtown Salt Lake City but wanted to live outside its heavily urbanized core area.

The popularity of the suburb concept and the lure of easy transit was almost unprecedented, as many hundreds of new residents purchased lots and erected homes in Wells during this period. Nearly 77 percent of the contributing resources within the district were constructed between 1900 and 1929. This is the largest number of buildings in the history of the district. The overwhelming majority of construction was residential in nature, with single-family homes being far more common than multi-family structures. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps from 1911 show the beginnings of the existing street and parcel system in the Wells area, though many of the blocks remained undivided, and many of today’s streets had yet to be constructed.

In Wells, several prominent local land merchants were responsible for the promotion and development of the subdivisions during this time. Many of these individuals commissioned the construction of numerous single-family homes as speculative ventures, having them built before a buyer was identified and renting them out until such time as the property was sold to a permanent owner. For example, the Grand Haven Subdivision, developed by Philip A. Finegan, encompassed the area from Browning Avenue to Emerson Avenue, between 600 and 700 East. The development was platted in 1909 and, like many subdivisions during that time, heavily promoted in the Salt Lake Tribune from 1909 through the 1910s as a streetcar subdivision with valuable investment potential. The plat for the subdivision included 53, long, narrow, rectangular building lots, most of which now host single- family bungalow homes.

The many subdivisions that were platted during the previous period had largely remained undeveloped until after 1905 and did not reach their full development until the 1920s. Around this time, a new LDS ward was established in the area and was named Waterloo Ward. The future Wells area thus became known as the Waterloo Area for a time. The influx of residents to the area was generally slow at first, but as evidenced by the known construction dates of buildings within the Wells neighborhood, by the mid 1910s, residential development was in full swing. This development appears to have continued unabated until the start of the Great Depression following the stock market crash of late 1929. Commercial development accompanied the residential development, though only on a limited basis. State Street, 1300 South, and 2100 South saw the greatest commercial development in the area, with most of the “inner” Wells area remaining residential or seeing only the occasional commercial establishment.

As residential development occurred, public facilities also had to be built to provide services to the growing population. By 1911, at least three public schools had been constructed in the area. These include the Uintah Public School, located on the northwest corner of 700 East and 1700 South, then referred to as Tempest Avenue, the Whittier Public School, located on 300 East between Kensington Avenue and 1700 South, and the Waterloo Public School, located immediately northeast of the Whittier school. Also by this time, the County Infirmary and Hospital building had been constructed on the northeast corner of 2100 South and State Street.

Wells’ housing stock from this period illustrates the growing assimilation of national trends into Salt Lake City’s architectural resources. The bungalow form usurped late-Victorian forms as the overwhelmingly most common residential type in the district. This change represents a pervasive trend sweeping through the city’s suburban development at the time, when the bungalow form became the most popular residential form for streetcar suburbs largely because of its simple design and conduciveness to “mass-production” by designer-builders rather than fully trained architects. The juxtaposition of these simple, low-slung, rectangular bungalows with the complex and typically vertically-oriented Victorian structures of the earlier periods visually evokes an understanding of how the older architectural forms of past generations were giving way to the “modern” forms of the new century. Period Cottages also appeared in Wells during this time, though not with the same frequency that they were constructed in other streetcar subdivisions in the area.

Similar suburban growth was occurring elsewhere in Salt Lake City during this period, particularly within its southeastern quadrant, where the platting of subdivisions continued at a rapid pace. Among the contemporary subdivisions in the general vicinity of the Wells neighborhood were the Homesite Addition (1913), the Sixth East subdivision (1914), the Stratford subdivision (1918), the Free subdivision (1922), the Wilmington subdivision (1924), the Adamson subdivision (1925), and the Bradford subdivision (1927). Further to the east, the expansive Highland Park subdivision with its 3,124 lots, the Yalecrest subdivisions (1911-1938), and the Gilmer Park subdivision (1919) (all National Register-listed historic districts), represented a new trend toward complexity and sophistication in subdivision design, incorporating curving streets, blocks of varying sizes and shapes, and neighborhood-wide landscaping. The subdivisions of Wells, on the other hand, are representative of a standard gridded layout.

Suburban development continued strongly into the early 1920s in Wells and the surrounding neighborhoods. On the whole, the state of Utah experienced an economic slowdown following the end of World War I, when demand for mining and agricultural products and rail transportation of materials for the war effort decreased. Salt Lake City was, however, somewhat insulated from the slowdown, as the city had transitioned away from a frontier town fully dependent on extractive industries and resource exploitation to a regional center more dependent on a service economy.

The increase in popularity of auto and bus travel in the late 1920s resulted in a massive scaling-back of the streetcar system. Beginning in 1926, trolley tracks throughout the valley were removed, although in some cases, it was easier and less expensive to simply pave over the tracks rather than remove them. The greater reliance on automobiles slowly began to change the architectural landscape of Wells, as larger garages had to be built to accommodate cars and trucks, and situating garages for access from the frontage road rather than a mid-block alley became socially desirable. By mid 1944, all trolley service in the valley was eliminated.

The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945)

The Great Depression hit the entire state of Utah hard; in 1932 the state had the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country, at 36 percent.40 Statistics indicate that in 1935 one out of five, or 20 percent, of Salt Lake County families were receiving financial relief in one form or another.” Many more were living below the poverty line. Relatively speaking, very limited residential and commercial development occurred in the Wells neighborhood, or elsewhere in the state or nation, during the throes of the Great Depression. Few residents had the available funds to purchase homes, banks were unable to lend monies at acceptable interest rates, and the relative costs of building materials had skyrocketed. In fact, only 12 percent of the contributing resources within the Wells Historic District were constructed during this period, the second lowest number of properties since the Big Field was platted into residential blocks. Of these properties, all but a handful were constructed during the late 1930s and early 1940s, as the pre-war and war time economy precipitated an economic recovery.

Construction largely took the form of either infill projects on the very few remaining undeveloped lots within Wells or of teardown-and-rebuild projects where older homes were demolished and replaced with new, more modern homes. Other existing homes in the area were expanded through the construction of additions, mostly to the rear of the buildings because of the narrowness of the building lots. Greater dependence on personal automobiles, larger now than their predecessors, instigated construction of new, larger garages as well as garage/carport additions in some instances.

The new buildings constructed in Wells during this period represent national trends in housing development. Early versions of World War II Era Cottages-moderately sized, rectangular or boxy withy minimal ornamentation structures-replaced bungalows and Period Cottages and modern concepts of necessary space and domestic technology (e.g., indoor refrigerators instead of ice chests, central air conditioning, and separate “utility rooms” to house washers, dryers, and the home’s mechanical equipment such as furnaces, circuit breakers, etc.). Many extant homes in Wells illustrate the transition between Period Cottages and World War II Era Cottages and take the form of simple, rectangular structures with the long axis oriented parallel to the street and steeply pitched, gable roofs. After the transition to the World War II Era Cottage form was complete, roof forms changed to moderately steep to low-pitched gable roofs and low-slung hipped roofs.

The Post War Era (1946 to 1957)

The Wells area continued to grow and change following the close of World War II, however, the entire area, for all intents and purposes, had been developed on some level prior to 1960s. Based on known construction dates for buildings in the area, redevelopment appears to have occurred on a limited basis during the 1960s and 1970s. Older single family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial ventures such as convenience stores or small walk-up stores. In some cases, former residential buildings were converted into commercial enterprises. State Street, 2100 South, and portions of 1300 South and 1700 South have seen the most redevelopment within the Wells area.

The historic building stock of the early part of the period is dominated by World War II Era Cottages (until the mid-1950s), Ranch Houses, and drive-up commercial structures. The California-based Ranch House form offered larger residences, separation of domestic activity areas, and incorporation of even more modern technology. It also lent itself well to mass- or pre-fabricated construction in the rapidly growing suburbs and represented a return of country (ranch style) living to urbanized communities. The Ranch House examples in Wells are typical of those in Salt Lake City’s suburbs, but their presence reflects the culmination of historical architectural development in the subdivision and maintains the continuity of architectural trends within the district.

Commercial structures of the post-war period were adapted to the automobile culture that arose after the war. Instead of pedestrian-friendly buildings abutting sidewalks, commercial buildings were built to the rear of lots, leaving space for parking. Motor lodges, such as the Alta Motel Lodge on State Street, accommodated a new breed of tourist, the road tripper, and drive-up restaurants offered in-car dining.

As the final build-out of Salt Lake City’s downtown and suburb areas occurred during the post-war period, the city’s infrastructure, particularly its roads, had to be upgraded to accommodate the popularity of modern technology. Specifically, the community’s road system had been designed for wagons and streetcars, not the post-war boom of personal automobiles, semi-trucks, and public buses. In 1957, the 700 East roadway was widened by the Utah Department of Transportation. The majority of the widening through the Wells area took place along the west side of the road, and nearly all of the houses along that side were demolished to make way for the expansion. Additionally, State Street and 2100 South were subject to the beginnings of a substantial redevelopment program, primarily for commercial purposes. This redevelopment continued well into the modern era and took hold with particular energy in the 1970s and 1980s.

The replacement of historic houses with modern commercial structures along these roadways and the demolition of homes along 700 East to accommodate road widening largely erased the evidence of the earliest homes and businesses built along the former routes of the streetcar lines. Fortunately, though, the historic core area of Wells beyond these compromised roadways remains intact with only small pockets of incompatible development.

The building stock in Wells during this period reflects the westward migration of the Ranch House form and Ranch style from California to the rest of the country. The early forms of the Ranch residences present in the Wells Historic District are low-slung buildings with moderate to deep eaves, gabled or hipped roofs, and a rectangular plan with the long axis parallel to the street. Most of these buildings are only slightly longer than similarly shaped World War II Era Cottages from the previous period. This is primarily due to the narrow lot sizes in the Wells area. In other sections of the Salt Lake Valley, where wider residential lots did not pose such constraints, Ranch residences from the same period are often slightly longer. The buildings of this period, particularly the residential structures, are vernacular representations of the high-style Ranch House design. That is, they are simplified versions that lack the exterior ornamentation and detailing of the true Ranch style. Most are constructed of striated brick, though a few mix brick with other cladding materials.

Commercial structures built during this period exhibit a variety of modern styles; however, their unifying characteristic is that they reflect the growing reliance of Utahns on automobiles. During the post war period, Americans in general adopted automobile culture like they had not before. New advancements in mass production technology during the war years and the development of the National Defense Highway System led to more affordable vehicles and a greater level of connectivity between communities, states, and regions of the country. As more people came to depend on automobiles for both short and long distance travel, the commercial environment changed to accommodate them. This was reflected in the incorporation of parking lots and drive-through lanes in association with new commercial structures and in the establishment of drive- up motor lodges (motels) instead of walk-up hotels. Properties such as the historic Alta Motel Lodge and the Zion Motel, both motor lodges on State Street, represent this trend in the Wells Historic District.

Summary

The Wells Historic District has a long history that is reflected in its well-preserved architecture. The majority of contributing resources within the district are tied directly to the key periods of significance within the neighborhood and illustrate the district’s early platting and its development as a streetcar suburb and then as a post-war community. Because the bulk of the development occurred over a relatively short period of time, the architectural resources demonstrate a remarkable level of visual cohesiveness in both style and patterning on the landscape. The exceptional collection of early 20th century bungalows and clipped-gable-cottages is among the most intact examples in the area. The post-war historical building stock contributes to the overall continuity of Wells through time and adds to the spectrum of architectural history of the neighborhood. The Wells Historic District contributes significantly to the historic resources of Salt Lake City and stands as an excellent example of how this community developed over time and what factors played a role in that development.

2011 Boundary Expansion:

The Liberty Wells Historic District has been created through a boundary increase to the existing Wells Historic District, listed on the National Register in 2010 (NRIS II #10000210). This nomination describes a contiguous historic neighborhood to the north of the Wells Historic District. To avoid confusion, this area will be referred to as the Liberty Area. The Liberty Area is located west of Liberty Park and south of downtown Salt Lake City. It is bounded by State Street, 900 South, 500 East, and 1300 South. The southern boundary along 1300 South is also the northern boundary of the existing Wells Historic District. The Liberty Area contains 1,053 documented primary buildings, of which the majority (987 or 94 percent) was constructed during the historical period (i.e., built during or prior to 1961). Of the 1,053 total buildings, 75 percent (791) contribute to the historical character of the area. Of the 262 buildings that do not contribute to the area, 196 are historical structures that have been substantively altered and 66 are out-of-period structures built after 1961. None of the properties in the Liberty Area are individually listed on the National Register at present. This nomination form recommends extending the boundaries of the existing district to include the Liberty Area and proposes to rename the expanded district as the Liberty Wells Historic District. The period of significance for the Liberty Wells Historic District is 1871-1961, encompassing four historic eras: Initial Settlement (1871-1899), Streetcar Suburbs (1900-1929), the Era of Infilling (1930-1945), and the Post-War Era (1946-1961). The Liberty Wells Historic District is significant in the areas of community planning and development, transportation, and architecture.

The Liberty Area as a whole retains sufficient integrity to contribute to the Liberty Wells Historic District and justify expansion of the district boundaries. The building stock and patterns of development in the Liberty and Wells areas reflect the common history of the broader Liberty Wells neighborhood. The array of architectural types and styles present in the neighborhood reflects both the protracted period over which the buildings in the area were constructed and the periods of boom and bust in new housing starts. The extensive collection of bungalows in both areas is the defining characteristic of the neighborhood and lends the area the unique feeling of a streetcar suburb. The continuous development of the subdivision throughout the historical period lends a visual cohesiveness to the neighborhood, as the transition from earlier to later architectural designs is visible in the area’s housing stock. Both historical and modern infill projects are present. The historical examples represent the final phase of full build-out of the area and contribute to the neighborhood’s overall character. The modern infill projects, on the other hand, are not in keeping with the scale and stylistic continuity of the rest of the district. These structures are relatively rare, are concentrated along boundary streets, and do not substantially detract from the integrity of the district. Together, the Liberty and Wells areas comprise one of the best and most comprehensive collections of Early 20th Century American residential architecture in Salt Lake City.

Narrative Description

The Liberty Wells Historic District has been created through a boundary increase to the existing Wells Historic District, listed on the National Register in 2010 (NRIS II #10000210). This nomination describes a contiguous historic neighborhood to the north of the Wells Historic District. To avoid confusion, this area will be referred to as the Liberty Area and the area included in the existing Wells Historic District will be referred to as the Wells Area. The broader neighborhood that encompasses both areas will be referred to as the Liberty Wells area or neighborhood.

This nomination will amend the period of significance of the Liberty Wells Historic District to 1871-1961. The period of significance for the existing district is 1871-1957. Because the inventory of the Wells Area was conducted in 2007, a cutoff date of 1957 was used to determine whether buildings were historic. However, the inventory of the Liberty Area was conducted in 2011 and a cut-off date of 1961 was used accordingly. Buildings in the Liberty Area constructed during and prior to 1961 contribute to the historic significance of the district and this nomination will amend the period of significance of the Liberty Wells Historic District to 1871-1961. It is also important to note that the earliest extant buildings in the Liberty Area date to 1890. However, buildings constructed prior to 1890 are extant in the Wells Area and this nomination will retain the start date of 1871 for the period of significance. The historic eras used to describe the existing Wells Historic District also describe the amended period of significance for the Liberty Wells Historic District. These eras are: Initial Settlement (1871-1899), Streetcar Suburbs (1900-1929), the Era of Infilling (1930-1945), and the Post-War Era (1946-1961). The end date of the Post-War Era has been extended from 1957 to1961 to account for development up to and including 1961.

This nomination will retain the areas of significance of the existing Wells Historic District. These areas are community planning and development, transportation, and architecture. These areas of significance reflect the defining characteristics held in common by both the Liberty and Wells areas. Both are associated with the historical development of streetcar suburbs in Salt Lake City, reflecting the significance of community planning and development, as well as transportation. Both the Liberty and Wells areas are also characterized by well-preserved collections of Early 20th Century American architecture, and are historically significant for their architecture.

The Liberty Area is a residential neighborhood located immediately west of Liberty Park and south of downtown Salt Lake City. This area takes its name from Liberty Park, established in 1881; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) Liberty Ward, established by 1887; and the LDS Liberty Stake, founded ca. 1904. The area is bordered on three sides by substantial transportation corridors: State Street (on the west), 900 South (on the north), and 1300 South (on the south). Five-hundred (500) East borders the boundary increase area on the east; 500 East is less heavily traveled than the other three boundary streets, but separates the residential neighborhood from Liberty Park. The Liberty Area and the existing Wells Historic District share a boundary street: the southern boundary of the Liberty Area is the north side of 1300 South, while the northern boundary of the existing Wells Historic District consists of the south side of 1300 South. Although 1300 South is heavily traveled, it is primarily residential, with less modern large-scale development than State Street or 900 South.

The Liberty Area encompasses approximately 217 acres spread out over 34 blocks containing individual lots of various sizes. The area is comprised of many small-scale subdivisions intermingled with individually built homes. The street layout is mostly rectilinear (with some blocks running lengthwise north-south and some running east-west). This layout is different from the dominant square grid-like nature of downtown Salt Lake City that was established upon the first settlement of the valley. The Liberty Area was originally platted during the mid 1800s as part of the Big Field, a mainly agricultural area, with parcels ranging from 5 to 80 acres in size. In the 1880s, sections of the Big Field began to be divided into smaller, residential-sized blocks that were soon platted as subdivisions by developers from outside of Utah, who brought alternative concepts of community development and design to the area. Thus, the lot and block layout of the Liberty Area and similarly platted areas (including the existing Wells Historic District) is clearly distinct from areas platted earlier under the Plat of the City of Zion construct of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who founded Salt Lake City. All of the streets in the Liberty Area are paved with asphalt and most are lined with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mid-block alleys are present within many of the blocks to provide access to the rear of the residential properties where detached garages and outbuildings are commonly located. Residential landscape is present throughout most of the Liberty Area and is characterized by mature trees, which line the parking strips of most streets in the neighborhood. Planned or designed public landscaping is generally absent in the Liberty Area.

The patterns of development and building stock in the Liberty and Wells areas reflect the common history of the broader Liberty Wells neighborhood. The catalyst for development in both areas was the convergence of a rapidly growing population in Salt Lake City, the need for additional residential areas outside the city center, and the expansion of the streetcar system in the area south of 900 South. These factors drove the rapid residential development that shaped the Liberty and Wells areas during the early twentieth century. By far, most buildings in both areas were constructed during the first three decades of the twentieth century. The Liberty Area is notable for its collection of Bungalow variations, Period Revival residences, and to a lesser extent, Eclectic Victorian residences. Bungalows are the architectural strength of the neighborhood, comprising the single largest category of building forms and styles in the Liberty Area. Together, the Liberty and Wells areas comprise one of the best and most comprehensive collections of Early 20th Century American residential architecture in Salt Lake City.

Residential construction in the Liberty Area began on a limited basis in the early 1890s, grew substantially between 1900 and the stock market crash in 1929, and by the late 1930s, much of the area had been developed. Development increased again during World War II, and after the war, construction occurred primarily as infill development due to the lack of vacant land. Minimal construction continues into the present and consists of additions to existing structures as well as tear-down projects in which older structures are demolished to accommodate new construction. The distribution of housing types and styles within the boundary increase area echoes the broad time span over which construction occurred within the Liberty Area but also clearly illustrates the periods of boom and bust in construction.

The Liberty Area contains 1,053 documented primary buildings, of which the majority (987 or 94 percent) was constructed during the historical period (i.e., built during or prior to 1961). Of the 1,053 total buildings, 75 percent (791) contribute to the historical character of the area. Of the 262 buildings that do not contribute to the area, 196 are historical structures that have been substantively altered and 66 are out-of-period structures built after 1961. None of the properties in the Liberty Area are individually listed on the National Register at present.

The vast majority (96 percent) of the contributing properties in the area is residential properties, and among these, 92 percent are single-family residential structures. The remaining 8 percent of contributing residences are multi-family properties, consisting primarily of double houses and duplexes, but also including larger multi-family dwellings. The double houses and duplexes represent a variety of time periods and architectural styles. A total of 16 contributing commercial properties and 3 churches are also present.

Sixty-three percent (660) of the documented properties have not only primary structures but also outbuildings present on the properties. A total of 227 outbuildings in the Liberty Area were constructed during the historical period and retain moderate to high degrees of physical integrity. Most of the outbuildings are small, detached, single-car garages, though small storage sheds and workshops are also present. These outbuildings contribute to the visual unity of the area in a general way. However, as with the Wells Historic District, they are not included in the total count of contributing resources for the Liberty Area.

With a few exceptions around the boundaries of the district, the Liberty Area is visually cohesive, with various architectural styles of early 20th-century residences tying together the different portions of the neighborhood and providing aesthetic continuity within the area. This visual cohesion extends to the existing Wells Historic District. This cohesion easily distinguishes the Liberty and Wells areas from surrounding neighborhoods to the north and west and to a certain degree from those to the east. Individual subdivisions within the district exhibit the different architectural focus of developers at the time each subdivision was developed, with some subdivisions dominated by Bungalows, others by Victorian forms, others by Period Cottages and Clipped Gable Cottages, and still others by World War II Era Cottages. Other subdivisions exhibit a more eclectic collection of architectural types and styles, reflecting the greater period of time over which the subdivision was developed. Despite the individuality of the various subdivisions, the housing stock within them represents a limited number of architectural types and styles that are present throughout the entire Liberty Area and create cohesion both within the area and with the existing Wells Historic District.

Historical infill construction of single-family homes from the 1940s and 1950s is evident throughout the Liberty Area, but contributes, rather than detracts from the area because the massing of the structures is consistent throughout the area. These later structures represent a key period in the neighborhood’s history, when most of the lots had been developed and only a few remained available for new construction. More recent (1960s+) infill projects, on the other hand, have introduced large, multi-family apartments, commercial buildings, and other structures, the scale of which is not in keeping with the rest of the district. This is particularly evident along 900 South and State Street and is less common in the interior of the Liberty Area. Commercial development – both historical and modern – is largely centered on the major through-streets that bound the area: State Street, 900 South, and to a much lesser degree, 1300 South. Commercial development is also present along Edison Street, which is only a block removed from State Street. Away from these corridors, commercial development consists primarily of individual specialty shops, such as small markets, scattered among residential structures.

The Liberty and Wells areas are generally characterized by similar patterns of development and building stock. However, slight differences in development and building stock are present. These differences appear primarily during the Initial Settlement period and the Era of Infilling. A greater proportion of buildings dating to the Initial Settlement period (1871- 1899) was observed in the Wells Area (3.3 percent of contributing buildings) than in the Liberty Area (1.5 percent). Additionally, no extant buildings in the Liberty Area pre-date 1890, while the Wells Area includes several buildings constructed during the early part of the period. During the Streetcar Suburbs period (1900-1929), the Liberty and Wells areas experienced very similar patterns of development and the extant building stock in the two areas reflects this common history. The only difference observed during this period is that duplexes are more common in the Liberty Area. The two areas differ again during the Era of Infilling (1930-1945). During this period, development is slightly more common in the Liberty Area than the Wells Area; 14 percent of contributing buildings in the Liberty Area date to this period, compared with only 10 percent in the Wells Area. Multi-family dwellings were more common in the Liberty Area during this period as well. During the Post-War Era (1946-1961), there are few differences in the development of the two areas. Because the vast majority of buildings in both areas was constructed during the Streetcar Suburbs period, when differences between the two areas were minimal, the Liberty and Wells areas are generally characterized by very similar building stock. The building stock in both areas reflects the rapid growth of suburban residential development during the early twentieth century in the broader Liberty Wells neighborhood.

The Liberty Area as a whole retains sufficient integrity to contribute to the Liberty Wells Historic District and justify expansion of the district boundaries. Although the boundary streets of 900 South and State Street have seen extensive modern development, the vast majority of the area retains its historical suburban quality due to its tree-lined streets, uniform setbacks, well-preserved architecture, and the similarity of scale in the housing stock. The most common alterations to buildings in the area are the application of stucco or aluminum, vinyl, or asbestos (also masonite) siding and the replacement of original windows. Many of the contributing homes from the period have additions, frequently built during the historical period, but also representing modern alterations. However, alterations to individual buildings do not significantly detract from the overall visual cohesion or historic significance of the neighborhood. With three-quarters of the buildings in the Liberty Area contributing to its historic character, the Liberty Area retains a high degree of integrity and reflects historic patterns of development and building trends in the broader Liberty Wells neighborhood.

Architectural Styles, Types, and Materials by Period

Farms and Fields (1847 to 1870)

Prior to the platting of the Liberty Area beginning in the late 1880s, the area was only sparsely settled and primarily contained agricultural fields and communal livestock grazing areas. With rare exceptions, buildings constructed during this period were single cell or hall and parlor structures built from logs, adobe brick, and/or stone. During the earliest part of the period, semi-subterranean dugouts were common along foothills and terraces but less so in the flat lands of the Salt Lake Valley bottoms.

No known buildings from this period are extant in the Liberty Area. Buildings from the period were likely demolished to make room for later construction projects or have been so heavily modified over time that they are no longer recognizable as representatives of this period. This era is not included in the period of significance.

Initial Settlement (1871 to 1899)

The development of the streetcar system in the Salt Lake Valley in the early 1870s and the platting of the Big Field ca. 1890 spurred speculation by land developers. These developers purchased large tracts of land, platted subdivisions, and began promoting the establishment of the first real suburbs in Salt Lake City. Four subdivisions were platted in the Liberty Area during the late 1880s and early 1890s. However, development within them was limited until near the turn of the century and did not reach fruition until the era of streetcar subdivisions (1900–1929). Maps published by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company (Sanborn maps) dating to 1898 do not include the Liberty Area, which may indicate that the area did not contain concentrations of buildings that were at risk for fire. This may suggest that little development had occurred within the subdivisions prior to 1898. Buildings constructed in the Liberty Area during this period occurred primarily along the arterial streets – State Street, 900 South, and 1300 South, and 300, 400, and 500 East. A number of houses were also built along Harvard and Hampton Avenues in the late nineteenth century. Harvard and Hampton Avenues are not listed in city directories for 1895 or 1900 and they were likely referred to by other names at the time. These houses are not located within any of the early subdivisions and represent the construction of individual residences on subdivided Big Field lots.

During the last decades of the 1800s, simple Classical styling in architecture slowly gave way to more elaborate Victorian styles across the state. Cross-wing structures in variants of “T-” and “L-cottages” and double cross-wings along with other typically Victorian forms such as rectangular blocks and central-blocks-with-projecting-bays became popular throughout Utah during these last decades of the nineteenth century and continued in their popularity through the early twentieth century. While some of the early versions of these structures saw little in the way of exterior adornment, others were endowed with the comparatively fancy dressings of the Queen Anne, Eastlake, Romanesque Revival, Victorian Eclectic, or other late Victorian styles.

Within the Liberty Area, no known buildings constructed prior to 1890 remain extant in the area. However, several buildings in the Wells Area pre-date 1890 and the period of significance for the Liberty Wells Historic District thus includes the entire Initial Settlement period. In the Liberty Area, houses from the later portion (1890 to 1899) of the Initial Settlement period are present but rare, as little development occurred in the area during this time. Twelve (12) contributing properties in the Liberty Area are associated with this time period. Buildings from the period include Victorian forms such as cross-wing, central-block-with-projecting-bays, and rectangular block types. However, simpler forms such as foursquare and shotgun types are slightly more common in the area. These houses exhibit primarily Victorian and Classical architecture. One example from this period is the c. 1897 residence located at 1246 South 500 East, a two-story foursquare residence exhibiting Victorian Eclectic and Neoclassical styles. More typical for the area, however, are the c. 1890 foursquare located at 1166 South 500 East and the shotgun house at 352 Harvard Avenue. These residences are smaller and have a simpler form. All three reflect the Victorian Eclectic style, with an array of elements drawn from various styles of the period.

Regular brick and shingle siding were the predominant construction materials for houses built during this time period. Occasional wood frame examples are also present, and many buildings from this period have been clad in stucco during the modern era. Sandstone and concrete foundations are typical among the housing stock, with concrete foundations becoming far more common toward the end of the period.

Streetcar Suburbs (1900 to 1929)

The streetcar system continued to be a key factor in shaping the pattern of development of the Liberty Area during the early decades of the 1900s and can rightfully be seen as the single greatest impetus for a boom in construction during this period. Beginning in the early 1900s, a series of developments in electrical power generation and a realization among competing transit operators that their companies would fare better if they joined forces rather than each carving out a small piece of the market, caused several operators to merge their transit system, which created more powerful companies that had the ability to expand streetcar routes throughout Salt Lake City.

By 1919, streetcar lines extended along State Street and 700 East, as well as into the heart of the neighborhood along 400 East. The presence of the lines through the area was a major selling point for land developers who painted a bucolic image of suburban living outside the polluted area in downtown Salt Lake City and championed the convenience afforded by the streetcar in advertisements for their subdivisions. The promotions worked, and thousands of individuals and families flocked to the area, most with a particular desire to purchase houses along or near the streetcar lines. This meant that the greatest amount of development, both commercial and residential, occurred near the major streetcar corridors of State Street and 400 East, particularly in the early part of the period; later in the period, construction was well distributed throughout the Liberty Area.

Approximately 76 percent (604) of all contributing buildings in the Liberty Area were constructed during this period, primarily within subdivisions constructed adjacent to streetcar lines. The vast majority of these properties are residential structures. Four main architectural forms, adorned with a variety of different styles, dominate the built environment of the area. These include bungalows (the most common), period cottages, duplexes, and late versions of central-block-withprojecting- bays residences. Examples of this latter form as well as rectangular block residences took on decidedly more pronounced bungalow characteristics than the Victorian styles associated with them during the previous period in the area’s history.

Early architectural forms, such as rectangular block and shotgun residences became less common in the area. Toward the middle part of the period, the new, home-grown American architectural form, the bungalow, rose in popularity in Utah.

These bungalows were ubiquitous in the streetcar suburbs of Salt Lake City, with the period from approximately 1915 to 1925 representing the height of their popularity in such locations. In general, the bungalows from this period in the Liberty Area conformed to the generic, mass production version of the form, which exhibited very little in the way of exterior adornment and maintained only the basic characteristics of the prototypical bungalow.

Of the 791 contributing properties in the area, nearly 60 percent (470) are bungalow variations. Myriad styles were applied to the bungalow form, though most commonly they were unadorned and simply exhibited the basic bungalow characteristics of a low-slung roof, heavy porch, and deep eaves as represented by the c. 1920 residence at 318 E. Hampton Avenue. Others received greater stylistic treatment with details from the Arts and Crafts style, as seen in the c. 1920 residence at 147 E. Harvard Avenue, and the Prairie School style, as seen in the c. 1920 residence at 457 E. Edith Avenue.

Toward the latter part of this period, a number of period cottages were constructed within the Liberty Area (56 contributing properties). The vast majority were constructed after 1925. Such cottages were another very popular architectural form constructed by developers within the streetcar suburbs. Nearly all of the cottages were constructed of brick, mostly striated brick, and many exhibited designs that were conducive to “mass production” within subdivisions. These designs frequently incorporated only the very basic period revival elements such as multiple steeply pitched gables. Others incorporated elements of English Tudor and English Cottage design. An example of such a building is the 1929 residence at 265 E. Herbert Avenue.

Also during the latter part of the period, an architectural form emerged that combined elements of the Bungalow and Period Cottage forms. This form is referred to locally as the Clipped Gable Cottage. These buildings often incorporate Colonial Revival elements and clipped gables, as well as deep porches and wide eaves. The c. 1925 residence at 252 E. Belmont Avenue is a good example of such architecture.

In addition to the many single-family dwellings that are associated with this period are several double houses (duplexes). These double houses are somewhat unique within streetcar suburbs such as the Liberty Area, as they represent higher density housing that was typically found in more urban settings. However, several streetcar suburbs around downtown Salt Lake City are known to have included a surprising number of such multi-family residences, including the existing Wells Historic District and the historic Forest Dale neighborhood. Roughly 26 contributing double houses representing this period are present in the district. Most double houses from the period, such as the c. 1925 property at 122-124 E. Williams Avenue, exhibit elements of Period Revival style. Others, such as the c. 1925 residence at 359-361 E. Williams Avenue, incorporated the highly popular Bungalow style or the Clipped Gable Cottage style, such as the c. 1925 residence at 964 S. Denver Street.

Commercial development continued to be focused along the major roadways of State Street and 900 South. Typical 1- Part Block commercial buildings, such as the c. 1915 building at 274-282 E. 900 South were most common along these thoroughfares; however, small, neighborhood groceries and specialty stores were also built during this period, most frequently as commercial additions to residential structures.

Brick was by far the most common building material used in structures from this period. Regular, fired brick continued in high frequencies, but striated brick clearly began to rise in popularity as a preferred material given its relatively extensive use on houses within the Liberty Area as well as in other contemporary residential developments.

The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945)

Housing construction decreased dramatically during the Great Depression. Throughout the Salt Lake Valley, new house starts dwindled to record low numbers as financing became increasingly difficult to obtain. Fewer than 113 (14 percent) of the contributing buildings remaining in the Liberty Area today were constructed between 1930 and 1945. Construction during this period was distributed throughout the area and consisted of individual buildings on the few remaining open lots in the area. The relative number of multi-family housing units to single-family houses increased during this period, as renting versus buying became the norm for cash-strapped residents. Of the nearly 113 contributing properties from this period, 14 (approximately 12 percent) are multi-family units. This is in comparison to a proportion of multi-family units to single family units of just over 4 percent of all contributing buildings during the previous period in the district’s history.

While Period Cottages continued in popularity during the early years of the period, they soon gave way to more modern forms, including World War II Era Cottages. The transition between the two forms is evident in residences such as the c. 1940 home at 1123 S. 400 East, which possess a roof pitch between the steep pitch of a Period Cottage and the moderate to shallow pitch of a World War II Era Cottage and muted elements of Period Revival ornamentation on a World War II Era Cottage plan.

The World War II Era Cottage forms present in the Liberty Area are primarily small, simple residences with a square plan or a rectangular plan oriented with the long axis parallel to the street. Most are only minimally adorned and have narrow to absent eaves. The 1939 residence at 241 E. Herbert Avenue is a good example of the typical unadorned World War II Era Cottage in the area. Others have slight eaves and incorporate elements of Colonial Revival design; this combination of elements is often referred to as Minimal Traditional style. The 1942 residence at 443 E. 1300 South is typical of such buildings.

As noted, multi-family housing was more common as a ratio of all new housing construction in this period than in previous periods. Examples of such housing in the Liberty Area can be seen in the c. 1931 and c. 1945 double houses at 1242 S. 300 East and 424-428 E. Williams Avenue. As can be seen from these examples, multi-family housing constructed early in the period exhibited the more common Period Revival style while such properties constructed later in the period took on the elements of more modern styles, such as Minimal Traditional and Early Ranch – the latter of which did not appear in earnest in the Liberty Area until after World War II.

Public and commercial construction increased slightly during this period. The Art Deco Morrison Bros. building at 905 S. State Street was completed early in this period, and a new form of commercial property, the motor lodge, appeared late in the period. The Uptown Motel was opened in 1941 at 1185 S. State Street and was one of the earliest motels in the area to cater to the growing popularity of the automobile in American culture and the emergence of the “road trip” as a specific type of leisure activity. The motel exhibits Minimal Traditional style.

Brick continued as a popular construction material, but frame construction and aluminum siding began to overtake it during the latter part of the period. Other cladding materials such as asbestos shingles also grew in use.

The Post-War Era (1946 to 1961)

The Liberty Area continued to grow and change following the close of World War II; however, the entire area, for all intents and purposes, had been developed on some level prior to the 1960s. Redevelopment occurred on a limited basis during the 1960s and 1970s. Older single family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial ventures. In some cases, former residential buildings were converted into commercial enterprises. The larger and more trafficked streets, such as State Street and 900 South have seen the most redevelopment within the Liberty Area.

Sixty (8 percent) contributing buildings affiliated with this time period are present within the area. Most are single-family residential structures in variations of World War II Era Cottage and Ranch/Rambler forms. By the early 1950s, the small, World War II Era Cottage plan was extended, making it longer, and cross-gables and cross-gable bays were added to create early versions of the Ranch house form. As time progressed, the plan was extended even further and took on the trappings of the more typical tract house version of the Ranch/Rambler form established in California by Clifford May. A good example of post-war World War II Era Cottages in the Liberty Area can be seen in the c. 1950 residence at 332 E. Williams Avenue, while a good example of the Ranch/Rambler form can be seen in the c. 1955 house at 1150 S. Denver Street.

Despite the redevelopment, the Liberty Area continues to retain a residential atmosphere and zoning ordinances allow very limited commercial development in the heart of the community. Historical buildings are being adaptively reused rather than replaced. However, this has not always been the case; the apartment buildings at 1140 and 1146 S. 500 East are typical examples of modern (non-historical) multi-family housing that has been constructed in small numbers within the district. With few exceptions, such buildings are scattered individually amongst single-family homes rather than in complexes or clusters. Not only is the massing of these properties out of proportion with the predominantly single-family housing of the rest of the neighborhood, but the focus on accommodating the modern automobile culture results in property configurations that are inconsistent with those of the majority of residential properties; that is, automobile parking is situated in front of or directly adjacent to the buildings whereas the majority of historical properties have garages at the rear of the parcels, accessed by mid-block alley ways. Additionally, because of the narrow but deep nature of the platted lots in the Liberty Area, construction of these large apartment complexes requires that they be oriented with their long axis perpendicular to the frontage road, creating a situation in which the primary public façade is the side of the building, devoid of doorways, porches, and windows that typify the single-family homes in the rest of the neighborhood.

New commercial construction during this period was designed to accommodate the automobile culture rather than pedestrian traffic. Historical commercial properties such as the c. 1960 commercial building at 270-272 E. 900 South and more recent businesses incorporate parking lots for drive-up traffic where little such need existed prior to World War II.

Construction materials varied more widely during this period than in previous periods. New material technologies developed during World War II gave way to inexpensive aluminum and other metal siding and a variety of veneers in synthetic materials, including imitation stone veneers developed in the eastern U.S. prior to 1940 but only really becoming popular in Salt Lake City during and after the war. Oversized brick and concrete block are also common in historical buildings from this period. Stucco and stacked stone veneers became popular during the 1990s and have been used to renovate older buildings and clad new ones.

Modern Era (1962-Present)

For the purposes of this history, the historical period is defined as ending 50 years before present, in 1961. The modern era is defined as beginning in 1962 and continuing at present. During the modern era, redevelopment appears to have occurred on a limited basis, primarily during the 1960s and 1970s. Older single-family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial structures. A number of historical residences along 900 South and several along State Street have been remodeled and converted to commercial buildings. Substantial commercial development has occurred along State Street and 900 South, primarily as tear-down-and-rebuild projects.

Despite modern infilling and redevelopment efforts, the Liberty Area retains much of its historical character. The highly desirable commercial areas, primarily along State Street and 900 South have seen the most change, with older residences and commercial structures being removed for the construction of modern commercial and municipal buildings. Zoning ordinances continue to maintain the residential nature of most of the area, allowing very limited commercial development in the heart of the community. Historical buildings are being reused rather than replaced. Community leaders have taken an intense interest in preserving the historical character of their neighborhood and addressing the growing issue of context insensitive infill and remodeling projects.

This history is included here to provide context for the Liberty Area. However, the modern era is not included in the period of significance for the Liberty Wells Historic District.

Architects and Builders

By and large, houses within the streetcar suburbs were constructed by a variety of different contractors using readily available commercial designs or simply constructed buildings based on past experience and accepted practice. Construction contractors were not the only ones contributing to the architectural development of the Liberty Area: land merchants, real estate developers, carpenters, and architects also played a large role. Many of the developers active in Salt Lake City during the late 1800s and early 1900s were out-of-state, non-Mormon developers and investors hoping to capitalize on the population boom in Utah.

Several prominent land merchants and developers were responsible for the development and promotion of subdivisions in the Liberty Area between 1900 and 1929. These merchants include Kimball & Richards, developer of the Jackson Square subdivision; Ashton Jenkins Co., developer of the Central Place and Walker Place Plat A and Plat C subdivisions; and Henry C. Hoffman, developer of the Carolina and Harvard Place subdivisions.

Summary

The historic resources of the Liberty Area illustrate the historical development of streetcar suburbs in Salt Lake City and provide a comprehensive collection of Early 20th Century American residences, typical of suburban development in the area between 1900-1929. These resources augment the significance of the existing Wells Historic District by reflecting the development of the historically broader Liberty Wells neighborhood. As a whole, the Liberty Area retains a high degree of integrity and its contributing resources create visual cohesion between the existing Wells Historic District and the Liberty Area. Taken together, the Liberty Area and the existing Wells Historic District are historically significant for their association with the historical development of streetcar suburbs in Salt Lake City and for their well-preserved collections of Early 20th Century American residential architecture.

Justification for a Boundary Increase to the Existing Wells Historic District

This section aims to compare and contrast the Liberty Area with the existing Wells Historic District. It will provide the justification for expanding the existing historic district to include the Liberty Area, rather than creating a new historic district for the Liberty Area. The Liberty and Wells areas share a common history of development. To avoid redundancy, the history common to both areas will not be repeated here. A complete history of the Liberty Wells neighborhood is presented in the nomination form for the existing Wells Historic District. Information specific to the Liberty Area is provided in the Developmental History section of this nomination.

The Liberty Area is directly north of the existing Wells Historic District. The Wells Area extends south from 1300 South, the southern boundary of the Liberty Area, to 2100 South. With the exception of Liberty Park, the Liberty and Wells areas share essentially the same history and similar patterns of development occurred in both areas. Both were originally part of the Big Field area, which was used for agriculture during the early settlement of Salt Lake City. Following the extension of streetcar lines south of 900 South, the two areas were served by the same streetcar lines, which ran along State Street, 400 East, and 700 East. The Liberty and Wells areas both experienced rapid residential development as the population increased and improved transportation allowed residents to move to the suburbs. The two areas provided residents with a suburban setting for their homes as well as easy access to the downtown core. Subdivisions and individual buildings were developed specifically to appeal to residents’ interest in suburban life. Thus, both areas have a distinctively suburban feel, in both their building stock and their streetscapes. The predominance of Early Twentieth Century American buildings, as well as narrow streets, sidewalks, mature shade trees, and uniform setbacks, create a sense of cohesion between the two areas and reflect their common history.

During the Initial Settlement period (1871 to 1899), the Liberty and Wells areas were both characterized by residential development dispersed within a primarily agricultural area. Development was concentrated along the major through streets and consisted primarily of individual buildings rather than subdivision development. A large number of subdivisions were platted in both areas toward the end of the period, as developers began to anticipate the growing need for housing. However, the majority of these subdivisions were not built until the 1900s. Sanborn maps dating to 1898 do not include the Liberty or Wells areas, which may indicate that at the time, the areas did not contain concentrations of buildings at risk for fire. In the Wells Area, 3.3 percent (n = 63) of the contributing buildings were constructed during this period. Of these, more than two-thirds represent Victorian forms and styles. Residences from the Initial Settlement period occur less frequently in the Liberty Area. Only 1.5 percent (n = 12) of the contributing buildings in the Liberty Area date to this period. Two-thirds of these represent Victorian forms and styles and the remaining buildings represent Classical styles. The lower frequency of buildings from the settlement period in the Liberty Area is somewhat unexpected. The Liberty Area is closer to the downtown core than the Wells Area, suggesting that early buildings should perhaps be more common in the Liberty Area. The Liberty Area was divided into smaller plots for artisans during the Big Field survey, rather than large agricultural tracts; these plots may have been used by artisans for temporary shop locations, rather than permanent residences. This would have contributed to the low number of early residences in the Liberty Area. The lower than expected frequency of early residences in the area may indicate that early buildings were demolished and replaced during subsequent development, or that early buildings have been modified to the extent that their original forms can no longer be identified.

Both the Liberty and Wells areas experienced a dramatic increase in residential development during the Streetcar Suburbs period (1900 to 1929). The concurrent growth in population and expansion of the streetcar system around the turn of the century set the stage for the rapid residential development in the Liberty and Wells areas. Developers began to build houses in subdivisions and on individual lots at a rapid pace in the early 1900s. They promoted the suburban setting of these houses and presented the houses as an attractive alternative to living in the downtown area. Both the Liberty and Wells areas had access to several different streetcar lines that could quickly carry residents to the downtown core, while allowing them to live away from the pollution and crowding. In the Wells Area, 77 percent (n = 1,479) of the contributing buildings were constructed during this period while 76 percent (n = 604) of contributing buildings in the Liberty Area date to this period. The similar percentages indicate that the residential boom had a similar result in both areas. Bungalows, foursquares, period cottages, and central blocks with projecting bays were the most common architectural types in the Wells Area. Similarly, bungalows and period cottages (including clipped-gable cottages) were the most common types in the Liberty Area. Central blocks with projecting bays and rectangular blocks were also common in the Liberty Area. However, few foursquares from this period were observed in the Liberty Area.

Bungalow residences are the predominant building type in both areas, occurring in far greater numbers than any other types. The ubiquity of the bungalow form is the defining feature of the Liberty and Wells areas. Most bungalows in the two areas are fairly generic versions of the form, with little exterior adornment. These buildings could be constructed inexpensively and were frequently marketed as affordable residences. Period cottages occur more frequently toward the end of the period in both areas. The Liberty and Wells areas each have a number of excellent examples of period and clipped-gable cottages, some of which also represent elements of the bungalow form. Duplexes built during the early 1900s are more frequent in the Liberty Area than in the Wells Area, but generally reflect the period cottage and bungalow forms that are common to both areas. The rapid residential development that occurred during the Streetcar Suburbs period is the defining feature of both the Liberty and Wells areas. The building stock in the two areas is most similar during this period, creates visual cohesion between the areas, and strongly reflects their shared history.

Construction in both areas slowed dramatically with the onset of the Great Depression. Residential development continued, but consisted primarily of infill around existing development. The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945) is reflected in the Wells Area by several small-scale subdivisions and individual buildings, while development in the Liberty Area during this period consisted only of individual buildings. However, infill development from this period appears to have been more frequent in the Liberty Area, where 14 percent (n = 113) of contributing buildings were constructed between 1930 and 1945. By contrast, 10 percent of contributing buildings (n = 200) in the Wells Area were built during this period. Both areas experienced an increase in the number of multi-family dwellings. In the Liberty Area, 12 percent (n = 14) of contributing buildings from this period are multi-family dwellings, compared with 6 percent (n = 12) of those in the Wells area. The frequency of multi-family dwellings may be associated with shorter travel times to the downtown area from the Liberty Area. Period cottages persisted in the two areas during this period, and were gradually replaced by World War II era cottages. Both areas include buildings that represent the transition from period cottages to World War II era cottages. The massing of these houses is similar to that of the Early Twentieth Century American residences, and the houses do not detract from the historical character of the two areas. The infill development is itself an important part of the neighborhood’s history. Although residential development slowed during this period, commercial development increased slightly. Commercial buildings remained concentrated along the major through streets that bound the two areas. In both areas, motels were built on State Street during this period, along with other businesses that reflected the national shift toward a more automobile-centered culture.

Both areas were almost completely developed by the Post-War Era (1946 to 1961). Additional development occurred at a slow pace in both the Liberty and Wells areas. In the Wells Area, 8 percent (n = 147) of contributing buildings were constructed during this period and 8 percent (n = 60) of contributing buildings in the Liberty Area date to this period. World War II era cottages persisted in the two areas through the end of the 1940s, but were gradually replaced by ranch/ramblers. Large scale multi-family dwellings began to appear in the Liberty Area, with 16 apartment buildings built during the period. Both areas experienced limited redevelopment in the form of tear down and rebuild projects and the conversion of residences to commercial use. However, redevelopment and commercial uses continued to occur primarily along the through streets.

The residential areas in the interior of the Liberty Area retain a high degree of integrity, to which both buildings and streetscapes contribute. The majority (75 percent) of buildings within the study area is of historical age and retains sufficient integrity to be considered eligible in their own right or contributing to a historic district. They represent one of Salt Lake City’s best collections of well-preserved Early Twentieth Century American residences. The historical integrity of two of the boundary streets of the Liberty Area – State Street and 900 South – has been compromised by modern development, the conversion of historical residences to commercial use (along 900 South), and the removal of historical residences and commercial buildings (along State Street). More recent development along these corridors is of a different scale than historical development and interrupts the cohesion of the neighborhood. However, these streets still reflect the mixture of residential and commercial development that once characterized these major thoroughfares.

In summary, the Liberty Area’s building stock and development patterns reflect the history it shares with the existing Wells Historic District. The similarities in their history and architecture are well represented by the buildings in the Liberty Area. Furthermore, buildings in the Liberty Area retain sufficient integrity to contribute to the existing Wells Historic District and to justify expansion of the district boundaries. Because the Liberty and Wells areas share the same history and have a very similar distribution of architectural types and styles, they should be included in a single historic district. Residents of the two areas identify their neighborhood as Liberty Wells, a broader neighborhood that encompasses both the Liberty and Wells areas. Collectively, the buildings of the Liberty Wells neighborhood, their architectural types and styles, their construction materials, and their organization on the landscape, reflect the broader development of Salt Lake City over time. They represent its development from a small, centralized frontier outpost that used the future Liberty Wells area as agricultural lands to a fully urbanized city with a burgeoning middle class that strove to take advantage of advancements in transportation (e.g., the electrified streetcar system) to escape the perceived crowding and pollution of the city to live in the more idyllic and presumably healthier semi-rural environs of the suburbs. The Liberty Wells neighborhood is historically significant at the local level under Criterion A, for its association with the historical development of streetcar suburbs in Salt Lake City, and under Criterion C, for its well-preserved collection of Early 20th Century American architecture.

Developmental history/additional historic context information

The development of the Liberty Area occurred in fits and starts related to land uses and technological advances. From its beginning as an agricultural area used to support the population of the city’s developed downtown area to a collection of streetcar suburbs that sprang up after trolley lines reached outlying lands, the ebbs and flows of the Liberty Area’s development were strongly tied to outside forces. The Liberty Area shares much of its history with the existing Wells Historic District. The nomination form for the Wells Area presents a complete developmental history of the areavii. To avoid redundancy, the history common to both the Liberty and Wells areas will not be repeated here. The history presented below will consists primarily of information that is unique to the Liberty Area.

Farms and Fields (1847 to 1870)

In the mid-nineteenth century, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons, emigrated from Illinois and headed west, seeking self-sufficiency and freedom from religious persecution. On July 22, 1847, the Mormons arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, where they camped at what is now known as First Encampment Park, located in the existing Wells Historic District. Shortly thereafter, the Territory of Deseret and the City of Zion were established, known later as Utah and Salt Lake City, respectively.

Within a few days of the pioneers’ arrival in the valley, the basic layout of Salt Lake City was in place. The city was laid out in plats designed in a grid of 10-acre blocks and eight lots in each bock. The original plat for the city extended as far south as 900 South. The area to the south of this was platted in much larger lots of between 5 and 80 acres and was commonly referred to as the Big Field. The Big Field, which encompasses the Liberty Area, was designated primarily for agricultural activities to support the residents living in the developing heart of the Salt Lake City. The smallest lots in the area, those of 5 acres, were to be located in the northern portion of the area closest to the platted portion of the city and were to be used by “mechanics and artisans.” The larger lots, which were platted in 10-, 20-, 40-, and 80-acre parcels, were to be allocated to farmers, most of whom lived within the platted city but farmed in the Big Field.

One of the Big Field lots was assigned to Isaac Chase in 1847. Chase established a farm and grist mill on the property. The mill was the first grist mill established in Utah and provided Salt Lake City residents with flour. The current mill building, which is still extant, was constructed in 1852. Chase also built a two-story adobe house on the property in 1853 and 1854; the house is also still standing. A spring was located near Chase’s property and contributed to the growth of a grove of locust trees on the farm. The locust grove gave the farm its name, as the farm was referred to as Forest Park, Locust Patch, and Mill Farm during this period. Chase’s property is now encompassed by Liberty Park.

In 1850, Salt Lake County’s boundaries were expanded. The Compromise of 1850 granted territorial status to the recently established communities in the region. This status was welcomed, and many considered it a step toward statehood. The new territorial government, however, experienced difficulties and obstacles to statehood from the beginning. Tensions between the Mormon leadership of the Utah Territory and the federal government escalated, eventually leading to the Utah War in 1857 and 1858. The federal government sent new officials to Utah to replace the existing territorial government, and ordered a number of troops to accompany and protect the officials. Utah residents prepared to resist the replacement of their territorial government. Shortly before the federal contingent arrived in Salt Lake City, the two sides reached an agreement, allowing the Utah territorial government to remain in place, but also establishing a federal presence in the territory.

Aside from the excitement caused by the Utah War and the bustle of construction activity around the temple block in downtown Salt Lake City, the early years in the valley were generally quiet and were dominated by agricultural activities and the slow establishment of small mercantile operations closer to the city center. Of great concern agriculturally during this period was the appropriation of a valuable and limited resource, water. The settlers in the Salt Lake Valley, within days of their arrival, set about digging irrigation ditches from the numerous streams flowing out of the Wasatch Mountains. By the 1870s, an extensive network of canals controlled the flow and amount of water carried to the numerous homesteads throughout the valley. The canal system was geographically widespread and stretched across many pioneer communities. Some of the irrigation ditches extended off of Parley’s Creek into the Big Field/Liberty Area to serve the farmlands that had been platted there.

No known buildings from this period are extant in the Liberty Area. Buildings from the period were likely demolished to make room for later construction projects or have been so heavily modified over time that they are no longer recognizable as representatives of this period. This era is not included in the period of significance.

Initial Settlement (1871 to 1899)

In 1869, railroading entered the area with the completion of the first transcontinental line running through Promontory and Corinne, north of Salt Lake City. The Utah Central Railroad was constructed soon after to link Salt Lake City with the northerly route. In addition to the line north from Salt Lake City, rail lines were constructed to the south, extending the reach of the national markets and social influence. Within a matter of years, Mormon-owned lines covered three-fourths of the Utah Territory. Mining also significantly contributed to the growth of Salt Lake City during this period, and “suburbs” of the city prospered from the mines. The increased wealth generated by the railroads and mines spurred the area’s economy and contributed to the development of downtown Salt Lake City. Yet, while the downtown area was booming, the Liberty Area remained primarily agricultural during the early part of this period.

The development of the western rail system gradually grew to include smaller, interurban railways focused on transporting passengers and small amounts of cargo within and between Utah’s rapidly growing Wasatch Front communities. In 1872, the first interurban (street/trolley car) company, the Salt Lake City Railroad (SLCRR) was organized. xxiii xxi Rail was laid over a few miles of streets in Salt Lake City, and mule- and horse-drawn cars transported passengers along the rails. This system expanded and in 1889, the SLCRR established the first electric trolley system in Salt Lake City. The trolley was an immediate success. Soon, the trolley cars became crowded, and in 1890, several new streetcar companies, including the Salt Lake Rapid Transit Company (SLRT) were granted franchises to operate electrical trolleys in the city.

In 1891, Rapid Transit Street Car Company had extended service south of the downtown area along 700 East. This line passed along the eastern boundary of the Liberty Area. During roughly the same time period, the SLRT constructed trolley lines along State Street and 400 East, both of which passed through the Liberty Area. The presence of these lines created opportunities for residential and commercial development in the Liberty Area that had not existed before. Despite the increased availability of transit in the Liberty Area, settlement in the area was generally limited to the periphery of the neighborhood, either along major east-west routes such as 1300 South and 900 South, or along the streetcar lines at State Street, 400 East, and 700 East. A number of the residences built during the 1890s along these boundary streets, especially State Street and 900 South, have been demolished during the historic and modern periods. Of the extant residences built in the Liberty Area during this period, most are located along 500 East.

Another major development marking the early 1890s in Salt Lake City and influencing the development of the Liberty Area was the establishment of electrical service in March 1891. Electrical service was immediately extended through the Big Field/Liberty Area, though primarily for use in public facilities such as the Calder Park amusement center south of the Liberty Area. Development of a sewer system in Salt Lake City also began during the 1890s. The first efforts to install a city-wide sewer system were initiated in 1890 when contractors laid five miles of sewer pipe in downtown. Many portions of the community, including the Liberty Area, were not connected to the system until the after the turn of the century. Residents had to wait until the 1920s for regulated garbage collection as well.

As transit and infrastructure gradually expanded into the area south of 900 South, and the population of Salt Lake City continued to grown, land merchants and speculators quickly identified the development potential of the Big Field. They began purchasing available tracts and divided them into smaller, residential-sized blocks. Unlike the blocks within the original city plat area, which were configured as squares, the blocks in the Big Field area took the form of rectangles, marking a striking divergence from the Plat of Zion concept championed by the Mormon Church. Within these new blocks, the residential lots were smaller than those downtown and the streets were much narrower.

Individual subdivisions were platted within the newly surveyed portion of the Big Field, although they were not built out until later. Four subdivisions were recorded in the Liberty Area between 1889 and 1892: Linden Park (1889, 45 lots, south of 900 South, between State Street and 200 East), Denver Place (1890, 121 lots, north of Herbert Avenue, between 400 and 500 East), Pendletons (1890, 57 lots, Edith Avenue to 1300 South, between 300 and 400 East), and Leadville Place (1892, 40 lots, south of Herbert Avenue, between 300 and 400 East). Maps published by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company (Sanborn maps) in 1898 do not include the Liberty Area, indicating that the area lacked concentrations of buildings at risk of fire. This suggests that little development had occurred in the subdivisions prior to 1898. Buildings constructed in the Liberty Area during this period occurred primarily along the arterial streets—State Street, 900 South, and 1300 South, and 300, 400, and 500 East. A number of houses were also built along Harvard and Hampton Avenues in the late nineteenth century. Harvard and Hampton Avenues are not listed in city directories for 1895 or 1900 and they were likely referred to by other names at the time. These houses are not located in the early subdivisions and instead represent the construction of individual residences on subdivided Big Field lots.

During the last decades of the 1800s, simple Classical styling in architecture slowly gave way to more elaborate Victorian styles across the state.xxvii xxviii Crosswing structures in variants of “T-” and “L-cottages” and double crosswings along with other typically Victorian forms such as rectangular blocks and central blocks with projecting bays became popular throughout Utah during these last decades, and continued in their popularity through the turn of the century. While some of the early versions of these structures saw little in the way of exterior adornment, others were endowed with the comparatively fancy dressings of the Queen Anne, Eastlake, Romanesque Revival, Victorian Eclectic, or other late Victorian styles. Victorian-style detailing was perceived as a way to express individual tastes and personal identity.

Within the Liberty Area, houses from this period are present but rare, as little development occurred in the area during this time. Buildings from the period include Victorian forms such as crosswing, central block with projecting bays, and rectangular block types. However, simpler forms such as foursquare and shotgun types are slightly more common in the area. These houses exhibit primarily Victorian and Classical architecture. One example from this period is located at 1246 South 500 East (ca. 1897), a two-story foursquare residence exhibiting Italianate and Neoclassical styles. More typical for the area, however, are the foursquare located at 1166 South 500 East and the shotgun houses at 327 Hampton Avenue and 352 Harvard Avenue. These residences are smaller and have a simpler form. All three reflect the Victorian Eclectic style, with an array of elements drawn from various styles of the period.

Streetcar Suburbs (1900 to 1929)

In the early 1900s, the SLCRR and the SLRT merged into the Consolidated Railway & Power Company (Consolidated). In 1904, Consolidated merged with Utah Power & Light to form Utah Light & Railway. In 1918, Utah Light & Railway merged with a rival company, Salt Lake Light & Traction to form Utah Light & Traction. By 1919, streetcar routes extended throughout the city, offering service to Holladay, Midvale, Sandy, the University of Utah, Fort Douglas, and other points in the valley. As mentioned previously, these lines extended along the east and west boundaries of the Liberty Area and into the heart of the neighborhood with the Waterloo line along 400 East. The lines offered stops for would-be residents who worked in downtown Salt Lake City but wanted to live outside its heavily urbanized core area.

Commercial activity began to develop in the Liberty Area during this period, perhaps in part due to the establishment of a reliable transportation system that allowed merchants to deliver goods to the downtown area. However, commercial activity in the area also included businesses that would have served local residents, and not merely the city’s core area. The Sanborn maps show that several businesses were located in the Liberty Area in 1911: the Superior Baking Company on Denver Street, south of 900 South; a dry cleaning business at the south end of Roosevelt Ct., between 300 East and 400 East; and a junkyard on Edison Street. City directories from 1910 indicate that businesses were also located along 900 South and State Street. The Superior Baking Company was a bread factory and wholesale distributor, and likely served the downtown area as well as other communities in the Salt Lake Valley. By contrast, the dry cleaner on Roosevelt would have more likely serviced residents of the immediate area.

A grocery store owned by John Morrison was located in or near the Liberty Area during this period. It is unclear whether this grocery store was located at 905 S. State Street or if it was located further to the west. John Morrison’s son later constructed an automotive supplies and service business at 905 S. State Street. John Morrison was involved in an important episode of local history during the Initial Settlement period. On January 10, 1914, Mr. Morrison was closing his grocery store for the night when two men entered the store and began shooting. Mr. Morrison’s two sons, Arling and Merlin, were at the store with him. Arling retrieved a revolver that was kept hidden in a produce bin and began to return fire. The gunfight ended with the deaths of Mr. Morrison and Arling, and the two intruders fled without robbing the store. Merlin was able to describe the incident, but was unable to identify the gunmen, as their faces were covered during the attack. Police responding to the crime scene suspected that the attack was an act of revenge, rather than a robbery. The same night, local labor organizer Joe Hill was treated for a gunshot wound by Dr. Frank McHugh. Mr. Hill indicated that he had been shot by another man in an argument over a woman. The next morning, Dr. McHugh read about the murder of John and Arling Morrison and the police’s efforts to locate anyone with a suspicious gunshot wound. Dr. McHugh reported his encounter with Mr. Jill to the police, and later that day, police arrested Mr. Hill in connection with the murders. The trial of Mr. Hill was carried out in spite of questionable evidence linking him to the Morrison murders and many suspected that he was being railroaded due to his activities as a labor organizer. Mr. Hill was convicted of the murders and was shot by a firing squad on November 15, 1915.

Sanborn maps from 1911 show the beginnings of the existing street and parcel system in the Liberty Area. However, many blocks remained undivided and many parcels were still vacant at this time. During the 1910s and continuing into the 1920s, a dramatic increase in residential development occurred. The popularity of the suburb concept was almost unprecedented, as hundreds of new residents moved into the area, purchasing small, mostly single-family homes being constructed by both individual developers and developers of subdivisions. The establishment of streetcar service had made the Liberty Area a viable option for those who relied on downtown employment and commerce centers, but wanted to live outside the core area. A 1916 advertisement for lots in a subdivision south of the study area depicts the downtown skyline amidst a cloud of billowing dust or smog, with a home in an idyllic country setting in the foreground. Development in the Liberty Area represented an escape from urban life, while still providing access to the commercial activity and amenities of a city.

In the Liberty Area, several prominent local land merchants were responsible for the promotion and development of the subdivisions during this time. These include Henry C. Hoffman, developer of the Carolina and Harvard Place subdivisions; D.C. Roberts, developer of the Linden Park No. 2 subdivision; E.S. Hubbard, developer of the Lyndale subdivision; the Taute Brothers, developer of the Gordon subdivision; Kimball & Richards Land Merchants, developer of the Jackson Square subdivision; and Ashton Jenkins Company, developer of the two Walker Place subdivisions and the Central Place subdivision. The South Carolina subdivision was also platted during this period but the developer’s name is unknown. Seven of the subdivisions were recorded between 1903 and 1909 and an additional three subdivisions recorded between 1916 and 1922. Table 1 summarizes the subdivisions developed during this period. This group of subdivisions represents the peak of residential development in the Liberty Area.

Subdivision NameDeveloper NameDate
Platted
Number
of Lots
Location
Carolina SubH. C. Hoffman190392Belmont Ave. to Herbert Ave.
300 E. to 400 E.
South Carolina SubUnknownca. 190340South of Herbert Ave.
200 E. to 300 E.
Linden Park No. 2D.C. Roberts190441North of Belmont Ave.
State St. to 200 E.
LyndaleE.S. Hubbard190487Edith Ave. to 1300 S.
400 E. to 500 E.
Gordon PlatTaute Bros.1906141North of Harvard Ave.
300 E. to 500 E
Harvard PlaceHenry C. Hoffman1909106Belmont Ave. to Williams Ave.
200 E. to 300 E.
Jackson SquareKimball & Richards1909127Hampton Ave. to 1300 S.
200 E. to 300 E.
Central PlaceAshton Jenkins Co.191672900 S. to Belmont Ave.
200 E. to 300 E.
Walker Place Plat AAshton Jenkins Co.191964Kelsey Ave. to Edith Ave.
State St. to 200 E.
Walker Place Plat CAshton Jenkins Co.192268Yale Ave. to Harvard Ave.
State St. to 200 E.

Kimball & Richards was one of the most active developers in Salt Lake City at the time. The company had three branches: developing subdivisions, building homes, and providing financing. As such, the company could offer all the services required by a home buyer. It is unknown whether Kimball & Richards built any of the homes in their Jackson Square development or whether the developers simply sold the building sites. Ashton Jenkins Co. was also very active in the area. As with Kimball & Richards, Ashton Jenkins Co. offered real estate and contractor services. Henry C. Hoffman, another Liberty Area developer, was a prominent figure in both real estate and mining. He was the head of Hoffman Brothers Loan and Trust Company, and was likely involved in financing in addition to real estate development and investment. Many of the land merchants working in the Liberty Area commissioned the construction of single family homes as speculative ventures, having them built before a buyer was identified and renting them out until the property was sold to a permanent owner.

Jackson Square was one of the subdivisions developed in the Liberty Area in the early twentieth century. The subdivision was recorded by Kimball & Richards in 1909. It is located between 200 and 300 East and extends from the north side of 1300 South to the north side of Hampton Avenue. The subdivision covers approximately 20 acres and originally contained 127 lots. On average, the lots measured 38 feet wide and 120 feet deep with minimum setbacks of 15 feet and midblock alleys that ran behind the lots for trash pick-up and garage access. Kimball & Richards developed the subdivision by ensuring that infrastructure—such as city water lines, graded streets, curbs, and sidewalks—was in place before they marketed the lots. Advertisements placed by the company also claimed that shade trees had been planted three years earlier. Additionally, the company erected sandstone columns at the intersection of 300 East and Edith Avenue, inscribed with the street names and “Jackson Square.” Developing infrastructure and amenities allowed Kimball & Richards to market their properties as “building sites” rather than simply lots.

Building in Jackson Square consisted almost entirely of one-story, single-family homes. Seven duplexes were also built in the subdivision during the historic period. Newspaper ads from 1910 indicate that lots in Jackson Square started at $600, which is a higher cost than in some of the surrounding neighborhoods. However, lots in the subdivision appear to have been relatively affordable for low- and middle-income residents; early residents of Jackson Square included a waiter, a laborer, a foreman, an engineer, and several clerks. In a study of Jackson Square, Miller examined city directories to determine how long residents lived in the subdivision and where they moved to when they left. Miller notes that there appears to have been a fairly high turnover among these residents, with many moving to bigger homes or fancier neighborhoods within several years of buying residences in Jackson Square.

It is interesting to note that Kimball & Richards marketed its properties in Jackson Square to both investors and home buyers. One newspaper ad targets potential residents of the neighborhood by describing the high quality of surrounding neighborhoods and claiming that, “The man who buys in Jackson Square finds every convenience provided, every detail of improvement attended to.” This ad assures potential buyers that moving into a new home can be simple and will require little effort or concern. By contrast, another ad is directed toward investors, and states simply, “Figure for yourself what your profits would be.” The two distinct audiences intended for these ads indicate that early activity in Jackson Square consisted of both buying homes to live in and investing in properties to rent or sell at a later date.

Advertisements suggest that there was a campaign by land merchants and related industries to capitalize on the growing population of Salt Lake City and consequent demand for new housing. The ads target potential homebuyers from a variety of angles. During World War I, Kimball & Richards published a series of ads for garden lots of various different sizes that could be used for growing food during wartime shortages. An ad from 1917 appeals directly to residents’ sense of patriotism: “Food is ammunition. Be a Food Producer – a Soldier of the Soil – and help win the fight against famine in your OWN ‘War Garden’”. It is unclear whether any such garden lots were established in the Liberty Area, but the general push to grow food and promote self sufficiency may have contributed to an increase in home buying during this period. Another ad published by a consortium of lumber businesses in 1921 emphasizes the importance of home ownership and suggests that a house may be a means of self expression. The ad reads “To really feel the keenest pride and happiness that may come from a HOME… it must be paid for with YOUR money, reflect YOUR taste, be the center of YOUR interests.” Yet another ad is specifically aimed at recent immigrants. Ashton Jenkins Co. published an ad in 1921 for homes in the Walker Place subdivisions that reads, “Friends from distant lands… You have not truly completed the process of naturalization until you own your own home.” This assortment of advertisements indicates that home ownership became an important part of a person’s identity during this period and could reflect everything from self expression to assimilation.

Nearly 70 percent of the buildings in the Liberty Area were constructed between 1900 and 1929, primarily within the streetcar subdivisions described above. Two architectural forms of the early twentieth century dominate the built environment of the Liberty Area. These forms are the bungalow (by far the most common) and period cottage types, which are adorned with a variety of different styles. The bungalow form emerged partly in reaction to Victorian type homes, which some felt had become excessive in design and decoration. Bungalows offered an alternative to such homes, as they were designed for simplicity and efficiency, and to promote a more informal lifestyle. An advertisement published in 1916 by Kimball & Richards for a home in Jackson Square extols the virtues of the modern bungalow: the home has a “fine arrangement and modern conveniences.” A 1915 Kimball & Richards ad for another house specifically refers to screened-in sleeping and kitchen porches, a modern bathroom, and a buffet kitchen. The functionality of the bungalow form is featured in both ads as a very desirable trait and is a characteristic that contributed to the widespread success of the building form.

The influx of residents to the area was generally slow at first, but as evidenced by the known construction dates of buildings within the Liberty Area, residential development was in full swing by the mid 1910s. This development appears to have continued unabated until the start of the Great Depression in 1929. Commercial development also occurred during the Streetcar Suburbs period, though only on a limited basis. State Street, 1300 South (then known as Martin Avenue), and 900 South saw the greatest commercial development in the area, with most of the “inner” Liberty Area remaining residential or seeing only the occasional commercial establishment. As residential development occurred, public and religious facilities also were built to provide services to the growing population. The LDS Liberty Ward Church is shown on the 1911 Sanborn maps. The church is located on northwest corner of Harvard Avenue and Denver Street.lv It is not known whether any schools were constructed in the study area during this time, but an advertisement published by Ashton Jenkins Co. in 1915 refers to the construction of new schools in the southeast area and cites these schools as a reason for moving to the area.

The increase in popularity of auto and bus travel in the late 1920s resulted in a massive scaling back of the streetcar system. Beginning in 1926, trolley tracks throughout the valley were removed or paved over. By mid 1944, all trolley service in the valley was eliminated.

The Era of Infilling (1930 to 1945)

The Great Depression hit the entire state hard; in 1932 Utah had the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country at 36 percent. Mining and railroading, previously mainstays of Utah’s economy, were among the hardest hit sectors in the fragile economy. In 1935 one out of five, or 20 percent, of Salt Lake County families were receiving financial relief in one form or another. Additionally, many more were living below the poverty line. Federal aid to the valley was vital and Salt Lake County was a major beneficiary of this aid.

The pace of residential and commercial development slowed dramatically in the Liberty Area during the Great Depression. Few residents had the funds to purchase homes, banks were unable to lend monies at acceptable interest rates, and the relative costs of building materials had skyrocketed. In spite of the economic challenges, some construction of period cottage, bungalow, and duplex type residences persisted through the 1930s, albeit at a much lower rate than during the preceding boom years. Several commercial buildings were also constructed along State Street during the 1930s, including Taylor’s, Inc., an automobile dealership on State Street. No new subdivisions were recorded in the Liberty Area during this period.

Like the rest of the country, the Liberty Area did not experience substantial relief from the Great Depression until the United States entered into World War II. The defense industry established and expanded facilities in Utah, creating 13,000 new jobs. Copper mines in the area which had been idle for years saw major production increases. In a sad irony, the war, which resulted in an almost unimaginable loss of life, boosted the local economy to such an extent that for the first time, personal income for Salt Lake County residents was above the national average.

The economic upturn is reflected in the increase in construction in the Liberty Area during the 1940s. A large number of World War II–era cottages and commercial buildings were constructed in the first half of the decade. Period cottage residences were also constructed during this period. By the early 1940s, much of the land within the Liberty Area was already developed and new construction consisted primarily of infill development.

The Post-War Era (1946 to 1961)

The Liberty Area continued to grow and change following the close of World War II. Gilbert McLean, who grew up near Liberty Park and served as a corporal in the U.S. Army during World War II, developed one subdivision (the McLean Subdivision) in the Liberty Area during the post-war period. The McLean Subdivision consisted of a small development of nine lots platted along Denver Street in 1955. No other subdivisions were platted in the area after World War II, highlighting the fact that the neighborhood was largely developed or otherwise fully platted by that time. Based on known construction dates for buildings in the area, redevelopment appears to have occurred on a limited basis starting in the 1960s. Older single-family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial ventures such as convenience stores or small walk-up stores. A number of historic residences along 900 South and several along State Street were remodeled and converted to commercial buildings. Commercial redevelopment and construction was increasing designed to accommodate the automobile culture rather than pedestrian traffic.

Modern Era (1962-Present)

For the purposes of this history, the historical period is defined as ending 50 years before present, in 1961. The modern era is defined as beginning in 1962 and continuing at present. During the modern era, redevelopment appears to have occurred on a limited basis, primarily during the 1960s and 1970s. Older single-family homes were demolished and replaced with multi-family dwellings or small commercial structures. A number of historical residences along 900 South and several along State Street were remodeled and converted to commercial buildings. Substantial commercial development has occurred along State Street and 900 South, primarily as tear-down-and-rebuild projects. This history is included here to provide context for the Liberty Area. However, the modern era is not included in the period of significance for the Liberty Wells Historic District.

Utah’s Historic Districts

13 Wednesday Dec 2023

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Historic Districts

Historic Districts located in Utah:

  1. Avenues Historic District
  2. Bountiful Historic District
  3. Capitol Hill Historic District
  4. Central City Historic District
  5. Christeele Acres Historic District
  6. City Creek Canyon Historic District
  7. Clark Lane National Historic District
  8. Copperton Historic District
  9. East Side Historic District
  10. Eccles Avenue Historic District
  11. Eureka Historic District
  12. Exchange Place Historic District
  13. Gilmer Park Historic District
  14. Howe Flume Historic District
  15. Jefferson Avenue Historic District
  16. Liberty Wells Historic District
  17. Logan Center Street Historic District
  18. Lower 25th Street Historic District
  19. Magna Commercial Downtown Historic District
  20. Mountair Acres Subdivision Historic District
  21. Mt Pleasant Commercial Historic District
  22. Navajo Mountain Day School and Community Center Historic District
  23. Ogden’s Central Bench Historic District
  24. Park City Main Street Historic District
  25. Pleasant Grove Historic District
  26. Salt Lake Northwest Historic District
  27. South Temple Historic District
  28. Spring City Historic District
  29. Tremonton Historic District
  30. U of U Circle Historic District
  31. University Neighborhood Historic District
  32. Warehouse District
  33. Willard Historic District
  34. Yalecrest Historic District

Also related:

  • Salt Lake City’s Historic Districts

Clark Lane National Historic District

09 Saturday Dec 2023

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Clark Lane National Historic District, Historic Districts

Clark Lane National Historic District

The first historic district in Davis County to be listed on the National Register, the Clark Lane National Historic District encompasses the homes on State Street (formerly Clark Lane) between 200 West and 400 West. This neighborhood is significant for its concentration of intact homes, representing a wide variety of architectural influences from virtually every decade since the 1850s. The district is also historically important because it is a fine example of the unique family settlement pattern that occurred in Utah’s pioneer era. Nearly all of the district’s houses were built by members of the prodigious Ezra Thompson Clark family. Ezra, his first wife, Mary Stevenson Clark, and their two small sons journeyed to the Salt Lake Valley in 1848, after stopping at Winter Quarters for a year at the request of Brigham Young. After two years in the North Canyon area of Bountiful, they moved to a small settlement further north where they lived the remainder of their lives. While in Farmington, (first called North Cottonwood in reference to the tall cottonwood trees growing on the Clarks’ property which could be seen for miles), the family grew successful and prosperous. Clark envisioned this neighborhood as a “gathering place” for his family, many of whom built their houses and raised their own children here. The Clark property was held in common until 1901, when Ezra called his children together and had them draw lots from his hat. On each paper was listed a piece of the family’s sizeable land holdings, and what each person drew became his or her inheritance. Some Clark family descendants still live within the district.

This historic marker is located at the Leavitt / Clark House at 208 West State Street in Farmington, Utah in the Clark Lane National Historic District.

Other sites in the Clark Lane Historic District can be seen here.

Helper Commercial District

13 Sunday Nov 2022

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Carbon County, Helper, Helper Commercial District, Historic Districts, NRHP, utah

The Helper commercial district is located within the present city limits of Helper, Utah. The District is entirely within the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 24, Township 13 South, Range 9E Salt Lake City Standard Meridian. The District is bounded on the north by Janet Street, on the west by First West Street, on the South by Locust Street and on the east by the Denver and Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) railyards. The size of the district is somewhat less than 40 acres and includes, but is not limited to, the entire extent of Pratt’s and Mead’s Survey Platts.

The existing boundaries were selected because of their tight nature, delineating the main Helper commercial district, as well as access points to that area. The inclusion of residences was determined by both their presence on Main Street or their adjacent location to the street and within business district, other residences were excluded and may be part of a future multiple resource nomination.

Janet Street is the northern boundary, and with its underpass (to the east) represents the effective beginning of Helper’s Main Street. On the west is First West Street which contains some residences, but included major rear access ways to the commercial buildings on Main Street. Locust Street boarders the district on the south, representing the end of the main commercial area. The eastern boundary follows the Rio Grande Western railway yards, which formed a vital part of Helper’s commercial life.

The Helper commercial district consists of a total of 110 of which 98 sites have been judged to be potentially contributory to the historic character of the area. A wide variety of both residential and commercial structures, arrayed along both sides of Main street in a north-south manner, comprise the district.

The Helper Commercial District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (#79002491) on July 24, 1979.

  • CR-07-651 (Intrusion – Recently constructed brick utility building.)
  • CR-07-652 – 2 South Main Street – 1929
  • CR-07-653 – 6 South Main Street – 1920
  • CR-07-654 – 8 South Main Street – 1909
  • CR-07-655 – 12 South Main Street – 1908
  • CR-07-656 – 14 South Main Street – 1911
  • CR-07-657 – 16 South Main Street – 1914
  • CR-07-658 – 20 South Main Street – 1914
  • CR-07-659 – 22 South Main Street – 1911
  • CR-07-660 (Intrusion – Extensively remodeled house – 1969)
  • CR-07-661 – 26 South Main Street – 1906
  • CR-07-662 – Intrusion – Brick House – 1946
  • CR-07-663 – Intrusion – Brick Garage, barber and beauty shop – 1950
  • CR-07-664 – 42 South Main Street – 1936
  • CR-07-665 – 52 South Main Street – 1913
  • CR-07-666 – 58 South Main Street – 1912
  • CR-07-667 – 58 South Main Street – 1975 – Intrusion – New First Security Bank
  • CR-07-668 – 66 South Main Street – 1913
  • CR-07-669 – 68 South Main Street – 1919
  • CR-07-670 – 74 South Main Street – 1919
  • CR-07-671 – 76 South Main Street – 1919
  • CR-07-672 – 80 South Main Street – 1928
  • CR-07-673 – 94 South Main Street – 1935
  • CR-07-675 – rear of 94 South Main Street – after 1935
  • CR-07-676 – rear of 76 South Main Street – after 1923
  • CR-07-677 – rear of 74 South Main Street – 1909
  • CR-07-678 – rear of 74 South Main Street – 1933
  • CR-07-679 – rear of 66 South Main Street – 1919
  • CR-07-684 – 11 West Hill Street – 1925
  • CR-07-685 – 100 South Main Street – 1922
  • CR-07-686 – 120 South Main Street – 1924
  • CR-07-687 – 136 South Main Street – 1914, 1924
  • CR-07-688 – 138 South Main Street – 1912
  • CR-07-689 – 144 South Main Street – 1912
  • CR-07-690 – 148 South Main Street – 1908
  • CR-07-691 – 156 South Main Street – 1945
  • CR-07-692 – 164 South Main Street – 1953
  • CR-07-693 – 178 South Main Street – 1922
  • CR-07-694 – 182 South Main Street – 1922
  • CR-07-695 – 190 South Main Street – 1921
  • CR-07-696 – 4 Ivy Street – 1911
  • CR-07-697 – behind 148 South Main Street – after 1908
  • CR-07-699 – 202 South Main Street – 1921
  • CR-07-700 – 210 South Main Street – 1920
  • CR-07-703 – rear of 202 South Main Street – 1933
  • CR-07-705
  • CR-07-706
  • CR-07-707
  • CR-07-708
  • CR-07-709
  • CR-07-710
  • CR-07-711
  • CR-07-712
  • CR-07-713, 714
  • CR-07-715
  • CR-07-716
  • CR-07-717
  • CR-07-718

The residential buildings are generally one story and are fairly modest in appearance. Several styles and building materials were utilized, including; hand hewn stone, wood frame, stucco, and several types of brick. The commercial buildings also exhibit a wide degree of variability, although they are generally consistent in scale, with almost all buildings being one to two stories in height. The predominate building material was red brick, although hand hewn stone stucco, wood frame, and other types of brick were also utilized.

Comparison of the present appearance of the district with early Sanborn maps and historic photos indicates that the area still retains much of its historic character. Prior to 1927 the area east of Main Street was dominated by Denver and Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) railroad company houses, but after that time, the area began to acquire the predominately commercial appearance it retains today. The modifications of the residential buildings have been fairly minor and have generally consisted of “modern” siding materials and additions, and modification of the porches. The commercial seen facade modifications, many of which are the installation of the enclosure or buildings have often minor and reversable.

A description of each contributory building along with its capsule history is given below. The buildings are listed by their Utah Historical Society site inventory number.

Goldfield National Historic District

09 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Goldfield National Historic District, Historic Districts

Goldfield National Historic District, Goldfield, Nevada

The Goldfield Historic District encompasses an area of roughly thirty-five city blocks of what once comprised the central portion of the original Goldfield townsite. Within its boundaries can be found all of the remaining major architectural resources, as well as the primary historic archeological sites directly associated with the early development of Goldfield. The district contains an array of some 120 permanent buildings constructed almost entirely between 1904 and 1909, the period of Goldfield’s initial boom.

At the peak of its development in 1907 Goldfield boasted a population in excess of 20,000 persons, and a fully developed townsite containing thousands of structures. Contemporary Goldfield presents a completely different urban appearance, primarily as the result of a disasterous fire in 1923 which destroyed 53 blocks of the town including most of the commercial area. However, what remains of the architecture that is most representative of historic Goldfield prior to the fire is located within the historic district.

Aside from containing historic resources which exemplify Goldfield’s architectural heritage, or are significant for their association with important events or persons, the boundaries of the historic district also include the major components of Goldfield’s historic townscape: the commercial district, the upper class residential districts, the red light district, and the primary public facilities.

Although the town as a whole assumes a post-1923 physical appearance, almost all of the remaining historic structures date from the boom period, when the impacts of Goldfield were most strongly felt on the local, regional, and national level. The result is that the Goldfield Historic District embodies the fragments of a particular place in time from which its historic and architectural significance is primarily associated.

The following is a list of properties within the Goldfield Historic District.

NumberNameAddressClassification NumberClassification
001Esmeralda County Courthouse233 Crook AveSignificant
002First Methodist Episcopal Church165 Crook AveSignificant
003Goldfield Fire Station #1
004E. A. Byler House
005George W. Durgan House408 Crook Ave
006G. L. "Tex" Rickard House410 Crook Ave
007Milton M. Detch House407 Crook Ave
008Goldfield High School321 Euclid Ave
009E. E. Blake / Peter Fellis House107 Crook Ave
010Enterprise Mercantile Co. Stone Warehouse/Lyric Theater
011Fellis Brothers Block/Site of Goldfield News Building
012Goldfield Hotel
013Florence Goldfield Mining Co. Building
014Ish-Curtis/Registration Trust Company Building320 Columbia
015Goldfield Consolidated Mines/Deep Mines Building
016Elks Building
017Montezuma Club Building
018H. T. Bragdon House
019Northern Saloon Warehouse
020D. D. Carney House
021John S. Cook House
022Charles S. Sprague House (“The Gables”)701 Crook Ave
023H. B. Lind House
024Milton C. Ish House211 Sundog Ave
025Granville H. Hayes
026Herbert T. Cook House
027Thomas G. Lockhart House
028Charles Kline / Frank L. Beard House
029J. P. Loftus House
030Major W. A. Stanton House
031Southern Nevada Consolidated Telephone-Telegraph Company Building
032Sideboard Saloon Ruin
033Henry W. Mills and Company Stone Cellar
034R. W. Norrington House
035D. W. Morgan House
036West Side School
037First National Bank Building Ruin
038Feutch and Gasser Warehouse
039Alva D. Myers House
040First Goldfield Jail
041Stone Row House
042H. G. Mayer House
043Frame House
044Beets Garage
045Jennie B. Elder House
046Labarthe House313 Euclid Ave
047Rectory Building of the First Methodist Episcopal Church325 Crook Ave
048Parker / Labarthe House
049Dahlstrom House / Garage
050Dahlstrom’s Garage
051Assay Office
052Brown Parker Garage and Auto Co.
053Mozart Club
054Northern Saloon and Restaurant
055Sacred Heard Catholic Church
056E. S. Highley Residence
057Champion House574 E Crook Ave
058J. A. Hays House
059R. B. Wampler House
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
080
085Assay Office
086Frame House / Columbia Bar
090
093Stone House
100
110
112Attorney’s Office / The General Store777 Crook Ave
114Northern Café / Dreams Come True Antiques
116Episcopal Church / Butler Garage Site323 Crook Ave
120
130
140
150
160
170Miners Union Hall
171State Bank and Trust Company
172Ladies Aid Hall
173MacKenzie Building
174Goldfield Consolidated Water Company Well
175Current Post Office
177Hippodrome Theater
178Nixon Block
179Goldfield Stock & Exchange
180Cohen Building / Max Myer and Co. Site
181St. Nicholas Hotel
182Esmeralda Hotel
183Goldfield Athletic Club
184St. Francis Hotel
185Wood-Sullivan Building
186Watson House
187Western Union
188Texas Saloon
189Nevada Hotel Site
190Palm Studio Site
191Goldfield Cemetery

Statement of Significance

Between the years 1900 and 1920 Nevada experienced a tremendous resurgence of mining activity comparable only to the Great Comstock era of the previous century. The result was the rejuvenation of the State’s political and economic strength, as well as renewed national attention. This period witnessed the birth of dozens of mining camps and towns throughout central Nevada as new mining discoveries or rediscoveries were made. Goldfield was one such camp and by 1906, it had become the regional and national center of attention of Nevada’s twentieth century mining boom.

Goldfield’s pattern of development, from discovery, to boom, to decline, was not unlike the cycles undergone by most other mining camps during the historic period. However, the intensity to which Goldfield was exploited, the magnitude of wealth generated, scale of the town’s development, and its resounding economic and political impacts make it the most noteworthy in the history of mining during the twentieth century.

The Goldfield Historic District contains key resources associated with the architectural, political, economic, governmental and social developments of Goldfield during its boom period. Embodied within the boundaries of the district is the essence of Goldfield’s heritage; a heritage significant for its outstanding
contributions to local, state, and national history.

Historical Overview

The discoveries of rich ore at the turn of the century in the Tonopah district sparked a new era of prospecting and mining development which by 1910 had encompassed nearly all of central Nevada. Hundreds of miners and prospectors converged on the district in the hopes of claiming a portion of the new-found wealth. As Tonopah developed, and its most promising claims already located, prospectors began spreading into the surrounding regions. Two such prospectors were Harry Stimler and William Marsh, who had previously been unsuccessful at Tonopah. Grubstaked by Tonopah notables Tasker Oddie, Jim Butler, George Wingfield and Zeb Kendal 1 they explored a region 30 miles south of Tonopah. On
the western slopes of Columbia Mountain they made the first discoveries of rich ore which eventually were to lead to the sensational boom of Goldfield.

Geographic Features And Boundary Description

Goldfield is located in the Great Basin Region of Central Nevada 26 miles south of Tonopah along what is now U.S. Highway 95. The townsite is situated on a high flat area between a low, rugged range to the east and north, known as the Goldfield Hills, and Malapai Mesa, a prominent geographical formation to the west and south. Directly northeast of Goldfield, in line with the north-south axis of the townsite, is Columbia Mountain. This promontory is the location of the original mining claims of the Goldfield district which provided the initial impetus for the development of the townsite.

The major transportation artery, U.S. Highway 95 5 transects the townsite in a roughly west to east direction. The highway approaches the historic district from the north past Columbia Mountain with its slopes dotted with the remains of several mining operations. The highway curves easterly and passes through the central portion of town along Crook Avenue, At the curve is the district’s western most boundary, demarcated by the Westside School (G-199). Moving east the boundary flanks Crook Avenue on either side to a depth of one-half block. At First Street the district extends south for two blocks to encompass portions of the red light district and early miner’s residences. One block further east, at Main Street, the boundary projects northerly to Miner Avenue. Along Main Street are to be found the major historic archeological features of Goldfield’s original commercial area. Continuing east, the highway passes the Goldfield Hotel (G-123) at Columbia Street, and two blocks further east, the Esmeralda County Courthouse (G-101).

At Franklin Street the district achieves its greatest depth; extending north to Hall Avenue to include the remains of the Catholic Church (G-134), and south to Crystal Avenue to encompass the outermost limits of Goldfield’s primary middle class residential area. From the Courthouse east to where the highway curves south along Sundog Avenue was the location of most of Goldfield’s upper class housing. The large residences of Charles S. Sprague (G-l44) and M. C. Ish (G-146) at the intersection of Crook and Sundog define the eastern edge of the historic district.

The Historic Pattern

The initial settlement of the area occurred on the southern slopes of Columbia Mountain shortly after the discovery of ore at that location in December, 1902. That community, known as Columbia, was composed mostly of tents, dugouts, and crude frame structures inhabited by miners and prospectors. In October 1903, once the value of developing the area was justified, the Townsite of Goldfield was laid out farther to the south of Columbia Mountain on a relatively flat rise. The site of the first well dug in the area became the initial bench mark (intersection of Myers & Main) and a grid pattern of rectangular blocks was surveyed. Road widths ranged from 50 to 75 feet and the blocks were 220 feet wide by 285 feet deep. Between 1904 and 1906 several additions were platted adjacent to the original townsite. They conformed, for the most part, to the grid pattern established by the original survey. By 1909 when the official map of the Federal Townsite of Goldfield was prepared, the community and its suburbs of Columbia and South Goldfield encompassed over 250 city blocks within a one and a quarter square mile area.

Once the townsite had been established the settlement pattern of the area took on the more formal appearance dictated by the grid of lots and blocks. The primary north-south axis was Main Street which evolved as the major commercial thoroughfare. Parallel and one block east was Columbia Street which also was developed with commercial and business blocks. Ramsey Avenue provided the primary east-west access through the central portion of Goldfield, and its intersections with Main and Columbia Streets became the focal points for some of the most important commercial buildings in the community.

By 1908 the central business district extended from roughly Myers Avenue north to Miners Avenue, encompassing about twelve city blocks. The streetscapes were almost completely developed with one and two story false front frame structures, punctuated occasionally with substantial stone and brick buildings. Major structures within the business section included: the Nixon Block, the Ross-Holley Block, the Goldfield News Building, State Bank and Trust Building, Goldfield Stock Exchange Building, the Montezuma Club (G-132) and the First National Bank of Goldfield Building (G-201), all destroyed by the fire of 1923.

Substantial commercial buildings dating from this period which still exist are the Telephone and Telegraph Building (G-185), the Goldfield Consolidated Mines Building (G-130), the Curtis/lsh Building (G-129), and the Goldfield Hotel (G-123).

The residential areas of historic Goldfield were clearly defined according to the social stratification of the community. North of Miner Avenue stretching for several blocks along Main and Broadway Streets were the houses of the working class; miners, laborers, shop clerks, etc. The small wood frame structures of this
area were interspersed with larger lodging and boarding houses. Another small working class neighborhood was located on the blocks between Franklin and Euclid Avenues north of Crook, and a third area existed to the west of Second Street, south of Myers Avenue.

The red light district was situated along three blocks of south Main Street below Myers Avenue. It was composed of mostly frame structures, tightly fitted onto the lots, which functioned as dancehalls, saloons, cribs, and female boarding houses. Today only two of the more substantially constructed of these buildings still exist: the Stone Row House (G-213) and the Brick House (G-214).

The primary middle class residential area extended from Crook south to Crystal Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Sundog. It was composed of modest frame, adobe or stone dwellings large enough to accommodate the families of the community’s businessmen, proprietors, shop owners, mining engineers, etc. Among the most notable of these houses which still remain are the H. G. Mayer house (G-216), Major W. A. Stanton house (G-172), Kline/Beard house (G-164), and the T. G. Lockhart house (G-150).

The most prestigious residential district was developed on East Crook Avenue from Euclid Avenue past Sundog. Along this roadway exist the residences of some of Goldfield’s most noteworthy citizens: The M. C. Ish house (G-146), the Charles S. Sprague house (G-144, John S. Cook house (G-143), Milton M. Detch house (G-110), and the G. L. “Tex” Rickard house (G-107).

During the years 1904-1908 the Goldfield Mining District witnessed its most intense period of development. Correspondingly, the building and construction activity in the community developed with as much intensity. By late 1908, at the height of its development, the architectural appearance of Goldfield presented a diverse display of architectural types and methods of construction which ranged from utilitarianism to sophistication.

Although the palette of local building materials included stone, adobe, and brick, the most dominant method of construction was wood frame sheathed with boards and battens, clapboard, or shiplap siding. This material could be found in all types of architecture, from the most modest of cabins to the largest residences, to the majority of commercial structures. Detailing and level of craftmanship varied, but the basic components remained the same.

Of the more locally accessible materials, adobe and stone were the most widely used. Adobe, either in the form of coursed, sun-dried blocks, or as a mud composition tamped into forms and finished with an exterior plaster, was used primarily for residential construction. The use of stone is seen in a wider range of building types, including warehouses, modest and sophisticated residences, and commercial and public architecture. The method of construction and degree of craftsmanship corresponded with the type and size of the structure. They ranged from simple coursed or uncoursed rough stone and rubble walls for warehouses and small residences, to more refined cut and dressed stonework for the larger houses and the facades of major commercial structures.

Brick was employed as a building material, but to a much lesser extent. Its use was almost exclusively reserved for commercial buildings, either as the primary structural material or as a veneer. Some residences were built of brick but the relative costs and length of manufacture appear to have prohibited its more extensive use. The use of “found” building materials, such as bottles, oil cans and barrels, which are commonly associated with the earliest development period of other contemporary mining camps, was also employed in Goldfield. Two examples of bottle construction remain in the district.

Other early twentieth century building materials which were popularized after Goldfield’s decline make only minor appearances. These include the use of pre- fabricated wall sheathing, in particular corrugated and pressed metals, and rusticated concrete blocks. Examples of the use of these materials can be found on the few buildings in the district built between 1911 and 1935.

The popular styles of the turn of the century dominated the architectural landscape of historic Goldfield. Most were modest interpretations of the academic styles of the Neo-Classical Revival or the Georgian Revival.

Residences which show a conscious design effort were almost exclusively executed in the Neo-Colonial mode of the Georgian Revival. Their format was limited to rectangular plans and symmetrical massing with a minimum of minor projections. Simple roof forms, either hipped or double pitched, were often punctuated by dormers and detailed with enclosed eaves and classical cornice moulding. Entrance porches were usually inset and supported with classical columns. Houses of more modest means still employed the basic elements of the Neo-Colonial style but with little or no attention to detailing. Shapes were rectangular and were capped with a simple gable or hipped roof with enclosed eaves. Porches were independently constructed on the front of the house, supported by routed or turned posts.

The commercial buildings of Goldfield, especially those of wood frame construction, could be classified as facade architecture. The long, narrow configuration of commercial lots dictated that each business building be distinguishable at the facade. Most one and two story frame commercial buildings had false front or gabled facades with symmetrical storefront bays, some degree of detailing at the eave or parapet line, and occasionally a porch over the walkway in front of the building.

The more substantial commercial structures were all derivatives of the Neo-Classical Revival style, and to some extent influenced by the commercial architecture which evolved from the Chicago School. All were two, three or four stories in height, with the upper story facades composed of window openings placed in a symmetrical, rythmic pattern. Storefront bays at ground level also showed an attention to symmetry and proportion. Wall planes were demarcated occasionally with pilaster strips between bays or at the corners, and roofs were parapeted and detailed with some form of stone or pressed metal cornice. Those buildings constructed at the intersections of streets were often articulated with rounded or diagonal corners, or turrets with steep conical roofs.

By 1909, after Goldfield’s boom period ended, virtually all major construction activity in the community ceased. With the exception of the construction of some buildings symbolic of the times, such as garages and automobile repair shops, the essence of the town from 1910 until 1923 remained that which had been generated during the initial years of Goldfield’s development.

The decline of mining production, the depressed economy, and the resultant exodus of most of the town’s population from 1910 until the 1940’s, prompted many Goldfield property owners to move their structures elsewhere or to simply dismantle them. Other vacant buildings eventually succumbed to the elements or were destroyed by a major flood in 1913. But it was the disastrous fire of 1923 which changed the complexion of Goldfield forever. The fire swept through a 53-block area of central Goldfield from just above Myers Avenue and west of Columbia Street north to Aluminum Street and as far west as Third Street. Most of the commercial district was destroyed as well as virtually all of the working class neighborhoods north of Miner Avenue. Post-1923 Goldfield saw very little rebuilding in the commercial and residential areas destroyed by the fire.

Over the years since 1923 the focus of development in the downtown area has shifted away from the historic pattern. The primary north-south business street is now Columbia and not Main Street, and the east-west artery is now Crook Street instead of Ramsey. This change can be attributed to the following factors: 1) the 1923 fire destroyed all of the commercial buildings on Main Street, but only those on the west side of Columbia Street, 2) the only significant construction effort after the fire was the erection of the Elks Building (G-131) on Columbia Street, which also housed the U. S. Post Office, 3) the construction of U. S. Highway 95 through Goldfield down Crook Street, which had previously been primarily a residential artery. Today Goldfield has most of its community-related commercial activity strung along Columbia, while Crook Street caters to traveler and touristoriented functions.

Archeology

Historic archeology within the historic district can be divided into two components those sites associated with the destructive fire of 1923, and potential sites in other areas of the district related to the peak development of the community, the architectural evidence of which has since been destroyed or moved.

Upon visual inspection of the primary historic commercial district of Goldfield, one can readily identify several surface remains of important buildings and other associated sites. These include the Montezuma Club Ruin (G-132), the First National Bank Building Ruin (G-201), the Sideboard Saloon Ruin (G-187), as well as the Hayes-Monette building, the Watson Lodging house, the Nevada Hotel, the RossHolly building, the Whitmore building, the Casey Hotel, two bake oven ruins, and the original Nye and Ormsby County Bank vault. The potential of additional subsurface sites in the commercial area as well as the district as a whole is extremely high.

In December 1902 Marsh and Stimler located three initial claims including the Sandstorm, but interest in the new district was moderate and drew only a few other prospectors from Tonopah. In the spring of 1903 high-grade ore was discovered on the Combination Claim located by A. D. Myers. The potential of this discovery was not fully realized until January 1904 when leasers uncovered ore valued at up to $247 of gold ore per ton. The strike caused the first significant rush to the district and the area around Columbia Mountain was soon filled with mining claims. Other early discoveries such as the Red Top, Jumbo and Florence began producing rich ore by the summer of 1904.

In October 1903, once the value of the district seemed apparent, Al Myers and others formed the Tonopah Townsite Company and laid out a grid of streets and blocks south of Columbia Mountain. The new town was called Goldfield, a name suggested by Myers, and lots were sold to the early residents and businessmen. A post office was established in January 1904, the first public school was opened in May, and a volunteer fire department organized by July of that same year.

The first phase of Goldfield’s development from the discoveries in 1902-03 until mid-1906 was characterized by moderate growth and fluctuating speculation in the mining activities.

The leasing system was employed by the mine owners during this period as a method of exploring and proving the value of the mines before substantial investments were made to more fully exploit the area. The first lease in Goldfield was given in October 1903 and by February of the following year leasing was in common practice and was the means by which almost every mine in the district was developed.

By the end of 1906 the leasing period gave way to corporate mining and the consolidation of most of the producing mines in Goldfield. A partnership was formed by Senator George Nixon and George Wingfield in October 1906 in an effort to consolidate all of the Goldfield mines under a single controlling ownership. In late 1906 they purchased the majority holdings in the Jumbo and Red Top Companies. The rich Mohawk mining properties were also acquired that year and together these mines formed the nucleus of the Goldfield Consolidated Mines Company. In January 1907 both the Combination Mines and the Goldfield Mining Company were merged with the Consolidated thus placing all of the operating mines in Goldfield, except the Florence Company, under the control of Nixon and Wingfleld. The Goldfield Consolidated Mines Company became the most powerful mining company in the district and dominated much of the financial and political activity in Goldfield throughout its producing years.

When the boom began to accelerate in late 1906 the community of Goldfield was transformed in both scale, appearance, and sophistication. Several additions to the original townsite were platted and the boundaries of Goldfield’s developed area began to stretch toward Columbia Mountain to the north. The development of public services also solidified during this period. In May 190*1 the first water had been piped into the business district by the Goldfield Water, Mining and Milling Company. A year later two other companies brought in water from other sources, and by 1906 all water utility companies were merged into the Goldfield Consolidated Water Company, Electric power was first brought to Goldfield in September 1904 by the Goldfield Electric Light and Power Company. At the same time the Nevada Power, Mining and Milling Company was organized and gained control of extensive power rights in the Bishop Creek area. Their power lines reached Goldfield in September 1905. Two years later both companies were absorbed by the Nevada-California Power Company. Telephone and Telegraph service, an integral part of the business activity of booming Goldfield was available in January 1904. By the spring of 1906 the Southern Nevada Consolidated Telephone and Telegraph Company had a well-established control of the communications systems in Goldfield.

Mining production during the same period had climbed dramatically from $1,169,341 in 1905 to $6,690,385 in 1906 and $7,781,038 in 1907.

Goldfield boasted a population of 20,000 persons by late 1907 and was the largest city in Nevada. It was serviced by three railroads, had three major banks, two daily and three weekly newspapers, and two stock exchanges. In response to the growing economic and political strength of the town, the county seat was officially transferred from Hawthorne to Goldfield in May 1907.

Speculation and promotion played an important role in the development of Goldfield especially after the Hayes-Monette strike. The richness of the ore was a stimulus to the speculation and, combined with widespread publicity from both local and national journals and newspapers, hundreds of mining and investment companies were formed to take advantage of the boom excitement.

The most significant and illustrative promotional scheme in Goldfield was the Gans-Nelson Championship Boxing match held on September 3, 1906. The fight was the brainchild of infamous Nevada schemer George Graham Rice and local saloonkeeper and fight promoter G. L. “Tex” Rickard. They used the nation-wide promotion of the fight as a vehicle to publicize the “fabulous opportunities” of the Goldfield district. The success of this well-executed publicity scheme was outstanding and was the single most important event which brought Goldfield to the attention of the nation.

The height of the Goldfield boom from late 1906 until early 1908 was overshadowed by a series of labor union strikes which resulted in a bitter struggle between the miners and mine owners. The labor strife arose as a result of the establishment of local unions of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Goldfield between 1904 and 1905. Both espoused the new radical socialist unionism promoted by the I.W.W. during the early decades of the twentieth century. The labor struggles in Goldfield of 1906-1908 are significant to the history of this national movement as the first real test of the strength and philosophy of “revolutionary industrial unionism”.

Beginning in the summer of 1906 and continuing until early 1908 Goldfield was burdened with four general strikes inspired or effected by the I.W.W. resulting in the shutdown of mining operations for more than one-quarter of that period. During 1907 the I.W.W. and Miners Union had controlled the town of Goldfield. The mine owners responded to the situation in March 1907 by forming the Goldfield Businessmen’s and Mine Operator’s Association and resolving not to hire any member of the I.W.W. However, the labor disputes continued through the Panic of 1907 which only further intensified the situation. The failure of the mine operators to continue cash payments resulted in the final strike by the I.W.W. over the owners proposal to use scrip for payment. In return the mine operators shut down the mines and resolved to rid Goldfield of labor unionism forever. Through a series of well-orchestrated moves, coordinated by George Wingfield, the operators successfully broke the strike and eliminated union labor as an effective force in Goldfield.

To do this, the mine operators manipulated Governor Sparks into calling upon President Roosevelt to dispatch federal troops to Goldfield in order to quell the “domestic violence” in the community. No such violence existed but the mine operators needed the presence of federal troops to undertake the rest of their plan. The plan included the reduction of wages for miners, and the reopening of the mines to all workers who would sign a card agreeing not to be affiliated with any union. Additionally, the mine owners resorted to an extensive recruiting campaign in the surrounding states to increase their labor force. The mine owners were able to resume large scale operations by the Spring of 1908 and were finally successful in breaking the strike.

The events surrounding the strike had some important Iocal and statewide impacts. The apparent misuse of federal troops in Goldfield prompted President Roosevelt, in December 1907, to demand that Governor Sparks call a special legislative session to act upon a State Police bill so that the Goldfield situation could be handled by state and not federal authorities. The State Police Law of 1908 was enacted as a direct result of the labor struggles in Goldfield. After 1908, Goldfield was completely dominated by the mine owners. They controlled the miners wages, which in turn affected the wages of other town workers, they refused future bargaining with any union, and proceeded for the next ten years to efficiently exploit the mines in the district.

Warehouse District

29 Sunday May 2022

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Historic Districts

The Warehouse District Boundary Increase is a mixed development neighborhood reflecting the commercial/industrial growth and ethnic diversity of Salt Lake City, Utah, between 1869 and 1966. The district expansion is an increase in the geographic scope and period of significance for the existing Warehouse District (NRIS # 82004149), which was listed on the National Register in 1982 and encompassed 16 buildings constructed between 1890 and 1927. The existing Warehouse District was listed under the Salt Lake Business District Multiple Resource Area (MRA) (NRIS # 64000872). This district boundary increase is also proposed to be listed under the MRA as well as under the additional documentation provided herein. The Warehouse District Boundary Increase is located along the western edge of downtown Salt Lake City and is roughly bounded on the north by 50 South, on the east by 300 West and West Temple Street, on the south by 1000 South, and on the west by the eastern right-of-way line of Interstate 15 (I-15). This boundary increase encompasses approximately 544 acres of developed lands and encompasses the entirety of the existing Warehouse District. The majority of resources in the boundary increase are commercial buildings associated with the warehousing and distribution services that developed following the arrival of freight railroads in Utah in 1869. Residential resources (e.g., single- and multi-family dwellings are relatively rare in the district and are largely found as isolated buildings or small clusters of buildings scattered throughout the district; the exception is a somewhat larger concentration of dwellings in the southern portion of the district. The Warehouse District Boundary Increase, excluding the existing Warehouse District, encompasses 361 primary resources, of which 200 (55%) contribute to the significance of the district. Among the contributing resources are 26 that are already listed on the National Register as individual resources. The contributing resources reflect a broad range of architectural types and styles from Classical to Modern and include one archaeological site. The remaining 161 resources encompassed by the district expansion are considered non-contributing resources – historical resources that have been substantially altered and out-of-period resources. Included among the contributing resources are two sites comprising an historical railroad network and an historical park (Pioneer Park/Old Pioneer Fort site; NRIS #74001938).

Related:

  • Central Warehouse Building
  • Garden Hotel
  • W.P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse
  • ZCMI General Warehouse

Narrative Description

The original Warehouse District (NRIS # 82004149) was listed on the National Register in 1982 and includes 16 buildings with a somewhat undefined period of significance from approximately 1890 to 1927. The original district boundary encompasses a roughly 1-block area straddling 200 South between 300 West and 400 West. Of the 16 buildings in the original district, 15 were determined to be contributing resources, and one was listed as a non-contributing resource. The additional information presented in this boundary increase nomination documents that the sole non-contributing resource of the original district has been demolished and changes the status of two of the contributing resources – 357 West 200 South and 380 West 200 South – to noncontributing due to significant physical alteration subsequent to the original listing. The additional information provided here for the boundary increase also expands period of significance for the district from ca. 1890 to 1927 to 1869 to 1966 and updates the resource counts to include properties outside the original district but inside the expanded district boundary.

Data regarding the current status of resources within the district expansion were compiled from a reconnaissance level field inventory conducted in late 2012 for the southern portion of the boundary increase study area and one conducted in 2015 specifically for the remaining areas within the study area as well as from the Salt Lake City Business District MRA. Each of the field surveys evaluated historical buildings for contributing and non-contributing status according to guidelines established by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in its Reconnaissance Level Survey: Standard Operating Procedures (revised March 2012). The information gathered from the two field studies was used to establish the area and resources to be included in the district boundary increase presented herein. The most common reasons for resources being excluded from the district or identified as non-contributing resources were dates of construction outside the period of significance (1869-1966) or substantial physical alteration of the resource, the most common forms of which included introduction of modern cladding, changes in fenestration, and notable out-of-period additions.

Development Patterns

The building stock of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase reflects both the slow, but inevitable, development of the area as Salt Lake City expanded to the west of the initial village encampment during the decades after settlement and two major construction booms that truly shaped the character of the district. The first construction boom came during the early 1900s, when the economic depression of the 1890s had passed, and burgeoning railroad and mining industries drew thousands of ethnic immigrants and large commercial investments to Salt Lake City. The second major construction boom occurred during the immediate post-World War II period, when a strong post-war economy and advancements in freight transportation drove renewed commercial investment in the area.

Among the greatest influences in the evolution of the built environment in the district are the railroads of the Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) and the Union Pacific (UPRR). Mainline tracks for each railroad extend north-south through the northern and western portions of the district and, historically, effectively established a boundary between the residential and retail areas of the neighborhood to the east and the industrial and distribution (warehousing) areas to the west. Within the district, the remnants of the D&RGW’s system, which included a large rail yard inside the western perimeter of the district boundary increase, are the most intact. Historical buildings—most considered contributing to the district—remain from the maintenance facilities as do the multiple tracks and siding of the D&RGW yard. Occasional spur line tracks extend off the mainline railroads to historical warehouses and manufacturing complexes in the district, though most such extant tracks are no longer in use.

The earliest of the development for which buildings are still present in the study area are from the period of 1869 to 1899. A total of 29 buildings (20 of which are contributing) remain from this period. These buildings represent both residential (single family dwellings) and commercial uses of the area; they are scattered roughly evenly across the northern and southern portions of the district.

The period from 1900 to 1928 was characterized by a commercial/industrial building boom and the increasing settlement of ethnic minorities in the district. Of the documented buildings, 102 were constructed during this period. Of these, 78 are contributing. The contributing rail network and the contributing park also date to this period. By far, commercial and industrial buildings— especially warehouses—represent the majority of structures built during this period. Only a handful of single-family and multi-family dwellings from this period remain in the study area. Resources from this period can be found in most parts of the boundary increase but are located in greatest concentrations in the northeastern and southern parts of the district.

Not surprisingly, few buildings from the Great Depression and World War II period (1929 to 1945) are present in the district. In total, only 31 buildings from this period were identified; 22 are considered contributing resources. Of these, most were constructed during the early 1940s, after war-time demand had stimulated the economy and ended the Great Depression. All of the buildings from this period are commercial properties reflecting warehouse, manufacturing, retail, and office uses. They are found throughout the district.

As noted above, the second great building boom in the district occurred during the Post-War era (1946 to 1966). A total of 111 buildings from this period are located in the district; 79 are considered contributing resources. This represents the greatest number of structures from any historical period in the district, though it is only slightly more than the district’s first construction boom of the early 1900s. All but two (2) of the documented buildings are commercial in nature with office, retail, and light manufacturing appearing to represent the dominant uses.

Warehousing remained a common commercial use as well, with numerous warehouse/distribution buildings constructed during this period. The buildings from this period can be found throughout the district but are located in the highest numbers in the southern half of the district and along major roads with easy and short access to the on- and off-ramps of I-15 at 400 South, 500 South, 600 South, and West Temple Street.

Commercialization and Immigration (1900 to 1928)

Within the district are 104 resources that date to the period from 1900 to 1928, including 77 contributing buildings, 26 non-contributing buildings, one contributing rail network, and one contributing park. This period represents the first of the two major construction booms in the area and the one most directly influenced by the spread of rail networks throughout the Salt Lake Valley after the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. While the transcontinental rail connection was established in 1869, it took several decades for the web of connector railroads and spur lines to expand throughout northern Utah. An economic depression in the early 1890s also slowed the spread of the lines. However, by the turn-of-the-century, an extensive and healthy rail network wound its way through the western side of Salt Lake City, and an economic boom spurred on by success in the local mining industry and the establishment of the D&RGW railroad shops near 400 South and 700 West drew much residential settlement and new commercial construction to the area.

Commercial and public structures are the most common category of buildings in the study area from this period. 1-, 2-, and 3-Part Block forms and warehouses are, by far, the most common commercial building type from this era. Most exhibit simple stylistic elements captured under the category of 20th Century Commercial style; however, others, such as those along 200 South between West Temple and 200 West and those within the previously listed Warehouse District, exhibit strong elements of Victorian styles, particularly the Italianate style. These “high-style” buildings were all designed by trained architects, including noted architects Walter Ware, Alberto Treganza, Richard Kletting, and Samuel Whitaker, among others.

Although still comprising but a small percentage of the building stock of the district, residential structures from this period can be found. Like their predecessors, the few dwellings are primarily single-family homes in Victorian forms, such as crosswing, rectangular block, and central-blockwith-projecting-bays forms. Not surprisingly, the dominant architectural styles applied to these dwellings are also of the Victorian era; Victorian Eclectic and Italianate are the most common definable styles. By the mid and latter part of the period, however, new residential forms began to appear along the Wasatch Front. These forms had their roots in trends in American architecture and included bungalows and period cottages. Unlike other neighborhoods of Salt Lake City where entire subdivisions of bungalows and period cottages sprang up along streetcar lines, such forms are relatively rare in the remaining historical building stock of the district. This reflects, in part, the shift away from residential construction to commercial construction that began in earnest in the neighborhoods of the district in the 1910s. Modern development, which has resulted in the demolition of many historical dwellings in the area as the popularity of the area for residential uses has waned in recent decades.

Several multi-family dwellings were also constructed in the district during the early part of this period, before the transition toward commercialization. Among the more interesting of these properties are the Covey Flats/La France walk-up apartment and rowhouses found along 300 South between 200 West and 300 West. Similar rowhouses and walkup apartments dating to this period are found in the southern part of the district, which retains, perhaps, the largest remaining collection of residential structures in the area.

Among the public buildings from this period are several churches and a railroad depot. The churches include the Period Revival style Japanese Church of Christ at 268 West 100 South (NRIS # 82004144), the Byzantine style Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church at 279 South 300 West (NRIS # 75001816), and the Victorian Gothic LDS Fifth Ward chapel at 740 South 300 West (NRIS # 78002670). The railroad depot— the D&RGW (Rio Grande) Depot (NRIS # 75001815) is a central-block-with-wings structure located at 300 South Rio Grande Street and designed by architect Henry S. Schlachs in Renaissance Revival and Beaux Arts styles.

Great Depression and World War II (1929 to 1945)

Thirty-one (31) buildings documented in the district date to this period, including 22 contributing resources and 9 non-contributing resources. This is the second fewest buildings for any of the thematic periods established for the area. Of the 31 buildings, none are residential properties; all are commercial and public-use structures.

Extant commercial and public structures of this period reflect the austerity of the time. Identifiable forms include several late examples of 1- and 2-Part Block structures, while most represent either warehouses or buildings classified in Utah SHPO reconnaissance-level survey codes as other commercial/public forms. A handful of structures represent service bay/business forms, a new architectural type to appear in the building stock during this period; this form includes one or more large vehicle bays with adjoining office or workshop space. A majority of the buildings exhibit no definable style. Rather, they are simple utilitarian structures lacking adornment. One building, a service bay/business structure at 568 West 200 South, incorporates elements of World War II-Era Colonial Revival style typically found on residential architecture; this is the only building in the study area classified as this architectural style, with its narrow (non-existent) eaves combined with symmetrical fenestration. This period also saw the introduction of the Art Moderne style to the area. A single Art Moderne building from this period is present in the district at 554 South 400 West.

Post-War Era (1946 to 1966)

One-hundred-eleven (111) buildings in the district date to this period, which represents the second of the two major construction booms in the area. Of these, 79 are considered contributing resources and 33 are considered non-contributing resources. All but two of the documented properties represent commercial or public uses. The two residential properties—both of which are considered non-contributing resources—represent undefined architectural forms exhibiting Late 20th Century: Other architectural styles.

Despite their large numbers, non-residential buildings of this period largely represent a narrow range of warehouse, other commercial/public, and service bay/business forms. Warehouses of this period differ from their corollaries of the preceding periods in that rather than being aligned to accommodate loading and unloading from rail cars, they were designed to accommodate individual semi-trailer loading either through a series of individual loading bays or individual stalls along communal loading docks. Specialty buildings, such as railroad engine repair shops and personal storage units also appear in the contributing building stock, as do structures such as motel courts and service/gas stations that were designed to cater to the rising automobile culture of the post-war period.

Architectural styles represented in the area’s building stock during this period are dominated by what is classified as Post-WWII: Other style, with Late 20th Century: Other styles, including Mansard, Contemporary, and general Late 20th Century aesthetic treatments, being second most common. As with the preceding period, many of the commercial buildings are utilitarian in form and lack any semblance of high-style design. Rare exceptions include the buildings at 501 West 700 South, 540-560 South 300 West, 726 South 400 West, which exhibit Art Deco and Art Moderne styles in gradations from subtle influence to high design.

Historic Structures and Sites

One historic structure and one historic site are included in the district as contributing resources. The historic structure is a discontinuous network of railroad spurs that were part of the D&RGW Railroad system near their Salt Lake City rail yard and served the historical warehouses and manufacturing facilities that developed adjacent to the yard. These spur lines— mostly constructed during the late 1800s and early 1900s—are a direct reflection of the influence the railroad had on the development of the Warehouse District and the area of the boundary increase.

The historic park/fort site is the Pioneer Park/Old Pioneer Fort, which was listed on the National Register in 1974 (NRIS # 74001938) [Photograph 28]. The park property, bounded by 300 West, 400 West, 300 South, and 400 South, was the site of the first pioneer fort constructed after the initial settlement of Salt Lake City in 1847. By 1890, the fort had been abandoned and demolished, and the land was converted to park uses. It is for its function as a park that this site is contributing to the Warehouse District. The park soon became a community gathering spot for those living nearby, including the ethnically diverse residents of the Warehouse District neighborhood. The park was only one of five city parks at the time and the only one located near the western part of the city. In the early 1900s, against the backdrop of labor organizing (i.e., unionization) the park served as a venue for protests for workers in the nearby D&RGW and Union Pacific rail yards.

Summary

A total of 55 percent of properties within the Warehouse District Boundary Increase are considered contributing resources, including the properties of the existing Warehouse District. This reflects strong retention of historical integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship within the array of historical resources present in the area. As a district, the area retains integrity of setting, feeling, and association as a late-1800s to early-1900s working class and industrial neighborhood heavily influenced by the railroad industry. The collective integrity of the area has been compromised to a minor degree by the recent construction of several large scale mixed use developments, but such changes do not affect the continuity of the district as defined by the selected boundaries. The contributing resources reflect the influences of the railroad and the four distinct development periods within the overall period of significance.

Statement of Significance

The original Warehouse District was listed on the National Register in 1982 and included 16 buildings with a somewhat undefined period of significance from approximately 1890 to 1927. The original district boundary encompasses a roughly 1-block area straddling 200 South between 300 West and 400 West in Salt Lake City. Of the 16 buildings in the original district, 15 were determined to be contributing resources, and one was listed as a non-contributing resource. As noted previously, the additional information presented in this boundary increase nomination documents that the previously identified non-contributing resource (358 West 200 South) has been demolished, and that two of the previously listed contributing resources—357 West 200 South and 380 West 200 South—are now considered non-contributing resources due to significant physical alteration subsequent to the listing of the original district.

The areas of significance for the existing/original district are not well-defined in the MRA record that served as the basis for the original Warehouse District listing, nor does the MRA establish any defined contexts for the district. The MRA, which described several potential small districts, notes the areas of significance for the MRA itself as architecture, commerce, industry, politics/government, religion, transportation, and “other” without specifically identifying the relevant themes for the Warehouse District. However, the MRA describes the original Warehouse District as being significant as “a well-preserved cluster of warehouse buildings that convey a sense of the impact of the coming of the railroad in Salt Lake City.” This statement effectively indicates the district was considered eligible for listing under Criteria A and C. The additional information provided here for the boundary increase more clearly defines the areas of significance applicable to both the existing district and the additional properties within the expanded boundary. It also expands the period of significance for the expanded district from the original ca. 1890 to 1927 to 1869 to 1966.

The Warehouse District Boundary Increase is also significant under Criteria A and C. As noted, the period of significance for the expanded district is extended from the relatively narrow period represented by the original district and begins in 1869 with the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, which greatly influenced the development of the area, and ends in 1966, the current end of the historical period (i.e., 50 years ago). Under Criterion A, the district has local significance in the areas of Social History, Commerce, Industry, and Transportation for the direct association of the district with the railroad industry and the commercial and residential development it spurred along the west side of Salt Lake City. With the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad came an immediate proliferation of other mainlines and spur lines to connect the communities and industrial centers of the West to the rest of the nation. Two of these mainline systems—the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)—extended through what was, at the time, the western fringe of Salt Lake City. Shortly after, the D&RGW established regional maintenance shops and a rail yard for their Utah subdivision in the west Salt Lake City area, in the heart of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase. The UPRR also established a rail yard just beyond the northern edge of the district. The railroad mainlines are included in the district as contributing archaeological resources. The presence of the shops and yards drew many immigrants to the area in search of work. A large number of these immigrants had countries of origin that were quite different from the predominant northern European ancestry of Salt Lake City’s earliest settlers. The ethnic minority immigrants settled on the west side of the city, near the rail yard and maintenance shops in which they labored. The neighborhood became one of the largest and most diverse ethnic enclaves in the city. A web of railroad spur lines appeared in the area as commercial interests took advantage of the proximity of the mainline railroads to establish manufacturing and distribution (warehouse) sites with easy and immediate rail access to both regional and national markets. Although the manner of transporting industrial goods and freight shifted in the years after World War II and the rise of long-haul trucking, manufacturing and distribution remained a major land use in the district. Railroading also retains its influence on the development and use of the area with a commuter rail hub and rail yards still present within the district.

The district is also significant at the local level under Criterion C for its architectural integrity and its reflection of the four major periods of development influenced by the railroad industry and its role in the economy of the area. The building stock of the area represents both high-style and vernacular architectural trends in Utah and stands as a testament to the economic differences of the commercial interests that could invest in architect-designed buildings and the laborers who could not. It also reflects the largely utilitarian nature of the freight and distribution industry, where investments in ornate architecture yielded to functional efficiency. As a collective body of architectural resources, the buildings of the district illustrate the shifting focus of the area from an initially balanced distribution of both residential and commercial/industrial properties to one of predominantly commercial/industrial uses. Small, isolated pockets of historical dwellings are scattered throughout the central and northern portions of the district, while the southern portion of the district is the only area to have retained its historical dwellings in any large concentration. Additionally, the relatively large number of historical warehouse buildings compared to other areas of Salt Lake City lends a unique composition to the architectural make-up of the district and lend the district its name.

The additional documentation presented herein for the boundary increase expands the period of significance for the Warehouse District beyond the relatively narrowly defined period of ca. 1890 to 1927 for the original district. It also more precisely defines the areas or themes of significance beyond those alluded to in the original MRA listing but not discussed in detail.

As noted above, the Warehouse District Boundary Increase is significant under Criterion A for its direct association with the railroad industry and its influence on the economic development and ethnic diversity of Salt Lake City. The historical significance of the district under Criterion A falls under the thematic areas of Social History, Commerce, Industry, and Transportation. While in some historic districts these themes may stand individually on their own, in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area they are intertwined, no one theme separable from the others. This is due to the manner in which the arrival and expansion of railroads in the area spurred industrial and commercial development, which enticed large numbers of ethnic minorities to immigrate to Utah and settle in the neighborhoods that now comprise the district.

The district is also significant under Criterion C for its diverse collection of architectural resources that reflect both Utah’s adoption of national trends but also the unique development of the area that included both high- and “low-“ style architecture as well as small residential buildings juxtaposed against large industrial and commercial structures.

The historical and architectural significance of the district are discussed in more detail below in the context of the four major development periods that shaped the district and comprise its period of significance.

Railroads and Outside Influences (1869-1899)

Under Criterion A during this contextual period, the significant themes for the district are Transportation, Industry, Commerce, and Social History due to the arrival of the railroad and the attendant rise of local industry that drew a more diverse population of immigrants to Salt Lake City than had resided here during the early settlement period. The information below describes the manner in which these areas of significance manifested themselves in both the neighborhood of the Warehouse District. Under Criterion C during this contextual period, the area of significance of Architecture began to manifest itself in the appearance of new industrial and commercial property types and architectural styles along the western fringe of Salt Lake City.

Salt Lake City and the Utah territory changed dramatically with the arrival of the railroads. The Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 at Promontory Point, well north of Salt Lake City. Other railroads were soon constructed through Utah, and Salt Lake City became a hub for regional and national trade. The arrival of the railroads also spurred the development of industry and commerce within Salt Lake City. Railroads connected the city to the rest of the country, opening it up to new people, ideas, and goods. Many immigrants began to arrive, including gentiles (non-Mormons) and Mormon converts from European countries. The population of Salt Lake City boomed, increasing by nearly 62 percent between 1870 and 1880, the third highest growth rate in the city’s history; the subsequent two decades showed a comparably impressive level of growth in the city as well. The growing population required that the city support densities much greater than those envisioned in the Plat of Zion. Providing for increased density caused disruptions to the original plat, with the addition of new streets and subdivision of larger existing lots.

As the population grew, the city’s infrastructure grew along with it. By the 1870s, a horse-drawn streetcar system had been established over a few miles of roads in downtown Salt Lake City, east of the current survey area. Over the next 20 years, the streetcar system developed into an extensive complex of electrical trolleys operated along parallel lines by competing companies. At its apex shortly after the turn-of-the-century, the system provided passenger service to most of the Salt Lake Valley. By 1891, multiple trolley/streetcar routes passed through the neighborhoods comprising the Warehouse District Boundary Increase. Interurban rail lines serving communities north and south also entered Salt Lake City in these neighborhoods, and the area played host to the depots of various national rail lines, including the UPRR and D&RGW.

The availability of public transit, the influx of new people and access to national markets and aesthetics, and the wealth accruing to both Mormon and non-Mormon businessmen and mining magnates in the burgeoning economy had a profound effect on both the density and type of land use in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area and on its building stock. As wage labor and commercial access to food products grew, Salt Lake City’s dependence on an agrarian lifestyle waned. Many of the larger lots in the eastern and southern portions of the district were subdivided to provide for residential development of block interiors. Multi-family housing also increased in number in these areas as population density increased along with the easy transit access to employment in downtown Salt Lake City and elsewhere in the valley. Elsewhere in the area, industrial and commercial development proliferated.

The arrival of the railroads had a significant impact on the form of Salt Lake City. Former residential areas gradually transformed into industrial and commercial areas. This was especially true of the western portion of the city, which included the new rail lines. Commercial and industrial uses developed rapidly in this area, which soon became known as the West Side, and it developed as a more distinct neighborhood apart from the rest of the city. Cooper/Roberts Architects describe the transformation, noting “this area so clearly devoted to commerce and industry became a separate zone of the city… already separate and distinct visually and in sense of purpose from the rest of the city.”

Several prominent rail lines were extended through the district during this period, including the Utah Central Railroad along 400 West and the Utah & Northern Railroad along 500 West. Both lines later became part of the UPRR’s Oregon Short Line rail system). The Salt Lake & Fort Douglas Railroad also ran through the area, along 800 South. This line was built in 1883 and removed by 1897. The presence of the rail lines was only part of the changing landscape of the developing west side of Salt Lake City. In addition to the tracks, railroad companies, including the UPRR and D&RGW, constructed large rail yards and maintenance facilities in the heart of the area, turning Salt Lake City into a major railroad hub for the western United States. These facilities brought a decidedly industrial feeling to the area. The D&RGW shops and yard are located in the heart of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase, whereas the UPRR yard is located just beyond the northern district boundary.

As railroads were built through the area during the late 1800s, commercial and industrial uses also developed. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company (Sanborn) maps from 1889 provide detailed illustration of the northern and central portions of the district but not the southern part of the district, indicating development density in that area was still sufficiently light at the time to not warrant detailed mapping. For those areas addressed in detail, the maps depict predominantly single-family residential development in the northern and east-central parts of the district with light commercial development along 200 West and 400 West. Blocks of higher density residential development, including apartments and rowhouses, were scattered around this area as well. The central and western portion of the area was dominated by railroad-related development, and the southern portion of the mapped area (which ends at about 450 South) showed a much greater diversity of residential, commercial, and railroad uses.

By 1898, the southern part of the district had developed enough to be included on the Sanborn maps. These maps illustrate the changing character of the area from low-density, agrarian development to higher density single-family and multi-family dwellings on small lots.

Commercial and industrial uses were interspersed with residential areas. Notable businesses of the time included ice, beer, and vinegar companies, as well as a brick factory and the Salt Lake Rapid Transit Company’s repair shed. The Grant family, including Heber J. Grant, a future president of the LDS Church, opened a soap factory at 741 South 400 West around 1894. The building, which still stands today, was taken over by the Mount Pickle Company (later the Utah Pickle Company) prior to 1911. Rail sidings were constructed from the rail lines to serve the new commercial uses such as the soap/pickle factory. The alignment of the sidings contrasts with the regular street grid. Sidings curve away from the main lines and penetrate the block interiors, interrupting the regular pattern of streets, blocks, and lots. The street grid was also altered by the addition of streets and mid-block alleys.

In addition to illustrating the changing built environment in Salt Lake City at the close of the 1800s, the 1898 Sanborn maps reflect the growing ethnic and religious diversity that occurred as part of the city’s industrialization and connection to the rest of the nation through railroads. For example, where for decades the maps had only identified LDS Church (i.e., Mormon) ward houses in the area, by 1898 they depicted religious institutions to serve other faiths, such as the American Methodist Episcopal church.

Commercialization and Immigration (1900-1928)

Under Criterion A during this contextual period, the significant themes of Transportation, Industry, Commerce, and Social History persist through the expansion of the railroad network and rail yards in and through the district and the associated increase in the number of manufacturing, warehouse, and other distribution facilities that developed along the web of railroad spur lines. Labor brokers specifically contracted by the railroad companies and other industrial entities brought hundreds of southern European, Syrian, Latin American, and other immigrants to the neighborhood, where they established small, ethnic enclaves. Under Criterion C during this contextual period, the area of significance of Architecture is reflected in the first major construction boom to occur in the district and the increase in the variety of building types and styles, including a greater mixture of commercial and residential properties than would be seen in subsequent periods. Also during this period, the unique architecture of warehouses and distribution centers dependent on the rail network for transportation of freight and supplies became fully manifest.

During the early twentieth century, Salt Lake City continued to emerge as a major regional center, attracting many new businesses and residents. Different land uses increasingly occurred in distinct zones of the city. Downtown became predominantly commercial. The West Side, with its proximity to the railroads, continued to transform from residential and agricultural uses to industrial and distribution (warehouse) uses. Residential development occurred primarily to the south and east of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area. During this period, Salt Lake City’s modern form emerged: a dense commercial core downtown, industrial uses along the railroads, and residential subdivisions to the south and east. Among the major commercial enterprises that established businesses in the district during this period were the Utah Pickle Company, which took over the Grant Soap Company building around 1908; the Queen of the Valley Rolling Mill at 380 West 800 South; International Harvester, which constructed its building at 435 West 400 South around 1918; the Husler Milling and Elevator Company facility at 425 West 500 South; and Western Moline Power, which set up shop at 331 South Rio Grande Street.

As the city’s population grew, multiple waves of immigration brought increasingly diverse residents to Salt Lake City. Many immigrants came from southeastern Europe, notably from Italy and Greece, while others came from Japan and Syria. As immigrants arrived in Salt Lake City, several distinct ethnic neighborhoods emerged. Most were located the western edge of the downtown area and on the West Side. In addition to residences, these neighborhoods provided goods, services, and institutions for different immigrant groups. These distinct ethnic neighborhoods persisted through the end of World War I. After the war, immigration slowed, and the neighborhoods began to break up.

The Polk Directories for Salt Lake City reflect the diversity of immigrants living in the district during this period. Directories published in 1930, shortly after the end of the Commercialization and Immigration period, show that residents of this area had surnames of predominantly British, Norwegian, Latin American or Spanish, and Syrian origin. The directories also indicate that many of the residents of the ethnic neighborhoods worked in the nearby industrial centers, particularly in the railroad yards, while other worked as general laborers, drivers and chauffeurs, and mechanics, among other professions.

With a handful of exceptions, most residents of the area represented the labor and working class. The Covey Apartments, completed in stages in 1904 and 1905, are an excellent example of the mixing of classes in the area. The 1910 census lists among the tenants several clerks and laborers in the mining industry along with managers and proprietors of retail stores, several engineers, an accountant, a newspaper foreman, a railroad yard master, a baker, a miller, a draftsman, and an inventor, among others.

The increasing population size and diversity was reflected in the public structures of the district. For example, in 1910, the Fifth LDS Ward constructed a new meetinghouse—which still stands today at 740 South 300 West—to accommodate the size of the congregation. The Greek Orthodox Church building at 528 West 400 South was also abandoned during this period in favor of a larger building at 439 West 400 South that could better serve its growing congregation.

More rail sidings were constructed in the study area during this period, providing easy access to transportation for both people and freight. The sidings resulted in distinctive building forms, which have angled or curved walls to accommodate the paths of the sidings. Although most sidings have been removed, several buildings with this distinctive form remain standing in the district, and the former paths of the sidings remain as vacant corridors between buildings and down what now appear as alleys.

As the rail network expanded and the ethnic neighborhoods added commercial and public services, the built environment of the neighborhoods began to transform into one of much more intermixed residential and non-residential structures. Although some areas, particularly portions of the southern part of the district, remained solidly residential, historical maps suggest the rest of the district saw an increase in non-residential buildings constructed amidst small cottage dwellings.

The 1911 Sanborn maps also show that some blocks in the southern part of the district were partially cleared of all previous structures, most of which had been single-family dwellings. On these blocks, former residences were removed or demolished but not always replaced with new structures. The cleared blocks were typically occupied by large-scale industrial facilities, some of which required extensive yards for their operations. The maps also suggest a trend toward changes in lot sizes throughout the district, with smaller, former residential lots being combined to create larger lots, presumably more attractive to commercial or industrial developers.

Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945)

Under Criterion A during this contextual period, the significant themes of Transportation, Commerce, and Industry are the most dominant. The area of Social History became less prominent as the area transitioned from one of mixed residential and commercial uses to one of largely commercial and industrial uses. That is, the ethnic enclaves that had developed during the earlier periods began to disband as the area transitioned away from residential uses. Under Criterion C during this contextual period, the area of significance of Architecture is reflected in the appearance of new building types, especially those that appeared during the latter part of the period in response to the initial rise of automobile culture during World War II. These new building forms include those with service bays, parking lots to accommodate vehicles, and loading docks designed to be served by trucks rather than trains.

The rapid development that characterized much of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Salt Lake City slowed abruptly with the onset of the Great Depression. As with the rest of the country, poverty and unemployment in Salt Lake City soared during the 1930s. Not surprisingly, very little new construction occurred during the years of the Great Depression. New construction starts were rare, and many retail operations struggled to survive.

Federal programs such as the Works Progress Administration helped provide employment on public works and construction projects to help alleviate the difficulty caused by the economic collapse. Additionally, “federal programs of the New Deal helped Salt Lake City recover from the depression by stimulating industrial expansion, and expanding commercial activities through the investment of large amounts of federal monies.” Though it is unclear whether any specific New Deal programs were implemented in the district, it is likely that some form of investment occurred given the heavily industrial nature of the area and the programs’ emphasis on expanding industrial and commercial payrolls.

World War II brought hardship but also the beginning of economic recovery for the Salt Lake Valley. The extensive railroad network in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area made Salt Lake City a strategic location for federal military operations; activities at Fort Douglas—on the northeast bench of the city—were expanded and defense industry facilities were constructed along the Wasatch Front, including several a few miles from the district. The expansion of the defense industry created many jobs in the region, and the local economy began to grow again.

Economic growth spurred by World War II contributed to increased construction in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area during the early 1940s. This included substantial new construction at the D&RGW rail yard in the west-central portion of the district. The D&RGW shops had been largely destroyed by fire in early 1938. Due to the Great Depression, the company had delayed plans for reconstruction until the economic resurgence of World War II and the demand for rail service in support of the war effort made rebuilding not only financially feasible but a political and social imperative. The new D&RGW shops were constructed to replace the ones destroyed in the fire as well as to accommodate the changing of train locomotives from steam to diesel operation and the increased war-time demand for more trains.

Historical maps suggest the booming war-time economy led many commercial operations in the district to expand their buildings and new businesses to move into the area. This commercial and industrial growth in the district served to further shift the complexion of the northern part of the district to one of predominantly non-residential uses. Industrial and commercial facilities also increased in numbers in the south half of the district, but small enclaves of residential properties persisted, particularly in the area between 700 South and 900 South from 200 West to 400 West. Many residents of the district are believed to have relocated to the newer streetcar suburbs of south-central Salt Lake City, where working class neighborhoods sprang up away from the gritty environs of the industrial sector.

Post-War Era (1946-1966)

Under Criterion A during this contextual period, the district is significant under the areas of Transportation, Commerce, and Industry. The area of Transportation during this period is represented by both rail transportation and automobile transportation and the social and economic shift from an economy and culture based in rail transport to one based in automobiles, both private and commercial. That is, as the culture of America shifted toward one more centered around the automobile, the commercial and industrial use of the Warehouse District area adapted to new ways of transporting goods and new ways for consumers to access those goods. Under Criterion C, the district is still significant under the area of Architecture for the building types, particularly among manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution facilities, that were designed specifically to accommodate the automobile (e.g., semi-trailer) freight shipping. These buildings reflect the height of the transition away from freight rail transportation during the historic period.

The Post-War Era in Salt Lake City was one of continued economic prosperity and residential and commercial expansion. Although the boom years of the war-time economy had passed, modern manufacturing and building techniques that came out of the war experience combined with thousands of returning soldiers ready to start families in houses of their own.

The post-war housing boom did not occur in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase area the way it did in the suburbs surrounding the district. Rather, more residents moved out of the district and into these new suburbs, paving the way for the demolition of many dwellings in favor of commercial structures. The rare new residential construction that did occur appeared as infill projects.

Automobile use became widespread during the Post-War Era, altering the form of development in Salt Lake City. The construction of the interstate highway system, beginning in the late 1950s, allowed for increased urban sprawl; I-15 was constructed along the western edge of the district during this time and both physically and socially separated the district from more residential neighborhoods to the west. With the completion of the interstate system and increasing affordability of personal vehicles, those who worked in Salt Lake City were able to move to suburban communities elsewhere and commute to work in the city.

The construction of the interstate also affected industrial areas of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase. In addition to rail access, many businesses gained easy access to the new highway. The highway system continued to facilitate access and ease of transportation for businesses near I-15, and the flexibility of long-haul shipping via semi-trucks compared to the rigid routes of rails led to a decline in activity at the D&RGW rail yard in the western part of the district. Among the businesses to construct new facilities in the district during this period was Wycoff Company, which specialized is long-haul truck shipping from its warehouse at 540-560 South 300 West.

Sanborn maps from 1950 suggest that commercial operations in the district became increasingly focused on distribution and heavy industry during the Post-War Era. Notably, they included metal and machinery companies, lumber and coal yards, and warehouses. Smaller-scale businesses still existed amidst the larger commercial complexes, and businesses specifically serving automobile owners, such as service stations and mechanics garages, sprang up along the major roadways through the district, including 300 West, 400 South, and 900 South.

Summary

The historical resources of the Warehouse District Boundary Increase directly reflects the significant influence of the late 1800s and early 1900s railroad networks that occupied the west side of Salt Lake City. These resources represent both the railroads themselves and the commercial and residential developments they spawned. The historical buildings of the district illustrate the adoption and adaptation of national architectural trends within Salt Lake City as well as the development of vernacular and utilitarian architecture indicative of the working class and industrial nature of the neighborhoods. In no other locations in Salt Lake City does the combination of the historical railroad network and the unique patterns of land development they prompted exist in such a readily identifiable way as in the Warehouse District Boundary Increase.

Spring City Historic District

16 Tuesday Nov 2021

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Historic Districts, Sanpete County, Spring City, Spring City Historic District, utah

Description of Spring City

Spring City is one of eleven still existing settlements located in the upper Sanpete Valley of central Utah. Each of these settlements figured in the overall colonization of the area by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the years after 1849. Mormon town planning in the Sanpete Valley closely followed an agricultural village system advocated by the L.D.S. church leadership. By this design, dwellings were clustered together in towns which in turn were surrounded by individual farm holdings. Such a village living arrangement strengthened church authority, fostered communitarian activity, and facilitated the defense of the population against Indian attack. Villages were platted into 5-8 acre blocks with each family generally receiving a quarter-block allotment. On this townsite, the Sanpete farm family erected a dwelling house, a barn, granary, and other necessary outbuildings. While all eleven communities in the upper Sanpete Valle y are the products of this system of farm planning, Spring City best represents the original nineteenth century character of the settlements.

Spring City lies in the northern half of the Sanpete Valley about seventeen miles north of Manti, the Sanpete County seat. U.S. 89, the principal route through the valley^ bypasses the town one mile to the west. The town is tucked up beneath the Wasatch Plateau which rises dramatically on the eastern perimeter of the town. A line of low lying limestone hills to the south and west effectively cut the town off from the larger valley. The current (1979) population is 450.

In keeping with the religious nature of the town, Spring City is dominated by a large L.D.S. Meetinghouse. This elegant stone structure was built in 1900-1914 and replaced an earlier building. In 1973 a stone wing was added on the north of the structure. This addition was designed to match the character of the original building and does not detract from the historical integrity of the Church. Other buildings in the district which display the prominent role the L.D.S. Church played in the town are the Bishop’s Tithing Office, the Endowment House-School House, and the Relief Society Granary. Orson Hyde, one of the twelve Apostles of the L.D.S. Church, resided in Spring City. Other homes of local church leaders are the Jacob Johnson house and the James A. Allred House.

Related:

  • National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form (the text of this page comes from that form)

Outside of these few buildings with strong religious links and a small commercial area on Main Street, Spring City is predominantly residential. While modern intrusions do occur (and are occurring with more frequency), the ambience of the town remains strongly that of the rural farm village. Most of the streets are unpaved, town lots retain a high percentage of the original outbuildings, picket fences continue to grace many lots, and it is not uncommon in the spring and fall to witness large flocks of sheep being driven through the main streets.

Architecturally, the town is overwhelmingly vernacular in character. Folk house types from the 1865-1890 period comprise over one-third of the extant total, and range from one room cabins to two-story hall and parlor houses. Adobe and stone are the most common building materials; though log, frame, and brick are also in evidence. Nearly all of the barns and granaries found in town follow traditional patterns. The origins of the folk designs reflect the overall diversity of the settlement population. Yankees and Southerners brought along familiar house plans from their eastern homes, and Danes (a sizeable percentage of the population) brought along Old World houses such as the “parstugen.” In general, folk styles predominate and generate much of the nineteenth century quality of the town.

Pattern book styles of the 1880-1910 period make up about another one-third of the town’s architecture. Economic prosperity during the later nineteenth century enabled Spring City residents to emulate architectural fashions found in population centers like Salt Lake City and Provo. Carpenter-builder designs were made available in Sanpete Valley through architectural pattern books. As a result, hip roofs gradually replaced the simple gable, pyramid cottages with projecting gables became extremely popular, and several successful entrepreneurs created elegant monuments to their own prosperity the John Baxter Sr. House, the Brail Ericksen House, the William Osborne House, and the Jacob Johnson House are rather large and picturesque renderings of the pattern book style. Builder’s manuals also introduced the bungalow to Spring City. While several good bungalows can be found within the town limits, these buildings make up only about one-tenth of the housing stock.

Intrusions into the historic district occur in the form of mobile and prefabricated homes and variations of the ranch styles of post World War II years. In 1973 there were thirteen trailers in town; today (1979) there are about twenty-two. About thirty ranch-style houses are found in Spring City, mostly built in the 1970s. Alterations of older houses occasionally detract from the visual nature of the district, but severe modification is minimal.

Landscape features also enhance the historic village feeling of the town. The town is isolated from the main valley by two low lying bands of hills (the “Stone Quarry Hills”) on the west and south. Streets are generally tree lined and yards are maintained. Town lots contain orchards and vegetable gardens. Irrigation ditches still carry water to each water share holder in town. The rich cream-colored limestone used in the town’s stone buildings blend in particularly well with the cultivated landscape. The adobe, brick, and frame buildings also harmonize well with the general setting. Natural features of importance are the two creeks which run through town. Canal Creek cuts through the extreme southwest corner of the town and Oak Creek runs in a northeasterly course bisecting the city. The plentiful spring which gave the town its name is displayed prominently on block 32.

The quality which serves to distinguish Spring City from other towns in the valley is the large number of buildings which appear much as they did in the years before the First World War. The pace of life and character of the people also enhance the historic atmosphere. The lack of large commercial establishments, the large number of vernacular style homes, the landscape setting, and the spectacular view of the Wasatch Plateau all contribute to the singularity of the Spring City experience.

The historic and architectural significance of Spring City lies in two areas:

  1. the town graphically documents the techniques of Mormon town planning in Utah;
  2. architecture in Spring City is remarkably well preserved with an: abundance of religious buildings, homes, and small commercial establishments which predate World War I.

This Sanpete valley town effectively documents the pattern of Mormon exploration and settlement in the West and the particular agricultural practices which accompanied village living. Spring City is one of the best remaining examples of the Mormon “village” in Utah.

History of Spring City

Spring City was settled as a part of the colonization of the Great Basin planned and directed by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). In 1850, the Fourth General Epistle of the Church reported that Brigham Young, the Church President/ and his counselor, Heber C. Kimball had just returned from a tour of the Sanpete Valley:

On the last of July, Brothers Young and Kimball . . . returned . . . having found a place for a good settlement located a city at Sanpete (Manti) and noticed several immediate sites worthy of the attention of smaller colonies which we anticipate will be settled this fall making a pleasant and safe communication from this our most southern habitation.

Church leaders envisioned, a line of settlements stretching the length of the valley to ensure the effective control of the area. Defensive measures, gratuitous in some parts of Utah Territory, were necessary in the Sanpete Valley due to the presence of an Indian population capable of resisting the intrusion of the Mormon colonizers. Though part of the larger plan for the settlement of the Valley, the selection of the site for Spring City was largely the decision of one man, James Allred.

James Allred, born in 1784 in Randolph County, North Carolina, was an early convert to Mormonism and followed the Saints through the persecutions in Missouri and Illinois. Arriving in Utah in the fall of 1851, Allred was advised by Brigham Young to move to the Sanpete Valley and “select a place for a settlement where he could locate with his numerous posterity and kindred and preside over them.” On March 22, 1852, James Allred examined the country lying along what is today Canal Creek (located in the southwest part of town). Four days later he returned with several of his sons and, together with a number of men from Fort Ephraim, began settling the town of Spring City. The first house, a log home, was situated on Block 4 of the present town. During the summer of 1852, two adobe houses were constructed one located on Block 4 near the original log house and the other near the spring on Block 20. Also that summer, one of James Allred’s sons, James T. S. Allred, completed the first survey of the area. A tract of about one hundred acres was divided into five acre blocks. Some crops were planted and about twelve families spent the winter of 1852 in what was then called the “Allred Settlement.”

In July of 1853 open warfare broke out between the Mormon settlers and the native population. Pleasant Creek (now Mt. Pleasant) was raided in mid-July and residents fled to the Allred settlement for safety. People from both towns fashioned a fort-like structure by dragging their log cabins together and filling in the gaps between houses with rock walls. This first “fort” was completed on July 28 and stood on Block 20. Indian attacks, resulting in considerable loss of livestock and horses, drove the defenders from the Allred settlement back to Manti on July 31. An attempt at resettlement was made during the fall of 1853, but again, threat of Indian attack caused a second abandonment of the community. Many of these settlers who vacated Spring City and went to Manti were among the founders of Ephraim in 1854.

At the request of President Brigham Young, William Black, J. T. Ellis, and the Allred family reestablished the settlement in the summer of 1859. Albert Petty, the county surveyor, accompanied this group and laid off a townsite and 640 acres of farmland surrounding it. Farm land was surveyed into five and ten acre lots and distributed among the settlers. A log meetinghouse was erected on the southwest corner of Block 29, This structure housed a variety of activities until an adobe meetinghouse was built in 1863-1864. The community also attracted a large number of Danish immigrant converts. The number of Danes in the town was large enough to warrant the naming of the community “Little Denmark.” These Scandinavian converts transplanted many architectural forms and techniques into the area, and tradesmen blacksmiths, bakers, wheelrights, shoemakers, carpenters, and masons made valuable contributions to the life of the community. By 1860, the population of Spring City (then called Spring Town) was 243 people. Indian trouble continued through 1869, when treaties were signed ending hostilities. The towns people, with life more secure, turned full attention to agriculture, stock raising, wool growing, lumbering, and other rural pursuits, In 1870, the town was incorporated as Spring City.

Significance of Spring City

In town plan and in the distribution of farm land, Spring City (like other communities in the valley) adheres to a “farm village” system advocated by L.D.S. Church leaders. According to the village scheme, houses, barns, vegetable gardens and orchards would be contained within the boundaries of the village. The large town lots, approximately an acre each, easily accommodated this large number of buildings arid domestic activity. Farm land lay outside the village,, with farmers commuting daily to their outlying fields. The farm village settlement pattern is commonly found throughout the world and is particularly linked to early English agricultural practices. Village living, however, proved unpopular in the United States where the “isolated farmstead” individualized pattern of land tenure predominated. Communitarian thinking, inspired by the Utopian ferment of the early 19th Century, brought the village idea back into currency among groups advocating social reform. As part of this larger religious Utopia movement, the early Mormons were likely influenced in their town planning activity by the resurgence of the farm village pattern.

The Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, outlined through his teaching a plan for the salvation of mankind. The Second Coming would not occur until the kingdom of God had been built on earth. The Saints were to “gather” together and build the City of Zion, a new Jerusalem, to await the millennium. The city of Zion would have a plan, and on June 25, 1833, the prophet delivered to his followers the “Plat for the City of Zion.” Smith’s “plat” basically called for a gridiron block arrangement, blocks divided into lots, center blocks reserved for Church buildings, wide streets, houses of brick or stone construction, and the town surrounded by fields. While some scholars have disputed the claim that Smith’s “Plat” influenced town planning in Utah, it appears that L.D.S. planners in Utah realized the “general principles” of the “Plat of the City of Zion” even if their interpretations were never literal.8 The perpetuation of the “Mormon Village” in the Great Basin has produced a distinctively religious landscape in the West.9 While non-Mormon western ranchers chose the isolated farmstead, the Saints opted for the controlled atmosphere of the nucleated village. If mining boom towns grew in a haphazard organic fashion, the Mormon village was nurtured to maturity by the application of specific planning rules. Spring City is historically significant as an outstanding example of this “village” settlement type.

Spring City continues to communicate visually the structure of the nineteenth century Mormon village. The guiding principles of Joseph Smith’s “Plat of Zion” are openly in evidence. The geometry of the gridion provides the overriding blueprint for the plan. The five acre town blocks are subdivided into lots of roughly an acre and a quarter. Town lots contain dwelling house, barns, granaries, orchards, and vegetable gardens. Wide streets are the rule, with the older houses following a uniform “set back” of fifteen to twenty feet. Architecturally, the town is dominated by the L.D.S. meetinghouse, centrally located on Block 20. Vernacular domestic architecture predominates with a large number of the homes of native limestone. Non-contributory buildings do exist, but development of the town has been slow during the twentieth century and the post-1950 intrusions do not detract from the historical nature of the town. Many outstanding architectural examples continue to be inhabited and maintained by town residents.

Scandinavian Folk Building in Spring City

The Scandinavian house type found in Spring City is a variant of the northern European “pair house,” a three-bay plan arrangement with a centrally placed hall flanked by a pair of living rooms on each side. In Sweden, the house enjoyed widespread popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries and is called the “parstuga” type. Danish examples are not as clearly defined, but the “tvillinghus” or twin house is closely related to this basic three-room floorplan. The pairhouse in Utah is not an exact copy of Scandinavian originals, but rather, has been modified to its new Utah circumstances. The entrance-hall, corner bake oven, and attached animal shelter of the European house failed to survive the Atlantic crossing and do not surface on Utah examples. The pair house in Spring City has a straight forward three-room floorplan, a symmetrical façade, and chimneys placed on the ridge. A similar process of component adaptation occurred on pair houses built by Finns in northern Minnesota. There are three pair houses in Spring City, the Peter Monson house), the Hans Morgan Hansen house, and the Jens Jensen house.

Structures in the Historic District

  • Allred – Johnson House
  • James T. S. Allred House

Exchange Place Historic District

18 Monday Oct 2021

Posted by Jacob Barlow in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Historic Districts

Located at 350 South State Street in the downtown neighborhood of Salt Lake City, Utah

The Exchange Place Historic District was established as a National Register district and was designated a local district in 1978.

Exchange Place is the City’s only entirely commercial historic district and is based upon a collection of early 20th century buildings that were developed to create an alternative non-Mormon business center at the south end of Main Street. The district also includes the 1905 Federal Courthouse Building and Post Office, as well as the City’s first skyscrapers, the twin Boston and Newhouse Buildings. Exchange Place still contains a concentration of historic commercial buildings with excellent integrity. In addition to those mentioned, it also holds the 1909 Stock & Mining Exchange, 1909 Commercial Club, 1910 New Grand Hotel, 1910 Felt Building, and the Judge Building. The district is small and isolated, surrounded by non-historic buildings and parking lots. Its boundaries currently extend to the southwest across 400 South to include a vacant parking lot where a historic building once stood.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Follow Jacob

Follow Jacob

Come wander with me on Youtube.

Blog Stats

  • 2,105,976 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...