Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Normandy Village A Cultural Resource Survey of
a Post-World War II Development
Report prepared by Caitlyn Price, Eric Litchford, Meg Schloemer, and Amber Edmonds
2
UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
FALL 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Executive Summary.................................................................3
Methodology............................................................................5
History.......................................................................................7
Analysis...................................................................................25
Recommendations................................................................32
Bibliography...........................................................................35
Glossary...................................................................................39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
Cultural resources are some of the most valuable, yet most endangered resources in the United States.
Progress often results in the demolition of buildings deemed “old” or “unattractive” in order to build
“new and improved” structures. Post-World War II housing developments, such as Normandy Village
in Fredericksburg, Virginia, are currently at the greatest risk of being destroyed in the name of prog-
ress, but these neighborhoods have much to offer in terms of American history. Therefore, this cultural
resource survey was undertaken to investigate Normandy Village to determine whether it is an impor-
tant cultural resource worthy of protection through historic preservation.
The research team surveyed each property to collect information on structural features such as style,
materials, condition, alterations, and evidence of construction date in order to determine historical
integrity. These features were compared to characteristics of early suburban housing developments to
establish the degree to which Normandy Village exemplifies the composition and character of post-
war neighborhoods.
Results from the survey and analysis show the neighborhood is primarily a single-family housing
development predominantly built from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. The neighborhood features
characteristics of typical post-World War II suburbs. Further, the majorities of the structures are
well-maintained and have not been substantially altered from their original mid-century forms. Thus,
Normandy Village is a significant and largely in-tact example of the changes in American housing and
lifestyle after World- War- II.
While the majority of structures contribute to the historical integrity and post-war character of the
neighborhood, the neighborhood faces multiple threats. The largest is the neighborhood’s current lack
of significance. Without being recognized as a cultural resource, Normandy Village is at risk of being
lost to neglect or new construction and future expansion.
In order to maintain the character and significance of Normandy Village, we recommend the neigh-
borhood be extended some degree of protection. There are various options, to be discussed in a subse-
quent section, but the overall purpose of each is clear: to educate the public on the contribution neigh-
borhoods like Normandy Village make to the interpretation of American history. Once the subdivision
is identified as a significant cultural resource, action can be taken to preserve and protect its character.
4
The purpose of undertaking this Cultural Resource Survey in Normandy Village was to assess the
history and integrity of the properties within to determine the neighborhood’s potential for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places. In September of 2013, two classes were divided into ten
groups of four people to survey different areas of the 1950s neighborhood in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
During our work in the field from September 22 to September 25, 2013, we surveyed these assigned
properties in groups of two or three people. The surveying process began with sketches and
documentary photographs. We then recorded the characteristics of the properties that were relevant
to the significance criteria of the National Register. The characteristics vital to our analysis include the
overall style, architectural features, condition, materials, integrity, and use of each property, as well as
any immediate threats to the structures such as new construction or large trees.
In addition to our time in the field, we also conducted archival research to help us figure out both the
construction dates of the properties and the overall history of the neighborhood. This information
was collected from the Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg Clerk’s Office, the Fredericksburg Research
Resources database, Simpson Library, and Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, and the Virginiana
Room at the Central Rappahannock Library.
After preliminary data was collected and archival research was completed, SPSS was used to correct any
mistakes present in the survey information to ensure accuracy in our analysis. Mapping software and
Photoshop were used to create maps based on the data, and Excel was used to create tables and charts
to better illustrate our results. We compared our results to our research finding to analyze the extent to
which Normandy Village reflects national trends in the mid-twentieth- century. This comparison
METHODOLOGY
5
6
allowed us to propose treatments for the preservation of the neighborhood as an early example of the
new suburban lifestyle that characterized post-World War II America.
Online survey form
The area known as Normandy Village is a mid-nineteenth-century development in Fredericksburg,
Virginia. Although the area consists of two distinct tracts, the Fairgrounds subdivision and the later
Normandy Village subdivision, together the neighborhoods are local examples of significant events and
changes in American history that still affect modern life.
Early Fredericksburg
Although the land upon which Normandy Village was built was not always part of Fredericksburg, it
shares much of its history with the City. Fredericksburg was part of a 2000 acre tract granted to John
Buckner and Thomas Royston in 1671, who in 1721 laid out a town of 50 acres (Royston and Buckner,
1721). Seven years later in 1728, the town of Fredericksburg was officially established as a port for
Spotsylvania County (Fredericksburg City Charter, amended 2009). Its location on the south bank of
the Rappahannock River made it a convenient and popular sea port where containers of tobacco,
weapons, and other goods could be shipped to and from Fredericksburg. The river also led to the
development of many lumber and flour mills in and around the area, and trade and industry became
the staples of Fredericksburg’s thriving economy throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
During this period, Fredericksburg had many famous residents such as Mary Washington, James
Monroe, and John Paul Jones. The town welcomed many influential visitors as well, including George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who are said to have met in many of the town’s taverns and
whispered about plans for the Revolutionary War (Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce, 1976).
Fredericksburg would see many more famous visitors in the coming century, as its location between the
Union capitol in Washington, D.C. and the Confederate capitol in Richmond made the area a natural
battleground. The Battles of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Chancellorsville, and the Wilderness raged
no more than twelve miles from Fredericksburg and brought devastation to much of the area
HISTORY
7
(Heidler & Heidler, 2000). Commerce and progress came to a halt and important buildings were
damaged or destroyed. Worse, while the United States was moving toward reliance on railroads for
travel and trade, Fredericksburg had no railroad
connection (Shibley, 1976). It took some time for the
economy to rebound, but by the mid-1870s,
Fredericksburg was a thriving town again and in 1879,
it became a city independent of Spotsylvania County
(Fredericksburg City Charter, amended 2009).
A Growing City
Before its chartering as a city, the boundaries of Fredericksburg were expanded six times (Alvey, 1978).
As the economy and the population of the City grew after the Civil War, residents began looking for
entertainment. By the late 1880s, a fair had not been held for the city for over twenty-five years. The last
fair had been held in 1860 near Spotswood Street, but was forced to stop when the Civil War began in
1861 (Quinn, 1908). By 1878, that area had been developed and was no longer large enough to house
the fair (Gray, 1878). The search began for sufficient fairgrounds and Amaret Farm, just west of town
between Fall Hill Avenue and the Rappahannock River, was the clear favorite. The Rappahannock
Valley Agricultural and Mechanical Society purchased the 64 acre farm in 1887 and it was there that
annual agricultural fairs were held for almost half a century with “great success” (Spotsylvania County
Clerk, 1887; Quinn, 1908, p. 170).
The fairgrounds became a popular gathering place
for many other events, especially horse racing.
The property featured an equestrian race track and
stables, and these amenities allowed Fredericksburg
to host the 1928 “Greater Fair” in which the main
event was a race between over 60 horses from across
the country (Washington Post, 1928). By the early
8
Aerial of the old fairgrounds (note: the race track in the center)
Civil war damage in Fredericksburg
1930s, the Great Depression had once again challenged Fredericksburg’s economy, and the fairgrounds
suffered into oblivion (“History of the Fair,” 2012).
The Great Depression and the decades following it marked a turning point not only in Fredericksburg,
but across the nation, and the resulting changes still affect American life in highly conspicuous ways.
Although it took some time for Normandy Village and the Fredericksburg area to adapt to the changes
that would present themselves in the years following the Great Depression, the true context for this
neighborhood lies in national trends. Therefore, before exploring the history of Normandy Village
specifically, we will examine the national developments that set the stage for the interpretation of the
local neighborhood.
Desperate Times
In the early 1930s, the Great Depression swept the nation, causing deplorable living conditions in many
areas and little chance of economic improvement, as few paying jobs were available. Developers could
not afford to build or repair structures because people could not afford to pay for such services. There
was an inescapable need for an improvement in the American economy and quality of life.
Recognizing this, the federal government took action with the National Housing Act of 1934, which
hoped to create paying jobs and stimulate the economy by offering federal funds for home repairs and
new construction (Pettis et. al., 2012). The Act also established the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA), which encouraged lenders to invest in mortgages by providing insurance and limited lender
interest rates to encourage people to buy homes (Pettis et. al., 2012; Public Law 73-479, 1934). Finally,
up to this point, mortgages were 5-10 year instruments, which made them affordable to only a small,
read wealthy, portion of the public. The National Housing Act extended mortgage terms to 20 or 30
years with fixed-interest rates, which made buying a home a more attainable, but not certain goal for
the middle and lower classes (Public Law 73-479, 1934).
9
America at War
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the American naval
station in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The next day, the United States
entered World War II and converted to a full-scale war economy.
Jobs were immediately plentiful and 15 million men and women
went to work in some capacity for the armed services alone (Har-
ris, Mitchell, & Schechter, 1984).
The vast majority of American resources were focused on the war
effort. Americans conserved all they could, from money to bacon
fat, and were encouraged to buy war bonds to insure victory
overseas. Gas was rationed, the speed limit on roads was set to 35 miles per hour, and pleasure driving
was banned in order to save rubber and gasoline during the war (Harris et. al., 1984).While housing
was not rationed, the influx of defense workers to military bases made housing a scarce
commodity during the war. Local residents offered temporary shelter to those in need in places like
garages, warehouses, and tents (Harris et. al., 1984). This desperate solution, while it fulfilled a need,
would not suffice for long.
Great Changes
In September of 1945, the Allied Forces claimed victory over the Axis powers. Thousands of troops
returned to the United States and exacerbated the already severe lack of housing. To make matters
worse, many of the returning veterans were of marriage age, and the marriage rate soon reached its
highest point to date (Super, 2005). The increased marriage rate led to the baby boom, the period from
about 1946 to 1964 in which birth rates skyrocketed and maintained high levels (Ciment, 2007). This
increase in family size meant that not only did America have veterans to house; it also had to house
their wives and growing families.
While the federal government may not have anticipated the marriage and baby boom, it did
10
Poster advocating for rationing during the war
anticipate the housing problem. In order to combat the housing
issue and the various other issues returning veterans would face,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Veterans Readjust-
ment Act in 1944. This Act, better known as the G.I. Bill, gave
war veterans access to unemployment compensation, federal
funds to receive higher education and training, and low-interest
loans to start businesses or build homes (“The GI Bill’s History,”
2012). Perhaps the most significant part of the legislation,
however, was that it extended mortgage insurance to all veterans
which, combined with veterans’ ability to secure loans, made it
easier for them to buy and build homes upon their return to the
United States (Pettis et. al., 2012).
Despite these benefits, there was an unfortunate lack of homes for returning veterans to purchase. New
homes were being constructed, but most often only for the wealthy with “easy money to spend” (Bondi,
1995). This led the new president, Harry S. Truman, to sign the Veterans’ Emergency Housing Act in
1946, the objective of which was to make affordable housing for veterans the greatest priority for
current resources without interfering much with the economic success of the construction industry
(Bondi,1995). To do this, the federal government provided subsidies to producers of new materials that
would allow developers to construct homes for veterans quickly and at less expense (Pettis et. al.,
2012). Developers took the benefits of this legislation to the next level.
Traditional home construction was neither quick nor inexpensive, as most houses up until this point
were uniquely designed for each client. Even with governmental subsidies, low-cost residential con-
struction was at the bottom of developers’ lists; until William J. Levitt came along. Levitt was a real
estate developer who, in 1946, bought 1200 acres of farmland in the Hempstead area of Long Island,
New York (Bondi, 1995). He bulldozed everything on the farm, including the trees, and built the model
for post-war housing: the suburb.
11
Severe lack of housing for returning troops
The idea of the suburb was based on the concept of
economies of scale, which states the cost of an
individual object in a homogeneous production
process decreases as volume increases. Levitt
capitalized on this, offering only a few moderate
home styles to be built on lots just large enough to
accommodate the house and a modest yard. The
homes lined winding roads that were designed to
slow down traffic. This model was extremely
successful; not only was it attractive to families with young children searching for a safe, affordable
place to live, it also used a standardized process that allowed Levitt to purchase materials in bulk and
build up to 30 homes per day in his neighborhoods in the northeast United States and Puerto Rico
(Ciment, 2007).
Levitt’s affordable idea was replicated throughout the United States at varying scales. Americans
uprooted by the war were looking for a permanent place to call home, and home ownership became the
center of the American Dream (Ciment, 2007). Levittowns and its successors opened home ownership
opportunities to the expanded middle class and non-veterans. At the same time, the G.I. Bill helped
make new suburban neighborhoods affordable for returning veterans. In fact, in both 1946 and 1947,
over 40% of new home mortgages were financed through the G.I. Bill (Pettis et. al., 2012).
The combination of these housing innovations and the new American Dream of homeownership
impacted the American way of life: more single family homes were purchased from 1946 to 1956 than
had been purchased in the first half of the twentieth century preceding World War II (Super, 2005).
However, while these events were important factors in the establishment and success of suburbs, they
were not the only elements to significantly shape the new American landscape.
12
A street in Levittown, Maryland
Great Prosperity
Aside from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was the only power in World War II to not
be invaded or have its cities destroyed by bombs (Harris et. al., 1984). Because the infrastructure was
intact and there was no need to spend resources rebuilding, America was able to essentially pick up
where it left off, but this time in a better economic condition. After the war, per capita income
increased by 35% (Super, 2005). With growing incomes and four years of saved money, Americans
were ready to spend and as a result, consumerism became a way of life. People purchased homes, cars,
appliances, and other modern conveniences in record numbers, and this willingness to buy fueled the
development and longevity of suburban neighborhoods.
The economy continued to grow in the 1950s, with 60% of the population having a middle-class
income midway through the decade (Super, 2005). The decade wascharacterized by a feeling of
confidence and optimism and a never-ending desire for
progress (Super, 2005). The general quality of life,
particularly in terms of economic prosperity, helped fuel
the baby boom. From 1945 to 1955, the birth rate
increased by 25% while the Gross National Product more
than doubled (Ciment, 2007). This coupling of economic
prosperity and the baby boom directly influenced the
growth of suburbs. In 1940, children ages five to eighteen
accounted for 20% of the population, 19.5% of which
lived in suburbs. By 1960, one in three Americans was a school-age child, and 30.7% of the United
States population now lived in suburbs because they provided a safe, controlled environment for
children (Ciment, 2007).
The factors that characterized the 1950s continued into the 1960s, which was the longest period of
uninterrupted economic growth in American history in which per capita income increased by 41%
(Hamilton, Brunelle, Scully, and Sherman, 2000). The baby and housing booms also continued into
13
Saftey in the suburbs
the 1960s. In fact, from 1940 to 1960, home ownership grew from 43% to 62%, and the most modern,
stylish housing situation was a single family home in the suburbs (Super, 2005). Again, while the baby
boom and affluent society of the 1950s and 60s made significant contributions to the growth of the
suburbs, these events do not fully explain “mass exodus” of middle-class families to the suburbs.
Car Culture
The 1950s was one of the most significant turning points in American history. Not only was this decade
characterized by mass production and consumerism and the peak of the Baby Boom, it also solidi-
fied the United States as an automobile culture. Automobile sales skyrocketed from 2 million in 1945
to 51 million in 1955 (Super, 2005). This was no doubt due to
the economic prosperity the country was experiencing, but it
was also the result of gradually improving road conditions. In
the first few decades of the twentieth century, roads were often
nothing more than dirt paths littered with dangers like ruts,
rocks, and improper drainage. Combined with less than ideal
tires, cars that left the city limits risked getting stuck in the
mud (Heitmann, 2009). Citizens began pushing for better roads in the early 1900s, and it soon became
a national movement.
Concerns about roads were finally addressed in 1956 when the Federal-Aid Highway Act was signed
into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Its provision for $175 million to aid the construction of
interstate was the first federal funding of its kind. Eisenhower said this act was simply to get the
interstate system started, but that more must be done. Following this notion, the National Interstate
and Defense Highway Act, which allowed for $25 billion to be spent from 1956 to 1968 on a 41,000
mile network of new roads, was passed in 1956. The roads built under this program were to be of the
“highest standards” of safety and efficiency (Pettis et. al., 2012).
While the project took longer than expected, the new highway system did transform American life.
14
The automobile ride as leisure time
Travel time in America decreased, and citizens could live further from their jobs. In fact, it is unlikely
that any of these elements: automobiles, highways, or suburbs would exist to the extent they do today
without each other. Cars fueled the need for highways and the success of the suburbs, while suburbs
fueled the use of cars and the building of highways and access roads. Instead of building schools,
stores, and services within walking distance, suburbs were built to be large, single-use, residential
tracts (Jennings, 1990). To access their jobs, run errands, and take their children to and from school
and other activities, families had to buy cars and use roads.
There were risks associated with the increased use of automobiles and the increased speed the new
highways facilitated. Newspapers often featured stories of multiple motorist deaths, especially over
holiday weekends, and safety became a large concern in and out of the car, particularly when children
were involved (Free Lance-Star, 1959).
Despite its associated dangers, it is clear that the automobile was both a contributing factor to and
a result of the new prosperous, suburban lifestyle. The American dependence on cars facilitated the
“mass exodus to the suburbs” and formed the neighborhoods and streetscapes that are still familiar
today (Super, 2005).
Suburban Iconography
The new consumption-driven culture was evident in every
aspect of American life. The American Dream was not just
about owning a home; the home needed to be as safe,
comfortable, and efficient as possible. Before World War II,
more people lived in cities than in suburbs. After the war,
however, growing concerns over safety and vice in the city led
young families to look for a more quiet and safe place to live
where they still had access to what the city had to offer (Hall,
2006). They found this in rural areas just outside of the city and small towns, where life was simpler
and reminiscent of pre-modern America. These two factors, the demand for urban amenities and a
15
Winding streets of Levittown, New York
mythical neighborhood “cloaked in a rustic atmosphere”, formed the vision of the American suburb
and caused middle-class families to flock to the suburbs (Hall, 2006, p. 663).
What did the “rustic atmosphere” mean in terms of the appearance of suburbs? It meant planned
communities with pattern-book homes neatly placed on spacious, individual lots on carefully winding
roads (Hall, 2006). The goal was to create the look and feel of a park, so lots often featured lush
landscaping and winding sidewalks. Suburbs were also meant to be a clean place to live for modern
families with strong morals. In fact, the popular culture image of the model family was a nuclear group
with an uncomplicated life “nested in a colonial, ranch, or cape cod house with modern conveniences”
(Hall, 2006, p. 665).
The image of the model home and family translated to reality, as the most common home styles in the
early 1940s and on were the cape cod and ranch. After the war, more modern styles began to dominate.
While the cape cod and ranch remained very popular, the minimal traditional home became the
dominant style (Lewis, 2011).
Each of these styles were popular because their designs reflected the social, economic, and
technological trends in America. Suburban homes were stressed as places where the wife established
and enforced morals and created a nurturing atmosphere for her family. To promote family bonds,
these homes often featured single-story open plans with a cooking, eating, and lounging area and a
roomy, easily accessible front and backyard perhaps equipped with a patio and barbeque for outdoor
fun (Hall, 2006; Carley, 1994). Multi-pane and picture windows became popular because they allowed
natural light into living spaces and made homes more “people-friendly” (Carley, 1994, p. 230). The
ranch floor plan was designed to easily accommodate all of these features, and as a result it became
the “ultimate symbol of the American Dream” in the decades following World War II (Carley, 1994, p.
236).
Suburban housing tracts were made possible by the American highway system and the automobile, but
16
they also encouraged the use of cars. New single family homes featured driveways that often led to a
carport or, if the family could afford it, a garage (Jennings, 1990). This dependence on cars transformed
roadside America as well. Commercial architecture took over to capitalize on and facilitate the popular
use of cars; gas stations, motor courts, motels, restaurants, service stations, and strip shopping malls
with off-street parking lined suburban access roads (Jennings, 1990). Some businesses even went as far
to have automobile service stations in or immediately outside of suburban neighborhoods in order to
be as close to their middle-class, paying customers at all times (Jennings, 1990).
Strip malls and shopping centers were also built in close quarters to suburban neighborhoods to not
only capitalize on consuming neighborhood customers, but also people driving through town who may
be compelled to stop. Shopping malls enticed locals and passers-by to “stop and shop” at their facilities
where virtually anything the consumer wished to buy was available, which gave rise to the idea of “one-
stop” shopping (Super, 2005).
Drawing Conclusions
It should now be clear that suburban America would not have been possible, or at least not become as
widespread, without the four factors discussed above: housing legislation, the baby boom, economic
prosperity, and the solidification of the United States as a car culture. These national trends reached
every community across the nation, and examples of their impact are visible virtually everywhere. The
aftermath of World War II still affects American life, and Normandy Village is a quintessential local
example of the impact.
Local Impact
The complex events discussed above fundamentally altered American life across the nation, but not
overnight. Regional differences and varying circumstances allowed some towns to adopt trends early
while others took some time. While Fredericksburg, Virginia was not an early adopter, it certainly
wasn’t a laggard either. Instead, the timetable by which the city adopted national trends seems to have
been based on local demand and need.
17
Recall the negative impact the Great Depression had on the quality of life in the early 1930s.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act into law in June of 1934, and it seems
as though Fredericksburg had a need for affordable housing and at least one contractor who was willing
to build it, because the city took action (Pettis et. al., 2012). A local development that is likely a result
of this legislation is Elmhurst Avenue off of Pelham Street between Washington and Fall Hill Avenues.
This small “subdivision” was established in 1935 and predominantly features Cape Cod houses (Short-
er, n.d.). Building multiple houses in the same style with bulk materials could be done quickly and at
relatively low expense, all while creating jobs and homes in the community. Therefore, Elmhurst is an
example of the National Housing Act’s influence right after its passing; the country was still suffering
economically, but places with substantial demand and willing contractors were encouraged to do what
they could to improve quality of life and stimulate the economy because their efforts were backed by
the full faith of the federal government (Pettis et. al., 2012; Super, 2005).
The National Housing Act may have also eventually given new life to the old Fredericksburg fair-
grounds. On October 31, 1940, fifteen blocks were laid out on the land in Spotsylvania County to
establish the new Fairgrounds, also known as Amaret Farm, subdivision (Spotsylvania County Clerk,
1940). [advertising plat from Meg/Stanton] Over thirty people invested in the land, many of which
were prominent local businessmen and some of which who purchased entire blocks. Despite the inves-
tors’ fervor, it seems construction of homes was soon abandoned due to the United States’ entrance into
World War II on December 8, 1941.
World War II did more than just stall residential construction in Fredericksburg; it brought road
construction to a halt. Since May of 1927, Princess Anne Street and Lafayette Boulevard, collectively
known as U.S. Route 1, were the principal roads used to pass through the City of Fredericksburg (Jef-
ferson Davis Highway Opening Parade Program, 1927). However, early in 1941, construction on a new
Route 1 that would begin at the Falmouth Bridge and end at Four Mile Fork, bypassing the city, was
begun. The project lost priority later in the year when the United States entered World War II as all
productive resources were to be put toward the war effort (Free Lance-Star, 1945).
18
Construction of the Route 1 bypass actually resumed during the war in October of 1944, and even
though the length of the bypass was only about five miles, it took another two years to complete
(Free Lance-Star, 1945). The bypass opened in the summer of 1946, and played a major role in the
transformation of the look and feel of Fredericksburg after World War II and into modern times (Free
Lance-Star, 1946).
One of the first developments along the Route 1 bypass corridor was the Fairgrounds subdivision.
Records show the first few homes were built in 1945, but it was not until 1947 and 1948, after the
Route 1 bypass was built, that home construction in the neighborhood takes off (Fredericksburg City
Directory, 1945). Roads such as the bypass directly influenced the growth of suburbs because they
made traveling further than just a few blocks not only possible, but also fast. Families could now live
further from their jobs and other activities in Fredericksburg because cars and roads allowed them to
drive there in an acceptable amount of time. Post-war families found this lifestyle compelling, because
they could live a safe, quiet, moral life in the suburbs without giving up the amenities the city had to
offer.
19
Advertisement for the fair grounds subdivision
The fairgrounds subdivision was populated with the most
prevalent housing styles of the post-war era in which the
ideal modern family was said to live: the ranch, minimal
traditional, and Cape Cod. It may have been the subdivi-
sion’s stylish and attractive potential that caused so many
prominent citizens in the Fredericksburg area to purchase
lots for personal homes or for investment profits. Original
investors who purchased more than one lot included the
President of the Fredericksburg Mutual Building and Loan Association Cecil L. Reid, attorney A.W.
Embrey, insurance and real estate agent John W. Allison, and Robert B. Payne, who started a heating
and cooling company that is still successful today (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1940). Many of these
investors trusted their lots to contractors Louis C. Mitchell or B&C Homes, Inc., who were active in the
area in the 1950s and built many of the homes along Hanson Avenue Woodford Street, respectively
(“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011).
Not all of the original landowners bought in bulk. Suburban neighborhoods were a place for the
middle class, so it follows that some of the first owners would purchase single lots upon which to build
a family home. Potential examples of the first inhabitants of the Fairgrounds subdivision are Miss Ruth
M. Olds, a stenographer for John W. Allison’s real estate and insurance company, and W. Percy Brown,
who worked at the post office (Fredericksburg City Directory, 1938). It is unclear if any veterans in the
Fredericksburg area took advantage of the G.I. Bill to purchase homes in the Fairgrounds subdivision,
but the federal championing of affordable single family home construction certainly allowed families
like those of Olds and Brown to purchase homes outside of the city.
Unfortunately, the Fairgrounds subdivision did not welcome everyone. American suburbs, with few
exceptions, were homogeneous developments for white, middle class families. This is likely due to the
fact that suburban neighborhoods were conceived in the mid-twentieth-century, when prejudice and
segregation were a general social norm. Since it would be built in part of the old south, the contract
20
A model built by L.C. Mitchell
that started the Fairgrounds subdivision in 1941 contained a clause that banned any person of African
descent from purchasing, leasing, using, occupying, or serving as a domestic servant in the
neighborhood for 99 years (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1941). Therefore, life in the suburbs was
arguably not as moral and clean as it was made out to be.
Nevertheless, the Fairgrounds subdivision grew, and Fredericksburg expanded as well. Up to this point,
the fairgrounds were part of Spotsylvania County. It was not until 1951, when the city annexed 234
acres, that the Fairgrounds subdivision became part of Fredericksburg (Fredericksburg City Clerk,
1951). While the annexation expanded Fredericksburg’s population and tax base, it did not change
much in terms of the neighborhood. The roads in the Fairgrounds subdivision, which were laid out by
the time the first homes were built in the late 1940s, had been named for important figures in
Fredericksburg history. Woodford Street, for example, was named for General William Woodford who
commanded Virginia troops during the Revolutionary War while Wallace Street was named for the
Wallace family who was active in Fredericksburg throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century
and donated their book collection to form the basis for the Central Rappahannock Regional Library
(Alvey, 1978).
The Fairgrounds subdivision saw substantial development in the 1950s. It’s almost immediate success,
and the popularity of suburbs across the nation, kept demand strong, and developers took advantage of
the situation. A Free Lance Star article that ran in the June 26, 1954 issue reported the biggest [housing
project] in city history” had begun on the old 37.5 acre Normandy Farm across Fall Hill Avenue from
the Fairgrounds subdivision.
The planned community, called Normandy Village, would feature 100 affordable brick homes in five
stylistic variations (Free Lance-Star, 1954). When surveyor L. R. R. Curtis created a blueprint of the 22
homes constructed by November of 1954, three house types were shown; types A and C were ranches
while type B was a ranch rotated 90 degrees, which resulted in a long and deep, bungalow-like floor
plan with a minimal traditional exterior (Curtis, 1954).
21
These first homes were a trial run by the contractor Normandy Village, Inc., likely to make sure the
neighborhood would catch on. Their strategy was much like that of William J. Levitt and Louis C.
Mitchell: build many of the same houses to conserve time and money. Money seemed to be of great
concern for Normandy Village, Inc. from the start, as it was incorporated in Delaware where legal and
monetary requirements on corporations are minimal compared to most other states (Agreement be-
tween Fredericksburg and Normandy Village, Inc., 1955). To further cushion their profit margin,
Normandy Village, Inc. designed their homes and construction process to allow a home to be complet-
ed in about three weeks (Free Lance-Star, 1954).
While the Normandy Village area was
predominantly residential, the blocks
closest to the Route 1 bypass often
contained commercial and industrial
developments. This was not abnormal;
recall that automobile service stations were
often placed as close to suburban
neighborhoods as possible to capitalize on
the middle class residents’ use of cars.
Normandy Village is no exception. Blanton Motor Company, a repair shop and car dealership, was
built by L.C. Mitchell on Wallace Street in 1952 and less than two years later, another repair shop called
Service Transportation, Inc. was built down the street (“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,”
2011).
As the American reliance on the car automobile escalated, commercial development increased as well.
The George Washington Motor Court was built about a mile from Normandy Village in the 1950s to
house travelers and soon after, the strip mall was born to fulfill their shopping needs, as well as those of
Fredericksburg residents. The first of these “stop and shop” centers, called the Amaret Shopping Center,
was built cross the bypass from Normandy Village in 1956 by L.C. Mitchell (“Surviving Fredericksburg
Building Permits,” 2011).
22
Blanton’s bypass service station
At this time, car culture in America was thriving and
automobile sales were rising as families were buying
vehicles to accommodate their new lifestyles. While
husbands were at work, wives were in charge of taking care
of the children and transporting them to their schools that
were no longer within walking distance. Local car
dealership Beck Chevrolet realized the sales potential of
the “second family car” to fulfill these modern family needs
and therefore aimed its advertisements at suburban
Fredericksburg women. They ran an ad in August of 1958, just before the school year began, that
featured an attractive woman above the words, “Mother: for that second car to take junior to and from
school, see and drive a safe-ok used car from Beck’s”
(Free Lance-Star, 1958).
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 further intensified the ease and frequency of use of the
automobile in the United States. The Fredericksburg area was somewhat of an early adopter of the
legislation, as a 17.4 mile stretch of the brand new Interstate 95, which would run from Route 17 just
north of Fredericksburg to Prince William County, was approved in 1958 (Free Lance-Star, 1958). The
$24.2 million project took quite some time to complete and was expanded to reach Massaponax to the
south, but by December of 1964, the “superhighway” was ready. An opening ceremony was held in the
frigid cold to celebrate Fredericksburg’s modernity and its new connection to a vastly expanded
network of roads, destinations, and visitors (“95 at 40,” 2004).
It is important to note that while cars were celebrated in American culture, they also posed great
danger to human life both inside and outside of the car. Even suburban neighborhoods like Normandy
Village, where roads were designed to slow traffic, recognized the dangers associated with the reliance
on automobiles. In an October 1958 letter to the Fredericksburg City Manager, housed at the Central
Rappahannock Heritage Center in Fredericksburg, the president of the Normandy Village Civic
23
Another ad from Beck’s aimed at suburban women
Association expressed concerns over the safety of the neighborhood’s roads. He requested various
improvements, such as twenty-five mile per hour and speed limit and “children at play” signs. The
association president also requested a stop sign at the intersection of Fall Hill and Hanson Avenues,
where a “rash of minor automobile accidents” had occurred and meant it would “only [be] a matter
of time before someone [was] hurt seriously or killed” (Letter from William H. Hughes to F. Freeman
Funk, 1958).
The construction of I-95, which saw its own share of automobile accidents, relieved some of these
safety concerns as traffic on Route 1 decreased. This decrease in traffic along the corridor did not stop
development, however, because the consumerist fire was still burning in Fredericksburg. The
Fredericksburg Shopping Center, which was built in the 1970s just beyond the backyards of homes on
Woodford Street in Normandy Village, was the epitome of one-stop shopping (“Surviving
Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011). It featured an Italian restaurant, barber shop, and bank in
addition to stores selling groceries, shoes, sports equipment, electronics, and of course tires
(Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce, 1976). As time went on, the area of the Route 1 corridor
on the outskirts of Normandy Village was fully developed and continued to reflect architectural trends.
For example, the 1960s and 70s began to push for less offensive roadside architecture (Hamilton et. al.,
2000). This resulted in more residential forms like the structures on Route 1 in front of Normandy
Village that today house the BB&T and Wells Fargo banks.
Looking at Normandy Village and the surrounding Route 1 corridor, not much has changed. Many of
the buildings that resulted from post-war trends remain standing. In addition, since America still relies
on cars for daily activities, roadside attractions still cater to the automobile. Fast food restaurants, car
washes and repair shops, shopping centers, gas stations, and convenience stores line not just Route 1,
but countless American arterials. Many of these arterials and commercial strips, new or old, are in close
quarters to large tracts of identical homes like Normandy Village. In other words, the post-World War
II ideals of the suburban lifestyle and planned community still hold strong today, and their prevalence
is likely to remain until another fundamental shift in American life occurs.
24
Development
While the 269 structures in Normandy Village were constructed between 1944 and 2010, graph 1
shows development primarily took place between 1949 and 1959. 46% of the surveyed structures were
built in 1955 and 1956. This is likely a result of the 1955 construction agreement between Normandy
Village and the City of Fredericksburg that required at least 100 homes to be built on the Normandy
Farm property. Map 1 shows the grouping of homes built in this time period in the true Normandy
Village section of the neighborhood. Out of the structures surveyed, 88% were historically used as
single family residences. This data reflects the national trend of post-World War II suburban, single
family, housing development. Between 1950 and 1959 over 15 million new homes were built nation-
wide opposed to the 7.4 million constructed between 1940 and 1949 (Checkoway, 2009). Of homes
built in 1950s, 80.6% were built in suburbs outside of cities (Checkoway, 2009). The suburban boom of
which Normandy Village is a part can be credited to government programs and changing
transportation, cultural, social and economic trends in post-World War II America.
Chart 1: Normandy Village Construction Dates by decade
25
ANALYSIS
Map 1: Construction dates in Normandy Village
The development of Normandy Village as a whole coincides with the age of the automobile. The
postwar development of freeways, inexpensive gas and affordable automobiles drastically increased
automobile ownership (Pettis et. al., 2012). The ratio of car ownership went from 1 car per 13 people
(1:13) in 1920 to 1:4.8 in 1940 to 1:2.3 in 1970 (Fink, 1988). This allowed for people to move out of the
city and into nearby suburbs.
Post war economic affluence also gave people the means to fund new construction. The median family
income rose from $3,343 during the war to $5,150 post-war (The Impact of World War II on Postwar
American Culture). The improved economy along with the return of nine million veterans also
increased marriage and birth rates (Pettis et. al., 2012). The resulting increase in family size furthered
the need for housing following World War II. The primary construction period and building use in
Normandy Village shows the influence of these trends.
26
The construction of the majority of Normandy Village in the 1950s can also be contributed to
government programs, such as the National Housing Acts of 1934 and 1949 that provided mortgage
insurance and made home buying more attainable (Hoffman, 2002). These acts represent the Federal
Government’s precedence of single family home construction over other types of development. This
created a political environment that allowed for Normandy Village to later develop as a primarily single
family residential neighborhood.
The remaining 22% of structures that were not constructed between 1949 and 1959 fall into three
categories. Some were simply built later in the twentieth century, while others are modern homes that
were built after an original home was torn down. The remaining buildings are commercial structures
that developed along Route 1. Aesthetically the commercial buildings are distinct from the residential
buildings in Normandy Village but they still fit within the larger development pattern of the
neighborhood. The commercial structures developed from increased automobile use and favorable
economic conditions the same as the residential area of the neighborhood. The difference being that
the commercial buildings developed to provide services to the new population of people using automo-
biles and living in suburbs
As shown in map 2, the residential structures surveyed in Normandy Village consist of 8 different
styles. 90% of the buildings are homes built in the ranch, cape cod, neocolonial, and minimal tradi-
tional style, additionally, 0.7% are split level structures (refer to chart 2). These building styles reflect
the 5 architectural styles proposed by the original developers of Normandy Village (Free Lance-Star,
1954). On a national scale these styles were used in suburban development because their
prefabricated nature allowed for cheap and quick construction which could efficiently satisfy the post-
war housing demand (Super, 2005).
27
Chart 2: Structure Style Frequency
Two styles of houses make up the majority of the area surveyed; 58% of the homes are ranches and
23% are minimal traditional. The dominance of the ranch style in the surveyed area correlates with this
style’s post-war popularity. 90% of the ranches in the survey area were constructed in the 15 years after
World War II. The ranches constructed in Normandy Village during this time reflect the development
of suburbs as ideal places to raise children and live a safe, clean, modern life. As automobiles became
the primary means of transportation neighborhoods were not required to be as compact as in cities or
street-car suburbs. The ranch’s sprawling form, often complete with built-in garages, compliments the
greater space provided by suburbs (McAlester, 1984). The minimal traditional homes in the
surveyed area are again a product of post war housing developments. The cheap and efficient mass
construction of minimal traditional homes served to quickly satisfy the postwar housing demand
(Draft Preservation Plan Workbook).
The cape cods (4.8%) and neocolonial (4.1%), were largely built in the same peak period between 1949
and 1959, but their lower frequencies indicate that they were not as cheaply and efficiently constructed
in mass as the minimal traditional and ranch styles. The two split level houses in the survey area
coincide with the popularity of the ranch as the split level was a popular modification of the ranch
style (McAlester, 1984). The commercial and industrial structures that account for 9% of the buildings
28
developed apart from the residential structures of the neighborhood. All of the commercial structures
and all but one of the industrial structures are located on the eastern border of the neighborhood in
close proximity to Route 1. 75% of the commercial and industrial structures were built after 1949-1959.
Their later construction correlates with the approval of Interstate 95 in 1958 and its construction in
1964. (Free Lance-Star, 1958). This reveals that the commercial structures were developed as a function
of even greater automobile traffic that was afforded to Fredericksburg through the construction of new
roads.
Map 2: Building Styles in Normandy Village
29
Condition
As shown in chart 3 the buildings surveyed in Normandy Village were categorized as excellent, good,
fair or poor based on their condition. 4.5% of the buildings surveyed were considered excellent, 90%
were considered good, 4.8% were considered fair and 0.7% were considered poor. The large portion of
buildings in good condition is a result of many of the structures being maintained well but having some
replacement features such as windows and doors. The structures in poor condition were typically a
result of aesthetic and or structural degradation due to neglect.
Chart 3: Condition of the buildings in Normandy Village
Eligibility
From the information gathered, Normandy Village can be identified as a significant example of one of
the many post-World War II suburban housing developments nationwide. This establishes the
neighborhood’s period of significance as the 1949-1959 period in which 77% of the structures were
built. 81% of the structures surveyed in Normandy Village meet the historic associations and
architectural qualities to be considered a contributing structure to the neighborhood’s post-war
suburban identity. To be considered a contributing structure it must be a single family home and built
in an architectural style consistent with the neighborhood.
30
While ranches dominate the neighborhood, the cape cod, minimal traditional, and neocolonial
structures provide the neighborhood with architectural diversity. Additionally, these structures were
largely built within the period of significance and are prevalent enough to be considered homogenous
with the neighborhood. Non-eligible structures, which accounted for 19% of the structures surveyed,
consisted of 26 buildings that were not residences, 2 that were multi-family homes, and 23 that were
single family homes but feature architecture inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Map 3:Contributing and non-contributing structures
Conclusion
Through this analysis, Normandy Village has shown to be a significant example of a post-World War II
suburban development. The structures surveyed are largely in good or excellent condition and retain
much of their historical significance. The neighborhood’s main period of growth, building use, and
architectural styles embody a distinctive period in American history.
31
The research and analysis clearly show Normandy Village is an intact example of the changes World
War II brought to American life, but it is important to note that it is not the only example.
Neighborhoods such as this one were so necessary and popular after the war that they are common
occurrences across the country. However, this does not mean Normandy Village is insignificant.
When thinking about Fredericksburg, one most often imagines the downtown historic district.
However, Normandy Village is just a mile from the center of downtown and, as the archival research
shows, shares much of its history with the City of Fredericksburg. The old fairgrounds were located
by the Rappahannock River, and therefore shared in the City’s milling and sea trading industries. The
Normandy Village grounds were later used as a gathering place and event location before being
annexed into the City. When the land was turned into a housing development after World War II, many
of Fredericksburg’s middle-class, white residents flocked there. Therefore, Normandy Village is as much
a part of Fredericksburg as the historic downtown and adds a new, nationally-significant dimension to
the City’s history.
It is also important to consider what will happen if Normandy Village is not preserved. Not only are
these neighborhoods plentiful, many people also believe they are unattractive. This general opinion is
why mid-century neighborhoods are at such great risk for demolition and substantial change. If
mid-century neighborhoods are not protected, they will eventually disappear, and America will have
lost a significant aspect of its culture and history.
Normandy Village is a prime candidate for preservation. As the analysis shows, the majority of the
residential structures were built in the 1950s, making these structures eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, as they are at least fifty years old. In addition, many of the structures are
RECOMMENDATIONS
32
largely unchanged and give the neighborhood a distinctive mid-century character. The types of
structures and the general integrity of form and materials in Normandy Village fulfill National Register
evaluation criterion (c), which recognizes locations that “embody distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2008).
To reiterate the history, the neighborhood also exemplifies the major trends of the post-World War II
era that changed American life. This characteristic also qualifies Normandy Village for the National
Register under criterion (a), as the neighborhood is “associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2008).
For these reasons, we recommend an overlay district be established by the City of Fredericksburg to
include the region shown in Map 4. This zoning tool would institute authoritative guidelines for
alterations to structures visible from the public right of way in the historic district. Any landowner in
the historic district wishing to modify their structure would need to petition an Architectural Review
Board, which would also enforce the rules of the district.
33
Map 4: Proposed historic district
Historic overlay districts are not always supported by residents because guidelines are often strict and
enforced as such. In addition, historic districts can increase property values and therefore property
taxes. In the event that a historic overlay district is not feasible in an area like Normandy Village, other
preservation methods exist that are less restrictive on residents.
One option is to allow property owners monetary incentives in order to invest in maintenance of their
historic homes. For example, a tax freeze grants an owner a period of time in which property taxes will
be frozen at the previously assessed level. Therefore, if an owner makes improvements to their home
that would increase the property’s value, as long as the improvements uphold the structure’s historical
character, the property tax will not increase. A tax abatement reduces or eliminates a tax for a given
period of time. Another possibility is a subsidy, provided by the local government, for home
improvements and maintenance done to preserve a historical structure. Each of these methods
encourage property owners to only utilize materials and repair methods that do not jeopardize the
structure’s integrity.
Another possibility is a revolving fund program, which would provide a pool of money that could be
used to acquire properties in danger of demolition or neglect. A sympathetic owner then purchases
the structure, and the proceeds from this sale are put into the revolving fund to offset the cost of the
original acquisition of the building (Preservation Virginia, 2013). While the new owner of the property
must use personal funds to rehabilitate the structure, this type of program could benefit Normandy
Village, as multiple properties therein are threatened by the expansion of Route 1 and neglect.
No matter the degree of protection eventually afforded to Normandy Village, we feel an agreement can,
and should, be reached between the community and city officials to preserve this neighborhood. The
sooner action is taken, the better we can ensure that the contribution of Normandy Village to our local
and national history is preserved for future generations.
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (2008, March 11). National register evaluation criteria. ACHP.gov Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.achp.gov/ncriteria.html
Alvey, E. Jr. (1978) The streets of fredericksburg. Fredericksburg: The Mary Washington College Foundation, Inc.
Bettmann/CORBIS. (1954). Levittown, N.Y. [photograph] Retrieved from http://online.wsi.com/news/articles/SB123033369595836301
Bondeson, M. & Payne, D. (2013, September 23). 437 hanson avenue. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/6020-fall2013/
Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1930-1939. New York: Gale Research, Inc.
Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1940-1949. New York: Gale Research, Inc.
Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1950-1959. New York: Gale Research, Inc.
Carley, R. (1994) The visual dictionary of american domestic architecture. New York: Roundtable Press.
Central Rappahannock Heritage Center. (n.d.) Blanton’s by-pass service station. [postcard]. Fredericksburg, VA.
Checkoway, B. (2009). Large builders, federal housing programmes, and postwar suburbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4(1), 23.
Ciment, J. (2007) Postwar america: An encyclopedia of social, political, cultural, and economic history (Vols. I-II). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
City of Fredericksburg. (1945). City Directory. Fredericksburg: Fredericksburg area chamber of commerce.
City of Fredericksburg. (2009). Fredericksburg city charter, amend. Ch. II, §§ 7, 16. Retrieved from: http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/ charters/Fredericksburg.pdf
City of Fredericksburg. (1927). Program from the fredericksburg parade celebrating the opening of jefferson davis highway. Accessed October 23, 2013 from the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Clements, C. & Graff, M. (2013, September 25). 362 riverside. [photograph] Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/1003-fall2013-2/
Curtis, L. R. R. (1954) Blueprint [Map] Accessed October 23, 2013 from the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, Fred-ericksburg, Virginia.
Deed of Sale from Charles Tyler and wife to Rappahannock Valley Agricultural and Mechanical Society, 1 January 1887 (filed 31 March 1887), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book ZZ, page 414.
35
Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 31 October 1940 (recorded 1 November 1940), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book 125, page 425. Clerk’s Office, Spotsylvania, Virginia.
Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 4 June 1940 (recorded 1 November 1940), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book 127, page 88. Clerk’s Office, Spotsylvania, Virginia.
Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 31 October 1941 (recorded 4 June 1941), Fredericksburg, Virginia, Deed Book 76, page 1. Clerk’s Office, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Department of Veterans Affairs (2012) Born of controversy: The gi bill of rights. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline/index.html
Embrey, A. T. (1937) History of fredericksburg, virginia. Richmond: Old Virginia Press.
Envisioning the American Dream. (n.d.). Sunday’s drive. [print]. Retrieved from http://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2012/05/10/searching-for-suburbia/
Flink, J. J. (1988). The Automobile Age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fredericksburg Agricultural Fair (2012) History of the fair. Fredericksburg Argricultural Fair. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://fredericksburgfair.org/about-the-fair/history/
Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce. (1976) The fredericksburg area story. Lynchburg: Progress Publishing Corporation.
Fredericksburg Clerk’s Office. (1721). Plan of Fredericksburg, Virginia: 1721. [plat map].Retrieved from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats/fredericksburg-1721.jpg 2. civil war damage
Free Lance-Star. (1940). Valuable lots at public auction. Free Lance Star, p. 3.
Free Lance-Star. (1945, December 10) Route 1 by-pass project planned. Free Lance Star, p. 1.
Free Lance-Star. (1946, January 15) By-pass will be ready in summer. Free Lance Star, p. 1.
Free Lance-Star. (1954, June 26) Planned million-dollar housing project is begun, seen as the biggest in city history. Free Lance-Star, p. 2.
Free Lance-Star. (1955, February 7). Subdivision asks city to finance 10 –year program: $142,000 total involved in plan. Free-Lance Star, p 1.
Free Lance-Star. (1956, July 18). Building of homes sets new record. Free Lance-Star, p. 9.
Free Lance-Star. (1957, September 12). Advertisement. Free Lance-Star, p. 11.
Free Lance-Star. (1958, October 11). Receiver’s sale of valuable city lots, p. 9.
Free Lance-Star. (1958, June 13) Don’t leave your wife marooned. Free Lance-Star, p. 4.
Free Lance-Star. (1958, August 20) Beck chevrolet corp. Free Lance-Star, p. 18.
Free Lance-Star. (1959, April 3) Accident kills baby: Young couple’s trip is ended in tragedy. Free Lance-Star, p. 1.
Free Lance-Star (2004) 95 at 40. Fredericksburg.com. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://fredericksburg.com/News/ Web/2004/122004/I95/SlideShow/index_html?qstart=1
Goolrick, J. C. (1959, November 13). No rise forseen in city’s ebb tide of home-building. Free Lance-Star,p. 1
36
Gray, O. W. (1878) Gray’s new map of fredericksburg [Map], Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats.htm.
Hall, D. R., & Hall, S. G. (2006) American icons (Vol 3). Wesport: Greenwood Press.
Hamilton, N. A., Brunelle, J. K., Scully, B., & Sherman, R. (2000) Atlas of the baby boom generation. Detroit: MacMillan Library Reference.
Harris, M. J., Mitchell, F. D., & Schechter, S. J. (1984) The homefront: America during world war II. New York: Putnam.
Heidler, D.S., & J. (Eds.). (2000). Encyclopedia of the american civil war: A political, Social, and military history (Vol. 5). United States: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Heitmann, J. (2009) The automobile and american life. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Hoffman, A. V. (2002). A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2), 306.
Jennings, J (Ed.). (1990) The automobile in design and culture. Ames: Iowa University Press.
Layman, R. (1995) American decades: 1960-1969. New York: Gale Research, Inc.
Levittown Public Library (1949, November) Curved streets are viewed from above in Levittown, New York. [photograph] Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-25/suburban-pioneer-levittown-thrives-as-imitators-falter.html
Lewis, T. T. (2011) The forties in America (Vols. I-III). Pasadena: Salem Press.
Library of Congress. (1862 September). Street in fredericksburg, va., showing houses destroyed by bombardment in December, 1862. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.Gov/pictures/item/2012647804/
Lounsbury, C., & Patrick, V. E. (1994). An illustrated glossary of early southern architecture and landscape. New York: Oxford University Press.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (1958). Why did you buy a house. [advertisement]. Retrieved from http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/money-ads-1950s/12
McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A field guide to American houses. New York: Knopf.
Pettis, E., Squitieri, A., Slattery, C., Long, C., Kuhn, P., McClane, D., & Groesbeck, S. (2012) NCHRP Report 723: A model for identifying and evaluating the historical significance of post-world war II housing. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_723.pdf
Preservation Virginia.(2013). Revolving fund program. Preservation Virginia. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://preservationvirginia.org/programs/revolving-fund-program
Quinn, S. J. (1908) The history of the city of fredericksburg, virginia. Richmond: Hermitage Press. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/historyofcityoff00quin
Roberts, H.A. (1958, August 5) Suburban family loading ford four door sedan automobile for trip.[photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/blast_of_the_past/5260782869/
Rood, K. L. (1994) Dictionary of twentieth century culture: American culture after world war II. Detroit: Gale Research, Inc.
Royston & Buckner (1721) Plan of the Town of Fredericksburg [Map], Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats.htm.
37
Seventy-Third U. S. Congress (1934) National Housing Act. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/martin/54_01_19340627.pdf
Shibley, R. E. (1976) Historic fredericksburg: A pictorial history. Norfolk: The Donning Company.
Stafford County, Virginia. (1937). 1937 aerial. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.staffordcountygis.org/geoprime.html#ymax=6897554.559258397;ymin=6756487.892591731;xmax=11 990923.279631369;xmin=11626656.6129647
Super, J. C. (2005) The fifties in america (Vols. I-III). Pasadena: Salem Press.
Tallassee Democrat (1991, December 8) The Impact of World War II on Postwar American Culture. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 4.
Tennessee State Library and Archives. (n.d.). Do with less-so they’ll have enough. [poster]. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/tsla/exhibits/food/
Veteran’s Housing Center. (n.d.) Veteran Housing Center Advertisement. [poster].Retrieved from http://everydayfinesse.blogspot.com/2012/11/thanks-to-those-who-served.html
Vercruysse, A. & Hulfish G. (2013, September 20). 3209 normandy. [photograph] Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/4005-fall2013/
Washington Post. (1928, September 18). Fair starts today at fredericksburg: Crowds expected to see exhibits at annual four-day event. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com.ezproxy.umw.edu/news/docview/149821398/1413ECCB4884 63BF934/4?accountid=12299
Sources for the Glossary
An Illustrated Glossary of Early southern Architecture and Landscape by Carl R. Lounsbury
A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester
www.calbungalow.com
www.worldhouseinfo.com
homeinnovation.wordpress.com
architecture.about.com
architecture.about.com
http://bonzblogz.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
http://global.wonderware.com/DK/Pages/WonderwareFacilitiesManagementIndustrialOperations.aspx
www.premierconstructionva.com
University of Mary Washington. (n.d.) University of mary washington seal. [image]. Retrieved from http://www.umw.edu/
38
GLOSSARY
Architectural styles
Craftsman/Bungalow: Architectural style most popular between 1905
and 1930. Distinctive features include low pitched roofs, extended eaves,
exposed roof rafters, porches with tapered square columns, and mixed
building materials.
Cape Cod: Architectural style most popular between 1930 and 1950. A
typical Cape Cods has a side gable form with a steep pitched roof over 1
½ stories. The Façade has three bays ( two windows and a door) under
two gabled dormers.
Ranch: Architectural style most popular between 1935 and 1975. The
ranch style is composed of elongated, single story massings with low
pitched roofs. The buildings employ the gable or hipped form and often
have garages. Other distinctive features include large picture windows
and small amounts of traditional detailing such as decorative porch
supports or shutters.
Minimal Traditional: Architectural styles most popular between 1935
and 1950. This architectural style has a low pitched gable form and has
very few decorative details. They often have short eaves, a large chimney
and a front facing gable.
39
Neo Colonial: architecture style most popular from 1880 to 1955. This
architecture style imitates styles from the Colonial Period. Distinctive
features include symmetrically balanced facades, accented front doors
with fanlights, and entryways featuring columns and pediments.
Split level: architectural styles most popular between 1955 and 1975.
The split level is a multi-story modification of the Ranch style.
Distinctive characteristics include low-pitched roofs, elongated
massing, garages and overhanging eaves. The style usually consists of
3 floors, one of which sits half way between the top and bottom floor
creating a “split”. The separate floors serve to create a division of living space.
Commercial: non-residential structures built for the functional
purposes of businesses. Commercial structures often have concrete
walls, metal roofs and large window, but can take different forms
depending on the commercial industry a building is being used for.
Industrial: functional structures designed for the manufacturing of
materials or the housing of equipment. Industrial areas are often
spacious and use metal and concrete as primary building materials.
40
Condition: Excellent (E): The structure displays no physical deterioration and retains all of its original
materials. These buildings have no observable threats and retain all of their historic integrity.
Good (G): The structure is in good physical condition but may have some features altered or replaced.
These structures still retain most of their historic integrity.
Fair (F): The structure has physical deterioration. Observable threats to the building are noticeable.
Poor (P): The structure has severe aesthetic and structural damage that requires repair or demolition.
Eligibility: Contributing (C): The structure contributes to the historical context of the neighborhood.
The building’s use and architectural style is homogenous with its surroundings and reflects the neigh-
borhoods’ period of significance.
Non-Contributing: The structure does not contribute to the historical context of the neighborhood.
This includes building uses and architectural styles inconsistent with the areas period of significance.
Roof Types
General House Terms
Addition: portion of a building that was added to the original structure at a later date.
Alteration: a physical change to a building’s materials
Aluminum siding: exterior metal siding used to weatherproof a structure.
Asphalt shingles: roofing material consisting of paper coated with asphalt.Asphalt shingles are relatively
cheap and need replacement every 15-20 years.
Bays: the openings (doors or windows) on the vertical plane of a building’s façade that divide the
building into discreet units. For example a façade with a central door and one window on each side
would have 3 bays.
41
Bay Window: a multi-unit window that projects from the façade of a building.
Common Bond: the system of joining brick elements together that uses only stretchers. This brick
pattern is only one course thick and requires framing elements for additional support.
Chimney: A vertical masonry structure designed for the ventilation of smoke and gases out of a
structure. They can be located on the interior or exterior of a building.
Concrete block: A building material developed by mixing Portland cement and an aggregate into a
hallow block form. The early 20th century saw concrete block’s use as a building material increase due
to automated production, easy installation, low maintenance and fireproof nature.
Column: a vertical support structure designed to support other architectural features.
Cornice: decorative element that covers the space where a building’s wall meets the roof.
Dormer window: a window unit that protrudes from the slope of a roof. The protruding window
contains its own roofing element perpendicular to the building’s main roof.
Eve: an extension of the roof that protrudes past a building’s walls
Façade: The principal front or face of a building.
Fanlight: a decorative semi-circular window above a door.
Foundation: The base of a building that separates it from the ground and on which the rest of the
structure is built.
Garage: A structure to house an automobile. They can be attached or un-attached from the main
building.
Masonry: architectural construction using stone or brick.
Modillion: repeating decorative element of a cornice made up of horizontal brackets.
Multi-family home: a residential structure supporting more than one family.
Panel: A raised or sunk surface enclosed by a border for decorative purposes. Usually found on doors,
walls and ceilings.
Pediment: a low triangular gable with cornice that sits on top of a portico, colonnade, wall, or aperture.
Period of Significance: the time period that is most important to the areas historical makup.
Pitch: the angle of a roof
42
Porch: an exterior structure attached to the main building that is not fully enclosed but forms a
sheltered covering.
Single-family home: a residential structure supporting one family unit.
Shutter: Exterior hinged window covers that provide functional protection and decoration.
Portico: an exterior cover to an entrance of a building supported by columns.
Veneer: a thin decorative surface material glued to a structural base. Can be made up of wood, plastics,
or stone.
Vinyl siding: exterior wall cladding material manufactured from polyvinyl chloride used to
weatherproof a structure.
43
