DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

City of Fredericksburg Historic Resources Survey: Phase I FINAL REPORT February 2019 Prepared by: Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78757 512‐338‐2223 Prepared for: City of Fredericksburg, Texas Kemah, Texas 77565 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Report Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1. Research and Context Development ............................................................................................ 4 3.2. Fieldwork Preparation ................................................................................................................... 5 3.3. Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.4. Post‐Field Processing and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 6 4. National Register of Historic Places, Local Designation, and Preservation Priority Overview ............. 7 4.1. NRHP ............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.1. NRHP Significance ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2. NRHP Integrity .......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3. NRHP Period of Significance ..................................................................................................... 8 4.1.4. NRHP Districts ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.2. City of Fredericksburg Local Designation ...................................................................................... 9 4.2.1. Individual Local Landmarks ....................................................................................................... 9 4.2.2. Local Historic Districts ............................................................................................................ 10 4.3. Preservation Priority Ratings ...................................................................................................... 10 5. Historic Context ................................................................................................................................... 12 5.1. Settlement and Early Growth (1846–c. 1880) ............................................................................ 12 5.2. The Victorian Era (c. 1880–1920s) .............................................................................................. 16 5.3. Modern Era (1920s–1960s) ......................................................................................................... 19 6. Survey Results ..................................................................................................................................... 25 6.1. Results Summary ......................................................................................................................... 25 6.2. Characteristics of the Survey Area and Integrity ........................................................................ 26 6.3. Architecture ................................................................................................................................ 28 6.3.1. Vernacular Style ...................................................................................................................... 29 City of Fredericksburg Historic Resources Survey ii Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 6.3.2. Folk Victorian Style ................................................................................................................. 30 6.3.3. Bungalow Form ....................................................................................................................... 30 6.3.4. Craftsman Style ....................................................................................................................... 31 6.3.5. Minimal Traditional Style ........................................................................................................ 32 6.3.6. Postwar Modern Style ............................................................................................................ 32 6.3.7. Contemporary Style ................................................................................................................ 33 6.3.8. Ranch Style ............................................................................................................................. 34 6.4. Preservation Priorities................................................................................................................. 35 6.5. Local Landmark and NRHP Recommendations ........................................................................... 37 6.6. Local District Recommendations ................................................................................................ 41 10. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 44 11. Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 45 APPENDICES Appendix A Maps Appendix B Inventory Table Appendix C Survey Forms LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Historic‐age, Non‐historic‐age, and Vacant Parcels in the Survey Area........................................ 25 Table 2. Number of Surveyed Resources by Historic Function ................................................................... 25 Table 3. Preservation Priorities ................................................................................................................... 35 Table 4. Resources Recommended Eligible ................................................................................................ 38 Cover images: CMEC 2018 City of Fredericksburg Historic Resources Survey iii Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the findings of Phase I of a comprehensive historic resources survey of the City of Fredericksburg. The City of Fredericksburg retained Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC) in February 2018 to conduct the survey. The purpose of the survey was to document all buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts (defined as “resources”) within the boundaries of the Phase I survey area—focusing on resources built before 1969 (defined as “historic‐age”) and excluding previously surveyed properties—and identify individual resources or districts eligible for local listing or listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). See Figure 1 in Appendix A for a map of the survey area. CMEC historians conducted the survey between April 30 and May 2, 2018. In total, 398 historic‐ age resources were documented and evaluated for NRHP eligibility based on their potential historic significance and integrity. The survey area was also evaluated for potential new historic districts and for a potential expansion of the existing City of Fredericksburg Historic District. A draft report was submitted to the City in November 2018 for review by the Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Review Board, and the public. This final report incorporates additional information and feedback provided from these parties. As a result of the survey, CMEC recommends 28 resources eligible as local landmarks, one resource eligible for the NRHP, and a historic district expansion. This report begins with an introduction to the project and project objectives, followed by an overview of the survey methodology. Next is a brief overview of the NRHP, Fredericksburg’s local landmark program, and the City’s preservation priorities system. The historic context used by the survey team to evaluate properties is provided. The results of the survey are then presented along with a discussion of eligibility. A summary and bibliography follow. Included in the appendices are GIS‐based maps of the survey results, an inventory table of survey results, and survey forms for the historic‐age resources documented as part of this project. City of Fredericksburg Historic Resources Survey 1 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2. INTRODUCTION The City of Fredericksburg’s Department of Development
Recommended publications
  • The History of the Bexar County Courthouse by Sylvia Ann Santos

    The History of the Bexar County Courthouse by Sylvia Ann Santos

    The History Of The Bexar County Courthouse By Sylvia Ann Santos An Occasional Publication In Regional History Under The Editorial Direction Of Felix D. Almaraz, Jr., The University Of Texas At San Antonio, For The Bexar County Historical Commission Dedicated To The People Of Bexar County EDITOR'S PREFACE The concept of a history of the Bexar County Courthouse originated in discussion sessions of the Bexar County Historical Commission. As a topic worthy of serious research, the concept fell within the purview of the History Appreciation Committee in the fall semester of 1976. Upon returning to The University of Texas at San Antonio from a research mission to Mexico City, I offered a graduate seminar in State and Local History in which Sylvia Ann Santos accepted the assignment of investigating and writing a survey history of the Bexar County Courthouse. Cognizant of the inherent difficulties in the research aspect, Mrs. Santos succeeded in compiling a bibliography of primary sources and in drafting a satisfactory outline and an initial draft of the manuscript. Following the conclusion of the seminar, Mrs. Santos continued the pursuit of elusive answers to perplexing questions. Periodically in Commission meetings, the status of the project came up for discussion, the usual response being that sound historical writing required time for proper perspective. Finally, in the fall of 1978, after endless hours of painstaking research in old public records, private collections, and microfilm editions of newspapers, Mrs. Santos submitted the manuscript for editorial review and revision. This volume is a contribution to the Bexar County Historical Commission's series of Occasional Publications in Regional History.
  • The Historical Narrative of San Pedro Creek by Maria Watson Pfeiffer and David Haynes

    The Historical Narrative of San Pedro Creek by Maria Watson Pfeiffer and David Haynes

    The Historical Narrative of San Pedro Creek By Maria Watson Pfeiffer and David Haynes [Note: The images reproduced in this internal report are all in the public domain, but the originals remain the intellectual property of their respective owners. None may be reproduced in any way using any media without the specific written permission of the owner. The authors of this report will be happy to help facilitate acquiring such permission.] Native Americans living along San Pedro Creek and the San Antonio River 10,000 years ago were sustained by the swiftly flowing waterways that nourished a rich array of vegetation and wildlife. This virtual oasis in an arid landscape became a stopping place for Spanish expeditions that explored the area in the 17th and early 18th centuries. It was here that Governor Domingo Terán de los Ríos, accompanied by soldiers and priests, camped under cottonwood, oak, and mulberry trees in June 1691. Because it was the feast of Saint Anthony de Padua, they named the place San Antonio.1 In April 1709 an expedition led by Captain Pedro de Aguirre, including Franciscan missionaries Fray Isidro Félix de Espinosa and Fray Antonio Buenventura Olivares, visited here on the way to East Texas to determine the possibility of establishing new missions there. On April 13 Espinosa, the expedition’s diarist, wrote about a lush valley with a plentiful spring. “We named it Agua de San Pedro.” Nearby was a large Indian settlement and a dense growth of pecan, cottonwood, cedar elm, and mulberry trees. Espinosa recorded, “The river, which is formed by this spring, could supply not only a village, but a city, which could easily be founded here.”2 When Captain Domingo Ramón visited the area in 1716, he also recommended that a settlement be established here, and within two years Viceroy Marqués de Valero directed Governor Don Martín de Alarcón to found a town on the river.
  • San Antonio San Antonio, Texas

    San Antonio San Antonio, Texas

    What’s ® The Cultural Landscape Foundation ™ Out There connecting people to places tclf.org San Antonio San Antonio, Texas Welcome to What’s Out There San Antonio, San Pedro Springs Park, among the oldest public parks in organized by The Cultural Landscape Foundation the country, and the works of Dionicio Rodriguez, prolificfaux (TCLF) in collaboration with the City of San Antonio bois sculptor, further illuminate the city’s unique landscape legacy. Historic districts such as La Villita and King William Parks & Recreation and a committee of local speak to San Antonio’s immigrant past, while the East Side experts, with generous support from national and Cemeteries and Ellis Alley Enclave highlight its significant local partners. African American heritage. This guidebook provides photographs and details of 36 This guidebook is a complement to TCLF’s digital What’s Out examples of the city's incredible landscape legacy. Its There San Antonio Guide (tclf.org/san-antonio), an interactive publication is timed to coincide with the celebration of San online platform that includes the enclosed essays plus many Antonio's Tricentennial and with What’s Out There Weekend others, as well as overarching narratives, maps, historic San Antonio, November 10-11, 2018, a weekend of free, photographs, and biographical profiles. The guide is one of expert-led tours. several online compendia of urban landscapes, dovetailing with TCLF’s web-based What’s Out There, the nation’s most From the establishment of the San Antonio missions in the comprehensive searchable database of historic designed st eighteenth century, to the 21 -century Mission and Museum landscapes.
  • Texas Forts Trail Region

    Texas Forts Trail Region

    CatchCatch thethe PioPionneereer SpiritSpirit estern military posts composed of wood and While millions of buffalo still roamed the Great stone structures were grouped around an Plains in the 1870s, underpinning the Plains Indian open parade ground. Buildings typically way of life, the systematic slaughter of the animals had included separate officer and enlisted troop decimated the vast southern herd in Texas by the time housing, a hospital and morgue, a bakery and the first railroads arrived in the 1880s. Buffalo bones sutler’s store (provisions), horse stables and still littered the area and railroads proved a boon to storehouses. Troops used these remote outposts to the bone trade with eastern markets for use in the launch, and recuperate from, periodic patrols across production of buttons, meal and calcium phosphate. the immense Southern Plains. The Army had other motivations. It encouraged Settlements often sprang up near forts for safety the kill-off as a way to drive Plains Indians onto and Army contract work. Many were dangerous places reservations. Comanches, Kiowas and Kiowa Apaches with desperate characters. responded with raids on settlements, wagon trains and troop movements, sometimes kidnapping individuals and stealing horses and supplies. Soldiers stationed at frontier forts launched a relentless military campaign, the Red River War of 1874–75, which eventually forced Experience the region’s dramatic the state’s last free Native Americans onto reservations in present-day Oklahoma. past through historic sites, museums and courthouses — as well as historic downtowns offering unique shopping, dining and entertainment. ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ 2 The westward push of settlements also relocated During World War II, the vast land proved perfect cattle drives bound for railheads in Kansas and beyond.
  • Gillespie County, Blanco County, and Kendall County, TX

    Gillespie County, Blanco County, and Kendall County, TX

    2019 Gillespie County, Blanco County, and Kendall County, TX Community Asset Inventory - Hill Country Memorial Hospital – Fredericksburg Texas - 1 https://hillcountrymemorial.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Geography – Cities, Towns --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03 Government ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04 Major Employers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06 Public Safety – Fire, Police, EMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06 Healthcare ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08 Hospitals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08 Health Department ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08 Dentists ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08 Clinics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 09 Long-term Care and Assisted Living -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 Home Health and Hospice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Behavioral and Addiction Services ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  • The English Texans

    The English Texans

    Texans One and All The English Texans Texans of English origin seem A Walk Across Texas to be the least colony-minded Perhaps the first English in Texas were David Ingram, Rich- people in the state. One rea- ard Twide, and Richard Browne, seamen who were put son is that the English are part ashore on the Mexican coast in 1568 by Captain John Haw- of the “Anglo” majority that kins. Hawkins, in league with the future Sir Francis Drake, has formed Texas since the had lost a disastrous naval battle with the Spanish. mid-1830s. English settlers are The survivors of the sunken ships, crowded onto Hawkins’ often invisible. remaining Minion, elected not to perish by starvation on a Some of the early English were doubtful return to England, but to be set ashore. Walking not so invisible to the Spanish. south, they could at least find the comforts of a Spanish prison. John Hamilton visited the mouth of the Trinity River as a Once ashore, three seaman decided to walk north. This horse buyer about 1774 and they apparently did, turning east across Texas’ coastal plain to enjoy an eventual Atlantic rescue by a French ship. English architect Alfred Giles (c. purchased stolen livestock...an 1875), designer of many buildings activity not overly welcomed David Ingram wrote a short account of the journey which around Texas and Mexico by the Spanish. Yet in 1792, appeared in print in 1589, a fairly accurate description of the Gulf of Mexico coastal areas. “The Countrey is good,” John Culbert, a silversmith, was allowed to live in San Antonio.
  • Notes and Documents the Texas Frontier in 1850: Dr. Ebenezer Swift

    Notes and Documents the Texas Frontier in 1850: Dr. Ebenezer Swift

    Notes and Documents The Texas Frontier in 1850: Dr. Ebenezer Swift and the View From Fort Martin Scott by: CALEB COKER AND JANET G. HUMPHREY The Texas Frontier in 1850 was guarded by a line of army forts ranging from Fort Worth to Fort Duncan near Eagle Pass. With the end of the Mexican War, settlers had begun pushing toward the Texas interior, and troops became available to furnish new towns some measure of protection from raiding bands of Indians. 1 Fort Martin bScott, established between the towns of Fredericksburg and Zodiac in December 1848, was one such military post. The letter reproduced here, from the fort's physician, provides a marvelous glimpse of frontier Texas in 1850. It includes candid descriptions of a farm in Austin, life at the fort, and relationships with the local Indians. Native Americans living in the vicinity of Fort Martin Scott belonged to a number of tribes. The least predictable and most feared, however, were the Comanches. White settlements disrupted their wide-ranging lifestyle and threatened the abundant supply of game. In the mid-1840s their primary tactic was to attack settlers in small raiding parties and then vanish, often taking with them horses and other livestock. These hit-and-run assaults terrorized those on the frontier for decades.2 The Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas had purchased 10,000 acres of forested land just north of the Pedernales River on Barron's Creek in December 1845. By the following May, settlers began arriving from New Braunfels at the town site named Fredericksburg.
  • Newsletter the Society of Architectural Historians

    Newsletter the Society of Architectural Historians

    NEWSLETTER THE SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS FEBRUARY 1973 VOL. XVII NO . 1 PUBLISHED SIX TIMES A YEAR BY THE SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS 1700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 • Alan Gowans, President • Editor: James C. Massey, 614 S. Lee Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Assoc. Ed.: Thomas M. Slade, 3901 Conn. Ave., N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20008 • Asst. Ed.: Elisabeth Walton, 765 Winter St., N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301 SAHNOTICES SAH Annual Business Meeting. The Society's annual business 1973 Annual Meeting-Foreign Tour, Cambridge University meeting was held in New York on January 27, during the and London (August 15-27). The Pan American charter flight College Art Association convention. As announced, the SAH is filled, and registrations for the flight and the meeting-tour annual meeting will be held in Cambridge and London in are now closed. August. The following officers were elected: President, Alan Gowans (University of Victoria); First Vice-President, Spiro K. 1974 Annual Meeting, New Orleans (April 3-7). Spiro K. Kostof (University of California, Berkeley); Second Vice­ Kostof, First Vice-President, is General Chairman for the President, Marian C. Donnelly (University of Oregon); Secre­ meeting; Bernard Lemann and Samuel Wilson, Jr. are Local tary, Elisabeth MacDougall (Dumbarton Oaks- Harvard Uni­ Co-Chairmen. (SAH meets alone.) Persons interested in pre­ versity); and Treasurer, Robert W. Jorgensen (Peifer and senting papers should write Professor Kostof (7733 Claremont Associates, Inc. , Chicago). Seven new directors were elected at Avenue, Berkeley, Calif. 94705). the meeting: Abbott L. Cummings (Society for the Preserva­ 1975 Annual Meeting, Boston (April 23-27).
  • Fort Martin Scott Master Plan Fredericksburg, TX

    Fort Martin Scott Master Plan Fredericksburg, TX

    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Fort Martin Scott Master Plan Fredericksburg, TX Issue Date: January 3, 2018 Qualifications Due Date: February 2, 2018 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The City of Fredericksburg is requesting Qualifications Statements from professional planning, architecture or preservations firms to assist the City in the development of a Master Plan for Fort Martin Scott. The City of Fredericksburg, the county seat of Gillespie County, is a Texas Hill Country destination approximately 70 miles from San Antonio and Austin. The city is a common starting point or destination for tourists visiting the Texas Hill Country. Tourism is a year- round industry with approximately 1.5 million visitors coming to patronize the historic sites, museums, vineyards/wineries, retail, restaurants, festivals and agri-tourism festivals and farms. The City has 23 hotels and over 400 bed & breakfast lodging establishments and is now in the development phase of a Hotel Conference Center. The estimated population of 11,000 has grown about 50% since 1990. The Fredericksburg Historic District is on the National Register of Historic Places. SOQ’s received past the aforementioned deadline will not be considered. The City will evaluate SOQ’s and make a selection based on the firm’s technical ability, experience, and ability to perform the work. The City will not provide compensation or defray any costs incurred by any firm related to the response to this request. The City reserves the right to negotiate with any and all persons or firms. The City also reserves the right to reject any or all SOQ’s, or to accept any deemed most advantageous, or to waive any irregularities or informalities in the SOQ’s received, and to revise the process schedule as circumstances arise.
  • The Report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting's Reconaissance of The

    The Report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting's Reconaissance of The

    The report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting’s reconnaissance of the wester frontier of Texas 21 Jan 1850 Original Source Document: Congressional Serial Set No. 562 31st Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Doc. No. 64, Washington DC, July 24, 1850 pp. 235-250 Digital Source Document: Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=4PFJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA235#v=onepage&q&f=false also Hathi Trust Digital Library http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3983516?urlappend=%3Bseq=287 (scanned at University of California) http://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.hj1lgd?urlappend=%3Bseq=285 (scanned at Harvard University) This PDF document was obtained from the Bosque County Historical Commission. www.bosquechc.org Sis Congress, [ SENATE. ] With Ex. Doc . st Session. N0. 64. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, ENCLOSINC 'i report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting's reconnaissance of the ■western frontier of Texas. June 28, 1850. I Read. July 5, 1850. OrJertd to be printed. War Department, Washington, June 27, 1850. mr: I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from vain Fred. A. Smith, in charge of the Engineer Department, enclosing topy of the report of the reconnaissance of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whi- k, of the Corps of Engineers, of the western frontier of Texas, with a le of the accompanying map, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of t25th instant calling lor such report. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. W. CRAWFORD, Secretary of War. Bon. Millard Fillmore, President of the Senate. Engineer Department, Washington, June 26, 1850. Sir: In compliance with the call of the Senate resolution of the 25th stint, herewith I have the honor to enclose a copy of the reconnaissance (Lieutenant W.
  • City of Fredericksburg, Texas Comprehensive Plan

    City of Fredericksburg, Texas Comprehensive Plan

    CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, TEXAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City of Fredericksburg Adopted by City Council January 23, 2006 Prepared by Dunkin, Sefko and Associates Strategic Community Solutions Dunkin, Sims & Stoffels Table of Contents Page 1. The Context for Planning .....................................................................................................................1.1 A. Why Do Planning .........................................................................................................................1.1 B. Organization of this Plan..............................................................................................................1.2 C. Fredericksburg Today: A Snapshot..............................................................................................1.2 D. Issues Facing the Community ......................................................................................................1.4 2. Guiding Principles for the Comprehensive Plan ...................................................................................2.1 A. Strategic Issues Framework.........................................................................................................2.1 B. Vision Statement for the Fredericksburg Community.................................................................2.2 C. Vision Statement for the Comprehensive Plan............................................................................2.2 D. Strategic Issues & Related Principles............................................................................................2.2
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices

    The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices

    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.