The University of California, Berkeley Women’s Faculty Club

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

MAY 2014

The University of California, Berkeley Women’s Faculty Club

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Contents

INTRODUCTION...... 07 Interior Description...... 95 Purpose and Scope...... 09 Circulation...... 95 Subject of this Study...... 10 First Floor...... 96 Methodology...... 10 Second and Third Floors...... 99 Basement...... 101 HISTORICAL CONTEXT...... 15 Attic...... 101 Early History of Berkeley: 1820-1859...... 16 Materials and Features...... 102 College of California: 1860-1868...... 17 Landscape...... 102 Early Physical Development of the Berkeley Campus...... 18 Exterior...... 105 Early Non-Academic Facilities and Faculty Groups..... 19 Interior...... 111 Foundations...... 22 Condition...... 119 The Hearst Plan...... 22 Landscape...... 119 Development of Campus Clubs at Berkeley...... 23 Exterior...... 120 Precedents and Parallels at Other Universities ...... 24 Interior...... 122 Women Faculty and Women’s Activities ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE...... 127 at Berkeley ...... 28 Existing Historical Status...... 128 Formation of the Women’s Faculty Club...... 31 Significance...... 128 The Women’s Faculty Club – Chronology...... 38 Period of Significance...... 133 The Club Builds...... 40 Integrity...... 133 The Women’s Faculty Club Site ...... 40 Areas of Significance...... 133 Planning and Design of the Club Building...... 42 Significance of Features and Materials...... 134 Development of the Landscape...... 53

Early Decades of the Club...... 57 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 139 The Club in the Mid-Century, and the Landscape...... 140 Merger Controversy ...... 64 Exterior...... 141 Evolving Landscape and Garden...... 70 Interior...... 143 Construction Chronology...... 74 John Galen Howard...... 78 CONCLUSION...... 147

Women’s Role in American University Faculties ...... 79 APPENDICES Women’s Faculty Groups...... 81 I Bibliography First Bay Region Tradition ...... 82 II Original Drawings III Drawings for Alterations 1956 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT...... 85 IV Drawings for Alterations 1976 Campus District...... 86 V Significance Diagrams Setting and Site...... 88 VI Survey Forms: Exterior Elevations and Selected Rooms Landscape Description...... 90 VII Additional Photographs Exterior Description...... 93

Introduction A view of the Women’s Faculty Club, probably from the 1920s or 1930. Photograph courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Knapp Architects prepared this historic structure report (HSR) for the Women’s Faculty Club and the Office of Physical and Environmental Planning of the University of California, Berkeley. The purpose of this HSR is to provide a single reference resource for the building, and to inform and assist future development of the building. An HSR is commonly prepared to evaluate the existing conditions and historic status of a potential historic resource prior to the commencement of any major rehabilitation, restoration, or any other work that may affect the resource. According to the National Park Service’s cultural management guidelines:

A Historic Structure Report (HSR) is prepared whenever there is to be a major intervention into historic structures or where activities are programmed that affect the qualities and characteristics that make the property eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The report consists of the collection, presentation, and evaluation of anthropological/archeological, historical and architectural/ engineering research findings on a historic or pre-historic structure, and their setting…It analyzes and records all periods of construction (not just significant periods), modifications, source materials, building techniques, other evidence of use, and setting.1

The Women’s Faculty Club, completed in 1923, is a three-story-plus-basement wood shingle building representative of the First Bay Region Tradition. It has public rooms, a dining room, and a kitchen on the main floor and guest sleeping rooms on the upper two floors. Designed by renowned campus architect John Galen Howard, the building is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places for its association with the growing role of women in teaching, research, and administration and as the work of a master architect. The building retains a high level of historical integrity, and continues to function much as it has since its original completion. The building is surrounded by relatively private outdoor spaces, and is visually almost secluded in the riparian setting along Strawberry Creek. Along with two neighbors already listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the (Men’s) Faculty Club and Senior Hall, the Women’s Faculty Club and the wooded setting are an important element of the picturesque part of the Berkeley campus.

The Women’s Faculty Club is historically significant as an institution and has been strongly associated with the building the group planned and financed within a few years of its

1 “NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline:” UC Berkeley 2020 LRDP EIR Continuing Best Practice CUL- 2-a states in part: “If a project could cause a substantial adverse change in features that convey the significance of a primary or secondary resource, an Historic Structures Assessment (HSA) would be prepared.” University of California, Berkeley 2020 LRDP EIR, Volume 1, 4.4-54.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 9

formation. The organization has a strong association with the increasingly important role of women in the faculty and administration at UC Berkeley during the 20th century. In its first decades, the Club building was literally home to a number of women faculty and staff, though its sleeping rooms are now used exclusively for short-term guests.

This HSR includes six chapters, and an appendix, including a bibliography. Following the Introduction is the Historical Context, which provides historical background on the founding of the University of California, the Women’s Faculty Club, a history of the site, and the design of the Women’s Faculty Club. This chapter also includes a brief biography of architect John Galen Howard. The Description & Conditions Assessment contains a concise description of the building and its landscaping (detailed inventory forms are included in Appendix VI). The following chapter, Analysis of Historic Significance, describes the significance of each section of the building as well as its constituent materials, features, and spaces. (Significance diagrams are presented in Appendix V.) This chapter also analyzes the eligibility of the building for listing in local, state and national registers. The following chapter, Recommendations, discusses how to retain the most significant aspects of the Women’s Faculty Club, as well as general maintenance information. Finally, Conclusions offers a brief summary of the building, its historical significance, and its promise for future use. Original drawings are contained in Appendix II.

SUBJECT OF THIS STUDY As mentioned above, the subject of this HSR is the Women’s Faculty Club itself. In light of the current character of the site and information already available about it, this study addresses only the immediate setting of the building, and focuses on the building itself. There is no officially designated site boundary, so this report discusses the area visually and historically associated with the building and the Club’s activities.

METHODOLOGY The information contained in this report was compiled from site observations conducted by the primary preparers, background documents and information provided by the University of California, Office of Physical and Environmental Planning (PEP), and archival research. The study team observed the building, recording conditions in digital images and survey files. The survey did not include physical testing or make use of sensing instruments. Where recommendations are offered for rehabilitation or further study, they are based on general experience in architecture, and do not replace a conservation report, which may be needed for certain features and conditions.

The study team did not perform research about the condition and modes of deterioration of the materials. Testing, structural evaluations, and conservation assessments where recommended in this study would provide the information needed to identify specific causes of damage and materials and methods for correcting it. While this report includes information which would be useful in devising a maintenance program, it is not a maintenance plan.

The Women’s Faculty Club archives, and to a lesser degree the UC Berkeley Capital Projects division, provided drawings of the building. The study team obtained additional photographs, drawings, and written accounts from the following repositories:

10 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California: CHRIS Northwest Information Center

University of California on-line resources: Roma Pacifica: Phoebe Hearst International Competition

University of California: College of Environmental Design Archives and Library The Bancroft Library

California Historical Society, San Francisco

Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley

The research included primary and secondary documents at the above repositories. The references cited in this report are not exhaustive; future study and design may require the use of specialized information not consulted or not available for this report.

This study generally uses the National Register of Historic Places Criteria. The National Register is the official federal roster of historic properties worthy of preservation; the Keeper of the Register and the National Park Service (NPS) prepare the criteria under which potential resources are evaluated for inclusion in the Register. The NPS, state agencies, and other government and professionals in private practice have relied on the National Register Criteria for decades to determine whether properties are historically significant, and to identify the level of significance, area(s) of significance, and historical context(s) of eligible properties. The criteria provide invaluable guidance and authoritative consistency in determining whether resources retain their historical integrity and what their character-defining features are. The National Register Criteria underlie the hierarchy of significance and the assessment of condition used in this HSR for components and elements.

When evaluating the significance and condition of buildings, architectural historians typically use a rating scale to rank the relative architectural and historic value of components of a building – its rooms or spaces as well as individual features. The typical rating scale employs four categories: “Very Significant,” “Significant,” “Contributing,” and “Non-Contributing.” The use of the terms “Very Significant” or “Significant” here does not necessarily equate to the same meaning for those words as they are used in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The fact a space or feature is called “Very Significant” or “Significant” in the Historic Structure Report does not of necessity mean that the alteration or removal of that space or the entire structure would meet the CEQA criteria for what is called a “Significant impact on the environment.” For this HSR, the four categories are defined as follows:

Very Significant (VS)

• The element was built during the period of significance.

• It is architecturally significant.

• It contributes significantly to the overall character.

• It remains intact or with only minor alterations.

• It is in good condition.

• VS elements are highly sensitive to change.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 11

Significant (S)

• The element was built during the period of significance, but

• It is of secondary importance,

• It has been altered, and/or

• It is in fair or poor condition, or

• The element was not built during the period of significance, but is architecturally significant.

• S elements are sensitive to change.

Contributing (C)

• The element was built during the period of significance, but is not architecturally significant, or

• The element was not built during the period of significance, but is architecturally compatible with the original.

• C elements are less sensitive to change.

Non-Contributing (NC)

• The element was not built during the period of significance, or

• It has been subjected to major additions or incompatible alterations, or

• It is incompatible in style, material, scale, character or use with the original building, or

• It is in poor condition.

• NC elements are not particularly sensitive to change.

Condition

• A visual appraisal of the current condition of building elements:

• Excellent (E)...... The element is in near original condition.

• Good (G)...... The element is mostly intact.

• Fair (F)...... The element is showing signs of wear or deterioration.

• Poor (P)...... The element is badly damaged, missing, or not functioning.

• Unknown (U)...... The element is not accessible for inspection.2

2 University of California, Greek Theatre HSR Request for Proposals, October 24, 2006.

12 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

PREPARER Knapp Architects of San Francisco researched and prepared this report. Frederic Knapp, AIA, was principal in charge, and Ruchira Nageswaran, AIA prepared architectural graphics. Steve Finacom researched the history of the Women’s Faculty Club and the development, use, and alteration of the building, along with the history and current conditions of the landscape, and wrote the text for the corresponding portions of the report.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 13

Historical Context BEGINNINGS EARLY HISTORY OF BERKELEY: 1820-1859 In 1820, King Ferdinand VII of Spain granted the land that encompasses the land now occupied by Berkeley and Oakland, including the campus of the University of California, to Luís María Peralta of San José. Peralta named the 48,000-acre parcel Rancho San Antonio for Saint Anthony of Padua. After receiving the grant, Peralta continued living in San José and sent his four sons instead to occupy the land-grant rancho. In 1842, Peralta transferred ownership of the rancho to his sons, giving most of the land now occupied by Berkeley to José Domingo Peralta.

In 1848, by the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, California became part of the United States. Following on the heels of California’s statehood, the discovery of gold at Coloma drew thousands to the new state. Although holders of Spanish and Mexican ranchos like Peralta were guaranteed possessory rights under the California Constitution of 1850, the new settlers regarded Spanish and Mexican titles as illegitimate and brought pressure to bear on California State Legislature to overturn or weaken the law. Reacting to this pressure, the Legislature passed a subsequent law stating that any settler could gain possession of land “not reasonably known to be claimed under an existing title,” essentially permitting that any individual who made at least two hundred dollars worth of improvements on a tract of land could reside on the land. The law broke up the large tracts of land owned by a single individual for acquisition by the new arrivals, thus effectively dismantling the land-grant ranchos.3

3 William Warren Ferrier, Berkeley, California: The Story Of the Evolution Of A Hamlet Into A City of Culture and Commerce (Berkeley, California: By the author, 1933), 25.

Oak grove on UC Berkeley campus, 1901. Photo courtesy of Berkeley Public Library.

16 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

José Domingo Peralta filed claims to confirm his title to Rancho San Antonio in January 1852. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his claim in 1855 and 1856, the cost of legal counsel to combat the squatters had already forced him to sell off most of Rancho San Antonio during the early 1850s.4

In 1852, Captain Orrin Simmons claimed 160 acres of Rancho San Antonio bounded by Strawberry Creek to the north and the future site of the Clark Kerr Campus to the south— a tract that includes the present-day Women’s Faculty Club. Meanwhile, in the summer of 1852, a consortium consisting of William Hillegass, James Leonard, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, and George Blake filed claim to a square-mile tract of land encompassing what is now downtown Berkeley, just west of Simmons’s claim. None of these men occupied their land and what is now Berkeley remained effectively uninhabited for at least two decades following American occupation.

COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA: 1860-1868 Perhaps the two most instrumental events in the foundation of the University of California, Berkeley were the dissolution of the College of California and the donation of the land it had amassed to the State of California, and the 1868 Organic Act of the University of California, which established the University itself and The Regents as its governing body and the requirement that The Regents make immediate permanent improvements to the plan and landscape of the new university.

In 1853, Rev. Henry Durant established a preparatory school in Oakland named Contra Costa Academy. The school quickly reincorporated as a private college under the name the College of California and began searching for a new, rural campus site.

Simmons promoted acquisition of his Berkeley property to the Trustees, citing its available fresh water from Strawberry Creek and spectacular views of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate as inducements. At the time, the Simmons tract was farmland and nascent industrial development on the waterfront. The American era of the Bay Area was only about a decade old and establishment of the town of Berkeley was still a decade and a half in the future.

The College of California Trustees decided to acquire Simmons’s land for the new campus and on April 16 1860, Rev. Samuel Hopkins Wiley, Rev. Henry Durant, and other Trustees of the College of California dedicated the 140-acre campus at Founders’ Rock. Over the next few years, the Trustees of the College of California continued to amass property contiguous to the Simmons property, purchasing additional tracts from F.K. Shattuck, G.M. Blake, William Hillegass, and James Leonard. In August 1864, the College of California purchased a second parcel from Simmons which came with water rights to Strawberry Creek. Two adjacent residential tracts to the south of campus – the College Homestead Tract and the Berkeley Property Tract – were subdivided. Lots created in these two tracts were sold in an effort to encourage residential settlement near the campus grounds and generate revenue. In 1866 the name “Berkeley” was attached to the campus site by the College and later adopted by the surrounding community when it incorporated as a town in 1878.

4 Ibid., 26.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 17

EARLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BERKELEY CAMPUS The Berkeley campus, as inherited by the University from the College of California in 1868/69, was approximately two-thirds the size of today’s “central” or “main” campus. On the north, the border was, then as now, what is now Hearst Avenue. On the west, Oxford Street south to Allston Way formed the border. These two edges have remained largely the same, although the streets have been altered over the years.

To the east, the campus lands extended into the hills, although the extent of hill land ownership was only a fraction of what the University would acquire in later years. The base of the steep slope of Charter Hill formed then, as now, a natural division between what is regarded as the central campus and the less-developed hill area.

On the south, the early campus was significantly different from today. The edge of the campus grounds extended in most places only a few hundred feet, or less, from the south fork of Strawberry Creek. Allston Way continued from Oxford Street east to what is now Telegraph Avenue and one short block beyond. All the property to the south of this was privately owned. East of Telegraph Avenue, the campus border ran along the upper slope of what is now Faculty Glade, approximately where the Music Department buildings are located, then terminated at College Avenue, just south of Strawberry Creek. All of the property south of this edge, to Bancroft Way, would be incrementally acquired by the University over the course of about six decades in the 20th century.

Much of the area between this original southern border and today’s campus edge at Bancroft Way was subdivided and sold by the College of California for private development in the 1860s. Streets, including one-block stretches of today’s College Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, Ellsworth Street, and Dana Street, extended north of Bancroft Way to the campus edge and were flanked by four one-block, north-south streets: today’s Barrow Lane, and the now-vanished Union Street, (North) Atherton Street, and Chapel Street. All these were lined with private lots and development—a mix of homes and commercial establishments along Telegraph Avenue, and private homes with a scattering of private group living quarters and churches, on the other streets. The Bancroft-to-campus zone was punctuated east of Barrow Lane by a large undeveloped meadow / orchard known as the Hillegass Tract that was retained until the turn of the 20th century in undeveloped condition by the Hillegass family, long after adjacent blocks had been built up with businesses and homes.

This alignment of the main campus meant in practice that only the areas north of Strawberry Creek were regarded in the early decades of the University as suitable for development with permanent academic and other campus facilities. The current site of the Women’s Faculty Club and its immediate neighbors lay in a narrow zone of land beyond the creek and generally seen as outside the campus proper, although it was University owned. (This was a longstanding tradition. As late as 1940, The Regents asked Warren Perry, chair of the Department of Architecture, for an explanation of why the new University administration building—today’s Sproul Hall—should be located outside and south of Sather Gate, rather than in the traditional central campus. They did approve the project, but it would be nearly two decades before other major non-recreation buildings would be constructed south of Strawberry Creek.)

The earliest major buildings of the campus—South Hall (1873), North Hall (1873), Bacon Hall (1881), Mining / Civil Engineering (1879), Harmon Gymnasium (1879), East Hall (1898), and the “Old” Chemistry Building (1891, expanded three times through 1912), formed a rough triangle centered on a flagpole where the Campanile now stands, with a block of structures extending eastward, to the base of the hills. With one exception, all of

18 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

these structures lay between the south fork of Strawberry Creek and the swale that forms today’s “Central Glade” running east/west through the campus; the exception was the Mechanics Building (1893) on a knoll north of the swale and southwest of today’s Mining Circle.

The 19th century buildings of the campus were executed in red brick or wood, and designed by a number of Bay Area architects in styles that followed architectural trends popular in their eras for institutional structures, starting with Second Empire (South Hall) in the 1860s and passing through Victorian and its stylistic relations, finally shading into wooden variations on neoclassical (East Hall) by the end of the century. All of these buildings were academic facilities, with the exception of Harmon Gymnasium. Non- academic facilities such as the student store, administrative offices, “rest rooms” (lounges) for students, and similar spaces were inserted here and there into the academic structures.

EARLY NON-ACADEMIC FACILITIES AND FACULTY GROUPS The University of California, in the 19th century and well into the 20th, generally followed a “German model” of higher educational facilities in which the institution provided a core of classrooms, laboratories, and libraries while students, faculty, and staff were expected to find accommodation, recreation, and non-academic activities and their related facilities on their own, elsewhere than the central campus. This contrasted with the English, Oxbridge, model in which students and instructors lived, worked, and studied in unified college complexes.

The pursuit of the German model meant that the University of California would spend its first several decades without facilities for extracurricular life funded or operated by the University on the central campus. As a result, students, staff, and faculty would organize their own independent associations and activities; other campus services were provided by the private sector. Thus, until 1929, the University had no campus-run dormitories, but there was a robust, off-campus, system of fraternal residences and private rooming and boarding houses, and rentals in private homes and apartments. Until 1923 there was no comprehensive student union on the campus, and when one was built, it was funded by the students themselves and private gifts, not the University. Student groups—particularly the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC)—took the lead in providing non-academic facilities, from athletic fields to cafeteria space, and off-campus student groups like the YMCA were large and robust service organizations with facilities of their own.

This same trend would prevail in the development of faculty and staff facilities, which would be initiated, developed, and operated by associations of interested individuals, not the University itself.

When the University commenced operations in 1869, at the Oakland campus of the College of California, the faculty consisted of 11 individuals, nine of them full professors. By the end of the century (the 1899/1900 academic year), the total faculty at the Berkeley campus had grown to 108, including 30 full professors (13 of them emeriti, honorary, or adjunct), 35 associate and assistant professors, and 42 instructors and lecturers. These individuals were engaged in research and instruction on a campus of about 2,000 students, most of them undergraduates. More than 70 other UC faculty were based at the Medical Colleges in San Francisco, at Lick Observatory near San Jose, or at Hastings College of the Law, and their physical / academic associations were primarily with the University facilities at those sites, not with the Berkeley campus.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 19

The one-hundred-plus faculty at the Berkeley campus at the turn of the century were exclusively Caucasian, male, and generally from the United States, with a sprinkling of European expatriate academics—English, German, Italian—who were rare enough to be notable among students for their differences, such as pronounced accents. Most came from American universities, although many had also pursued graduate work or had done research in the great intellectual centers of Europe.

Most were married and, in an era of unimproved roadways and still only rudimentary public transportation, owned homes and lived within a short walking distance of the campus, generally north or south. They socialized among themselves and among their professional neighbors in Berkeley, many of whom shared a Northeast / Anglo-Saxon

The second floor of this portion of the Faculty Club was originally a cottage, and was incorporated into the Faculty Club building as it grew. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Prof. Joseph LeConte lived in a cottage C. 1900 near the present-day site of the (Men’s) Faculty Club. Image courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

20 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

/ Protestant heritage. A core of Protestant churches and private clubs, several of them founded by faculty, formed a network of social and intellectual associations in the campus vicinity for faculty and their spouses, and the streetcar / ferry trip to San Francisco provided connections to larger numbers of like-minded individuals and institutions such as intellectual, social, and professional organizations—the University Club, Bohemian Club, and the like.

During the 19th century and into the 20th century “faculty offices” as they are known today did not exist on the campus. Individual faculty might regularly use a certain lecture hall for their instruction and talk to students there before or after class, or have a laboratory space, but most did not have separate offices on campus. Most faculty had private studies / offices at home and their own library / reference collections there, and did much of their scholarly work, aside from teaching, at home.

Long summer sessions without regular instruction obligations on the Berkeley campus gave those faculty of means the opportunity either to leave town for nearby resort locations—the Marin coast, the Monterey Bay area, the Sierra, particularly Yosemite—or travel to the East Coast or Europe for research.

On-campus, the faculty had a small number of acknowledged leaders—including nationally known academics such as John and Joseph Le Conte in the sciences, Eugene Hilgard in Agriculture, and Martin Kellogg in Latin—who often held administrative positions and also took the lead in campus policy and activities. The Academic Senate was organized as official representative of the faculty in 1869, but University authority was shared amongst Regents, leading faculty, and UC presidents.

In the 19th century faculty generally associated in their academic disciplines and in social connections, such as off campus clubs and churches. There were no on-campus facilities reserved specifically for faculty in their non-teaching / research life. The relatively nearby presence of Stanford University, established in 1891, helped provide a California nucleus for the establishment of West Coast branches of various national scholarly and learned societies with UC and Stanford faculty at their core, although in early decades California academics almost always had to travel to national academic events which were held in the East.

In 1894 a University owned cottage in the vicinity of Faculty Glade was converted to use by a new “Dining Association” intended to provide hot daytime meals for students and faculty on campus. Gradually the faculty came to use the building most frequently, and in 1901 the male faculty organized themselves in a new, private, Faculty Club with the Dining Association building at its core. Twenty two men joined, permission was obtained from the Regents to build a clubhouse, and the first formal membership meeting was held in March, 1902. Funds were raised by subscription for the new building, which was dedicated in September of that year. The following year a residential wing for bachelor faculty was added, and the Club building was expanded several times in subsequent decades.

The Faculty Club building was regarded as an exclusive preserve of male faculty, even after women began to earn academic appointments in the early 20th century. “It has never been the ‘men’s’ faculty club officially, but the intent has been understood from the beginning and women are not admitted to the members’ dining room, lounge, and recreation areas except on special occasions…” University historian Verne Stadtman would write as late as the mid-1960s (Stadtman, Centennial Record, 1967, page 230).

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 21

FOUNDATIONS THE HEARST PLAN In 1895 Phoebe Hearst, newly widowed and wealthy, approached the University with the proposal to donate a permanent Mining Building in honor of her deceased husband, former Senator George Hearst. She had previously begun UC benefactions in 1892 with a gift of scholarships for women students. The University was avid to take advantage of the building opportunity, and to cultivate such a well-to-do benefactor, but two individuals— Bernard Maybeck, an instructor in mechanical drawing, and UC alumnus Jacob Reinstein, a Regent—also saw opportunity to employ the Hearst gift to create a more rationally organized and architecturally expansive campus.

They successfully made the case that before a major new building was exactly sited and designed, the University should prepare an architectural plan to which all new structures would conform. Physical plans were not new to the campus—several had been prepared starting in the 1860s, by a succession of designers including Frederick Law Olmsted, William Hammond Hall, and David Farquharson (architect of the University’s first permanent building), but Maybeck and Reinstein had in mind a much more expansive concept that would suit the University in a new era of growth and anticipated prestige. The idea caught the attention of Phoebe Hearst—soon to be appointed the first woman Regent of the University—and she offered to fund an international architectural competition to prepare a plan for the campus. Commenced in 1897, with Maybeck as consultant and marketer, the competition attracted worldwide interest both among designers, and among the general public and other academic institutions who admired or envied the young university on the West Coast the apparent opportunity to construct a grand new campus with money no object.

Maybeck traveled to the East Coast and Europe to promote the project and an initial judging of more than 100 entries was held in Brussels. A select group of finalists were invited to submit detailed campus plans that were labeled anonymously and judged by a professional jury in San Francisco in 1899. The plan of the winner, French architect Emile Benard, was revised and adopted by the University in 1900 as the official Phoebe Hearst Architectural Plan for the campus and one building, a residence for the University’s president, was immediately commenced. The selection of the winner coincided roughly with the high-profile selection of Cornell philologist Benjamin Ide Wheeler as a new president for the University.

Institution, architectural plan, and Wheeler would evolve together over the next two decades, a period when the University of California would firmly start to establish its subsequent national and international reputation. For various reasons, Benard was not retained by the University to implement his design. The architectural plan would come to be executed by fourth place competition finisher, John Galen Howard, who was initially hired to design the Hearst Memorial Mining Building, then selected as supervising campus architect to implement the entire plan. Trained in Boston and Paris, Howard relocated from New York to Berkeley in the early 20th century to become both the University’s Supervising Architect and the founder of the School of Architecture. Over a quarter century in that position, Howard would reshape the Hearst Plan from the Bernard template to his own design, still following the general precepts and planning and design approaches of the Ecole de Beaux Arts, where Howard and Benard had both trained. Howard drew from Benard’s plan to create a new vision for the campus that better accommodated the existing grade and created view corridors aligned with the Golden

22 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Gate through the site. Except for the Faculty Club and Senior Women’s Hall (Girton Hall), he designed all of the permanent buildings developed between 1903 and 1926, creating a campus core characterized by the architectural compatibility of its components. Howard’s campus plan–updated in 1908 and again in 1914–emphasized symmetrical arrangements of buildings and groups of buildings on terraces, stepping down the sloped campus site.

DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPUS CLUBS AT BERKELEY The Women’s Faculty Club building was not the first of its type on the campus. In fact, it was the fifth and last of a series of “clubhouse” or “lodge” buildings that had been established by the independent initiative of different campus groups and installed in the University grounds with a quasi-independent status. All of these establishments had their roots in the fact that in the 1870s the University leadership determined that the institution itself would not provide facilities or services for the campus population beyond the basics—classrooms, libraries, laboratories and gymnasium. The new University of California did not plan to provide non-academic facilities for students or other members of the campus community; in the 1870s it made a tentative foray into providing some housing on campus (eight cottages, some rented to students, others to faculty) then, for a variety of reasons, withdrew from that venture and for the next quarter century built only academic structures, with the exception of one gymnasium built with gift funds given for that purpose.

The predecessor of club organizations on the campus was the Dining Association, established in 1894 and located in a University-loaned space, one of the former residential cottages on the east side of what is now Faculty Glade. (Centennial record, page 230). In 1901, faculty members—all male, at the time— organized themselves to create

Campus plan by John Galen Howard, showing his early concept for A portion of original cottage that became the nucleus of the (Men’s) Faculty Club is the layout of the campus precincts and his differentiation of major still visible. It has become the second floor, with later construction forming the first axes. Image coursty of University Archives, The Bancroft Library, floor space below it. Knapp Architects photo, 2013. University of California, Berkeley.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 23

a Faculty Club. The first part of the club’s new building was completed and opened in Fall 1902. In 1903 a group of bachelor members of the Club paid for the construction of a residential wing, establishing the tradition of faculty / staff living on the campus itself.

The third institution to be established on the campus was Senior Hall or Senior Men’s Hall. It was proposed by the Order of the Golden Bear—a senior men’s organization, with administration and alumni affiliates—created in 1900. The Order, or “Golden Bear”, offered to build a meeting place on the campus for the men of the senior class, with a second room for its own meeting quarters. The Regents also endorsed this request and allocated a site east of the Faculty Club. “Golden Bear Lodge” as it was originally known, was constructed in 1905 and first used in 1906. From the beginning it was under the administration of the Senior Class (handed on to each new class in a student ceremony each year) and the Order of the Golden Bear.

The fourth facility of this type established on the University grounds was Senior Women’s Hall or Girton Hall, built in 1911 with donations raised largely by the women of the senior class. It was intended, like Senior Men’s Hall, to serve as an exclusive meeting place for the senior women leadership and also a facility for student socializing. Its site, although somewhat uphill from the Faculty Club and Senior Hall, was also along the south bank of Strawberry Creek and outside, but convenient to, the core campus academic precincts.

Thus, by 1912 there were three established socializing spaces in the same vicinity, all on University land but operating independently, serving different segments of the campus population: male faculty; senior men students; senior women students. Their earliest predecessor, the Dining Association, had been bought out and incorporated into the Faculty Club. The Women’s Faculty Club would, a decade later, become the final institution of this type, following the precedent of the others and being located in physical proximity to them. It would also, like the Faculty Club and the Order of the Golden Bear, proceed very quickly from being an association / social organization to building its own physical facility. The Faculty Club would build its original clubhouse the year after it was formally incorporated; the Order of the Golden Bear was organized in 1900, and by 1905 had proposed and was constructing Senior Men’s Hall; the Women’s Faculty Club was organized in 1919 and by the end of 1923 opened its own building.

PRECEDENTS AND PARALLELS AT OTHER UNIVERSITIES University and college faculty clubs are found throughout the United States, although they are by no means ubiquitous at college campuses. These organizations usually located on or nearby a campus, and were often originally founded as gentlemen’s clubs serving the academic community. Their mission was to provide a setting where faculty, alumni and sometimes staff or students could congregate and socialize apart from other groups. Within this venue they typically provided meals, meeting space, and residential quarters for faculty, and also guest rooms for visiting faculty. Some clubs also provided recreational facilities–billiards rooms, tennis or squash courts, occasionally a swimming pool—and a few, today, such as the Duke “Faculty Club,” appear to primarily focus on the recreational aspect of their services.

The survey, shown on page 27, puts the “golden age” for the creation of these organizations between roughly 1914 and 1927. A parallel movement of faculty clubs for women, a need created by their exclusion from the men’s clubs, was brought about during the Suffrage Movement years, 1914 through 1919, an era when, at some campuses including Berkeley, women – although still a tiny minority of the non-student population – were starting to

24 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

enter the ranks of tenured faculty and University administration in sufficient numbers to form and sustain their own organizations.

There was a second wave of development in the mid-20th Century–the 1950s and 1960s– stimulated by the post-World War II boom in higher education and the rapid expansion of campuses, facilities, and academic and service programs at many colleges and universities across the country. In this era new clubs were created at both older universities, and at newly established institutions, such as the expansion campuses of the University of California.

The early faculty clubs were sometimes just rented suites of rooms in buildings on or off campus. As organizations evolved, they often built or purchased freestanding headquarters buildings. A number of these early structures appear to have been either former private mansions, or clubs specifically built to resemble fine private homes. Going to a “club” in a structure that looked a residence for the wealthy, at least on the exterior and in the common rooms, and was similarly appointed and staffed, seems to have been a popular early common ideal. (Later, mid-20th Century, clubs often expressed less of this “mansion” character and were designed as low, often one story, informal structures like many country clubs and community buildings of the same era).

The Quadrangle Club at the University of Chicago is an early example of a faculty club- type organization on a campus. Founded in 1893, “The new club house opened in 1896 and contained billiard and card rooms, a gymnasium and some sleeping rooms, and a small ladies’ room for the wives of members. Tennis courts were available, and many social events, including lectures, recitals, and dances, were offered. As an afterthought, a small dining room and a basement kitchen were added.”5 The Johns Hopkins Club was founded in 1899 with a membership of “alumni, graduate students and faculty.” 6

(Interestingly, Johns Hopkins is also linked to Berkeley through its founding president, Daniel Coit Gilman, who went there after serving as president of the University of California). The Colonnade Club (University of Virginia) is also similar in age to Berkeley’s (Men’s) Faculty Club, having been founded in 1907 to “enhance social interaction and encourage intellectual enrichment.”

Among public, state, universities Ohio State established a faculty club in 1915 and in 1916 “the Faculty Club was given permission to erect a Faculty Club House upon the University campus, the plans and final site to be approved by the Board of Trustees,” an approach that seems similar to what was planned at Berkeley a decade and a half earlier. At Ohio State, “Originally, the club was located on the third floor of Bricker Hall, known then as the Administration Building. It began with 350 charter members whose activities included organizing art exhibitions for the club rooms and hosting annual club parties where faculty members performed in plays and musicals.” 7 The current Ohio State Club, however, is in a second facility, built in 1939.8

At other state campuses what became known as faculty clubs were, for many years, social organizations without their own physical homes. At Michigan State, for instance, what became the Faculty Club was established in 1929 but was not a physical structure,

5 http://quadclub.uchicago.edu/About-the-Quadrangle-Club/History.aspx, accessed 16 July 2013. 6 http://quadclub.uchicago.edu/About-the-Quadrangle-Club/History.aspx, accessed 16 July 2013. 7 http://oncampus.osu.edu/v28n19/thisissue_4.html 8 http://www.ohio-statefacultyclub.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=248796&ssid=105764&vnf=1

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 25

consisting rather “of a group of men who met socially in various University buildings for luncheons and seminars on topics of mutual concern. The group had no formal business organization or assets. Membership in this club was open to any interested male faculty member.” A free-standing building was not constructed until 1970.9

And at the University of Wisconsin the “University Club” was established in 1906 / 07 at the suggestion of the university president “to promote fellowship,” but was an off-campus institution culturally and not organizationally, connected to the campus.

“At a meeting of the Madison Alumni and the faculty of the University of Wisconsin early in the month (1906), it was decided to organize a University Club, to consist of the members of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin, University Alumni of Madison, and alumni of other institutions. From the standpoint of the alumni of the university no improvement in recent years is of more interest or importance than the establishment of the University Club, which occupied its new house about February 1. In no way connected with or supported by the University, or under its control, it owes its establishment and its fifty-thousand-dollar property entirely to the initiative and the exertions of the alumni of this and other colleges and universities living in or interested in Madison.”10

Faculty clubs were often established, as at Berkeley, through the financial efforts of the individual members. Sometimes the financial assistance of the university was provided, perhaps including a lease or grant of a building site. In some cases wealthy donors assisted club creation. Rice University, for example, has “Cohen House… given to the faculty of Rice University through the generosity of the late Esther and George Cohen in 1927. The original building was enlarged in 1958 when the main dining room and terrace were added. In 1976, a major renovation took place...”11

At Berkeley’s peer institutions, the Harvard Faculty Club dates to only 1931. It was a late comer, relative to the university’s establishment date of 1636, perhaps because of its urban location within Cambridge and adjacent to Boston, where professional men could easily find other places to socialize. It was organized as a place where the male faculty members could meet for conversation or university business, and find food, drink and comfortable beds. The club was a place where young faculty could be nurtured in a safe atmosphere and exposed to the institutional traditions and values. The club was initially Spartan by today’s comfort standards. Women were admitted in 1968 (four years before full women’s membership was granted at Berkeley in the all-male Faculty Club) but were relegated to the Ladies Dining Room. The “Long Table” was reserved for only the most distinguished faculty, a tradition similar to the use of certain tables in the Great Hall of the Faculty Club at Berkeley for cohesive groups of faculty diners. Finances were never discussed within the club’s walls.

A perhaps typical expression of the present day character of such clubs can be found in this description from Brown University: “The Brown Faculty Club provides a year- round, private and attractive gathering place in the heart of the Brown University campus that is perfect for dining or for entertaining associates, friends, and family. The Club’s well-appointed, flexible interior provides suitable facilities for private parties, wedding receptions, banquets and departmental meetings. Regular breakfast, lunch and dinner service is offered.”12

9 http://www.universityclubofmsu.org/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=227313&ssid=76204&vnf=1 10 www.wisc.edu/uclub/UniversityClubHistory.pdf 11 http://club.rice.edu/index.php?topgroupid=1&groupid=8&PHPSESSID=04f4f3af155c797a4bccb8acd818eb07 12 http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/Faculty_Club/

26 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

A much later Club, the University Club at the University of Indiana established in 1959, expresses similar contemporary ideals:

“…the University Club is for all faculty, staff, alumni, and interested community members. Our members share a common bond: Indiana University. Friendships formed at the Club help foster connections across departmental lines; our social, cultural, and recreational activities add to the texture of University life. The Club’s comfortable, welcoming facilities offer spaces for both large and small social gatherings, and quiet places to read or write.” 13

Today there are 61 organizations that affiliate as members of the Association of College and University Clubs (ACUC). The total number of such clubs is probably larger, and there are other entities that define themselves in part as “faculty clubs” at or near campuses but do not appear to have strong faculty precedents or participation, and function primarily as special event centers for their institutions.

College educated women had formed their own Association of Collegiate Alumnae (now the American Association of University Women) in 1881 in Boston with 65 women, graduates of eight colleges, as charter members. Chapters were soon established around the United States, including a San Francisco branch in 1886. Unlike many of the men’s “university clubs” which existed primarily to provide a place to eat, drink, socialize, network, and sleep–when being around one’s male peers, having fun, and servants to clean up after you, could be an end in itself–the college women’s organizations specifically engaged in educational and philanthropic activities.

By 1928 Berkeley members built their own College Women’s Club building (now the Bancroft Hotel) on Bancroft Way near College Avenue; it served as a social gathering spot, and also, like the nearby Faculty Clubs on the campus itself, a residence for single members. Berkeley’s College Women’s Club continues as an organization, although it has long since sold its headquarters building.

Of present day faculty clubs that are members of the ACUC currently (2013), 13 are in California, including two – the Faculty Club and the Women’s Faculty Club–at the Berkeley campus, five at other UC campuses, and the remainder associated with private universities including USC, the Santa Clara University, Stanford, and Caltech.14

Both of Berkeley’s Clubs are rare among North American faculty clubs in that they are independently owned and operated by their respective members. Many of the institutions advertising themselves today as “faculty clubs” or similar at North American campuses are either run by the campus dining services, or operated under contract by private businesses that specialize in food or “hospitality” services.

A sampling of university and college faculty club origin dates, chronologically arranged:

University of Denver, Women’s...... 1862 Johns Hopkins University...... 1899 University of California, Berkeley (Men’s)...... 1902 University Club, Wisconsin...... 1906/07 Colonnade Club, University of Virginia...... 1907

13 http://www.indiana.edu/~uclub/aboutus.html 14 http://www.acuclubs.org/ (January, 2009).

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 27

University of Washington...... 1909 Yale University...... 1911 University of Wisconsin, Women’s...... 1914 Ohio State University...... 1915 University of Connecticut...... 1915 University of Mass. Amherst...... 1916 University of Montana, Women’s...... 1917 Duke University...... 1918 University of Nevada...... 1918 UC Berkeley, Women’s...... 1919 Oberlin College...... 1919 Women’s Faculty Club...... 1919 Columbia University...... 1923 Rice University...... 1927 Louisiana State University...... 1927 Michigan State University...... 1929 Smith College...... 1929 Harvard University...... 1931 University of Utah...... 1932 University of North Carolina...... 1932 Rutgers University...... 1957 University of Calif. Santa Barbara...... 1968 Princeton University...... 1969 Georgia Southern University...... 1971 University of California, San Diego...... 1988

WOMEN FACULTY AND WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES AT BERKELEY The late 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century at Berkeley included a number of actions and activities to advance the status of women and/or provide social and gathering spaces and activities for women within the campus community. Women students had been admitted to the student body on an “equal basis” with men in 1871 and would come to make up a large part of the campus population; by the turn of the 20th century, 46% of undergraduates were women.

However, at the same time the faculty was all male, most administrators and campus staff were men, and student activities were formally governed, in large part, by traditional hierarchies of upper division male students. This latter role was recognized in 1900 by President Wheeler when he supported the creation of the Order of the Golden Bear, with student membership limited to senior men, as an organization that the administration and faculty could confidentially and informally use as a sounding board for student issues.

Women students established a YWCA chapter at Berkeley in 1889 and, after sharing the YMCA (Stiles Hall) building for decades, were able to build their own extensive social

28 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

center—the “Y” “Cottage”—off campus, just downhill from Sather Gate, during World War I. In 1911 women students funded and built Senior Women’s Hall / Girton Hall, on the eastern edge of the campus to serve as a meeting place and social center for women of the senior class, paralleling the men-only Senior Men’s Hall, completed in 1906 nearby. Both the “Cottage” and Girton Hall were designed by Julia Morgan, by then one of Berkeley’s most famous alumnae.

The first gymnasium on the campus, Harmon Gymnasium, built in 1879, was for physical activities of the male students (although also doubling as a meeting place and event center for the entire campus). By 1880 women students obtained certain hours for gymnasium use in the building, and by 1889 there were women’s physical education classes. There were early rowing clubs for women students, and the first intercollegiate women’s basketball game on the West Coast was played between Cal and Stanford in 1896. A few years later the gift of Hearst Hall to the campus by Phoebe Hearst created a women’s-only gymnasium which would be expanded to include a swimming pool and basketball court, and see heavy use for the next quarter century after its 1900 dedication. In 1923, when the first student union—Stephens Memorial Union—was built on the campus it included separate “club rooms” for both men and women students.

A senior women’s honor society—Prytanean—was created by women students, with The Hillside Club, influential in the administration support, in 1900 in parallel to the male Order of the Golden Bear. development of the Northside Prytaneans were soon engaged in various social and cultural causes on the campus, neighborhood and the First Bay including advocating for a hospital for students, and women’s dormitories. Region Tradition, was founded by a nucleus of neighborhood Since most early male professors were married—increasingly to women with college women “to protect the hills of Berkeley from unsightly grading degrees of their own—the role of the “faculty wife” in the early University is also worth and the building of unsuitable and noting. Faculty spouses organized their own activities and social groups and became disfiguring houses; to do all in our actively engaged in campus causes. Formal College Teas, organized by professors’ wives, power to beautify these hills and above all to create and encourage were held several times a year starting in 1907. By the end of the 1920s faculty spouses had a decided public opinion on formally organized into a campus “Section Club” (each “section” representing an area of these subjects.” Its first home was interest, like literature, tennis, foreign language study, music, or a social service activity). designed by Bernard Maybeck Mary Lee Noonan, herself a faculty spouse, in her 1998 history of the Section Clubs noted and was lost in the 1923 fire. The current buiding was designed that “the projects undertaken by the faculty wives have been done on their own initiative. by John White and built in 1924. Consistently, they have come forward as more than volunteers responding to someone Sanfranman59 photo, 2009.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 29

else’s call. They have identified problems, defined their own challenges and then marshaled the resources to solve them.” She also noted “the faculty wives have exercised leadership without authority…Ronald Heifetz of Harvard makes a useful distinction between authoritarian leadership, typically associated with male-dominated institutions, where people are given power to achieve specific goals, and leadership without authority, often exercised very effectively by women, where networking and adaptive skills are put to use. The Section Club is an excellent example of the latter…not surprisingly, you will not find any discussion of the Section Club in histories of the University of California.” (Noonan, UC Chronicle, Fall 1998, page 133).

Off campus, faculty spouses and some professional women from the University were active, and sometimes leaders, in social organizations formed by, or for, women. The influential Hillside Club in Berkeley was founded as a women’s organization in the 1890s, later admitting men to membership. The Town and Gown Club, also organized in the 1890s, was formed to bring together leading women from the campus and the community in a social setting, and still maintains that organizational structure. Both groups commissioned Bernard Maybeck to design their clubhouses, one north of campus, and the other to the south. A multitude of other women’s clubs and social organizations also developed in off-campus Berkeley, providing women—generally those who were well educated and/or well-to-do or from socially prominent families—with opportunities to socialize and organize community activities. These included a local chapter of the American Association of University Women, which would build its own near-campus residential clubhouse in the 1920s, and groups like the 20th Century Club and the Berkeley Piano Club which contained leading women in the community on their membership rosters.

As with the Section Clubs, these organizations often exerted “leadership without authority,” influencing the men and male dominated institutions who were the official elected or appointed leaders of local government and most local institutions. Women in Berkeley were active in organizing local social services for the poor (ranging from settlement houses, to day care, to health clinics, to “Americanization” programs for working class immigrant women), and campaigned for temperance and prohibition, good city planning and civic beautification, and better schools.

In 1911 a successful statewide campaign for women’s suffrage in California provided a catalyst for many Berkeley women to become directly active in politics. There was a vigorous local campaign for Suffrage connecting society women, working women, and co-eds in a common cause, Berkeley voters gave the cause a majority (it narrowly passed Statewide, although losing in most urban areas, including San Francisco), and Berkeley was soon electing women to School Board and, later, City Council positions.

On campus, women began earning positions on the academic and professional staff of the University in the 1890s in small numbers. A women’s physician, Dr. Mary Ritter, was appointed in 1891. Cal alumna May Cheney would, with the support of UC President Martin Kellogg, establish an appointments bureau in 1898 on the Berkeley campus to help find teaching jobs for Berkeley graduates. Cheney worked for the University for four decades in positions close to the President and was probably the earliest woman in what today would be called an administrative position within the University. Jessica Blanche Peixotto, the second woman to earn a Ph.D. at Berkeley (in 1900), became a lecturer in sociology, and by the early 1920s was a full professor and chair of the Department of Economics. Professor Agnes Fay Morgan was establishing herself as a nationally known research chemist and founder of what would become the Department of Nutrition.

30 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

President Wheeler appointed Lucy Sprague Mitchell the first dean of women in 1903, also giving her a faculty appointment to increase her status with her male colleagues. Mitchell would recall in her memoirs that “women were tolerated in a man’s college” as she characterized the University. She advocated for the women students and also organized them in activities such as the Partheneia, an elaborate annual dramatic fete written, designed, produced, and acted entirely by women. Other women were appointed to research and professional jobs in the early 20th century; the library seems to have had a concentration of women staff, some of whom would play important roles in the Women’s Faculty Club.

Altogether, by the end of the second decade of the 20th century, there was a still small, but well established, core of women professional and academic staff at the Berkeley campus.

It should be noted that all of these early professional and career women at the University were Caucasian. There were small numbers of non-white women students—particularly Japanese, Chinese, and African-American—at the University from the late 19th century onward, but they were generally not included in mainstream student activities or University employment, and faced active discrimination in areas such as housing in the surrounding community. Because of their pervasive exclusion, non-white students formed organizations and activities of their own—such as African-American fraternal groups, and Chinese, Japanese, and Indian (South Asian) private living clubs. Just as exclusion of women from many activities was a common assumption of most men at the University, de- facto exclusion of non-white women from women’s activities appears to have been an early assumption in (white) women’s organizations—at least it is the case that non-Caucasian faces and names are largely absent from their surviving records. However, as will be noted later, the Women’s Faculty Club did have some non-Caucasian residents, visitors, and guest residents in its early decades.

FORMATION OF THE WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB By the World War I era there were enough women faculty and professional staff at the Berkeley campus for them to begin considering establishing an organization, and perhaps a physical facility, of their own, excluded as they were from use of the Faculty Club. Women staff and faculty had the example of the successful Faculty Club as a model for an organization which had received a grant of a campus site from the Regents, as well as the two student senior clubhouses, Senior Men’s Hall (1906) and Girton Hall (1911).

The campus had a small but notable and solid core of both professional women staff, and faculty, who were instrumental in organizing the Women’s Faculty Club. “The founding members of the Women’s Faculty Club, like the Founding fathers of our nation, were brilliant women of the time who were leaders in their chosen fields” (Robb, page 67) “… there was a list of very famous women on the campus….Miss Stebbins, Agnes Fay Morgan, Mary Patterson, Jessica Peixotto, Pauline Sperry…there was Sophia Levy, who achieved, I think, national recognition that wasn’t given to her by the University.” (Smith, oral history, page 3)

Accounts attribute the initial organizational work to Lucy Ward Stebbins, the second Dean of Women for the University. She had followed the founding dean, Lucy Mitchell, and was a prominent figure on the campus in part because there was such a large population of women students. “In 1919 the Women’s Faculty Club was the brainchild of Lucy Ward Stebbins…Jessica Peixotto, a colleague and a good friend of Dean Stebbins, called together several women leaders on the campus to consider the formation of a faculty

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 31

group. They became the nucleus of the founders of the club. Miss Stebbins had no peer in her field.” (Robb, page 67) Peixotto was the second woman to receive a doctoral degree from the Berkeley campus and one of the first women to be hired in a faculty position; her specialization was economics.

The Club was formally organized on September 29, 1919 at a meeting organized by Stebbins in her home at the private Cloyne Court hotel on the Northside of the campus (this building still exists, today used as a student cooperative). A statement prepared the next year described the origins. “On September 29, 1919, Miss Lucy Ward Stebbins, Dean of Women, called together the women of the University of California in a meeting which resulted in the organization of the Women’s Faculty Club whose active members are the women of the faculty and of the administrative staff of the University, and whose associate members are chosen from professional women and women in public service in this community, and which has for its purpose the forwarding of the professional and social interests of these groups.” (Club records)

The early club did not have a building. It held meetings at the residences of members and some social events at campus locations. One was an early “costume party of sorts” that was held in 1921 or 1922 at the old Hearst Hall, the original women’s gymnasium, which was located on the current site of Wurster Hall, just down College Avenue from the Women’s Faculty Club site. (Murdoch, page 62)

“Miss Stebbins was a stately person in appearance—not in personality, but in appearance and in her relations she was commanding in appearance.” (Robb, page 74) One early Club member recalled that she was not “militant, but she was concerned. That’s a better word for it. She was very concerned over the place that women had on the faculty.” (Dornin, page 82)

“…what was happening was that the women were getting very upset because the men—you see, oh, it was so macho in those days. In the men’s club, no women could come in unless they were escorted by a man, and they could only come on very special occasions…but the faculty women couldn’t go, although it was a faculty club not a men’s faculty club, a faculty club.” (Dornin, pages 81-82)

“Dean Stebbins was a wonderful example of the iron fist in the velvet glove. She had an iron will, and she appeared very sweet on the surface. But she was determined to get what she wanted, and when she was told that the men’s club, the Faculty Club, had no place for women, and did not want them, that was it.” (Smith oral history, page 2) “That was Miss Stebbins’ original thing (sic) to start out: to give women academic recognition. And also to try to make it a home for the foreign scholars who come over to this country.” (Smith, page 19)

A 1920s minute of the Club includes this interesting statement as part of a discussion of the possibility that a large Bay Area club for “college women” in general might be created. “Since the college women’s club is to promote social ideals and interests of a social and educational nature, while the Women’s Faculty Club is more professional, a club for contacts rather than programs, it seemed hardly possible that any duplication of effort or interest could occur…” This is an instructive statement because it illustrates that at the beginning the “professional” focus of the Club was paramount—that it was an association where a relatively small number of faculty women within the large University could support each other and perhaps advance common interests, rather than just a place for socializing and events.

32 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

“The first members were all academic faculty people, including Miss Stebbins and Dr. Jessica Peixotto and Agnes Fay Morgan, and Barbara Armstrong of law, and Miss Coulter of the Library. It was a whole group of people with academic status. It was not until after the club was incorporated by those people that they invited some of the administrative people to become members,” recalled early member and long term resident Margaret Murdoch. (Murdoch, page 29)

However, “there are always some women on the campus who saw no need for the club and didn’t join. It wasn’t held against them. You joined if you wanted to. And if you were invited and didn’t join, that was your privilege.” But “I think as a whole, the academic women on the campus supported the club, but there were always some that didn’t choose to and that was their prerogative.” (Murdoch, page 34)

Others confirmed that the Club was not necessarily used by every woman academic. Josephine Miles, Professor of English, recalled that when she did graduate work at Berkeley “in the thirties, I never heard of the Women’s Faculty Club. I didn’t know it existed…I paid no attention to anything which made me think of the Women’s Faculty Club.” She began teaching in English in 1940, but it was not until a few years later that she met an office neighbor in Wheeler Hall, Pauline Sperry from Mathematics, who was active in the club and told her about and encouraged her to join it.

Miles described an incident where she was asked to come with two other women, visiting lecturers, to an English Department faculty meeting that would be held at the Faculty Club. “We went up there, and they would not let us in (to the Faculty Club building). I guess that begins my interest in the Women’s Faculty Club.” (Miles, page 103, 104) “They would not let any women in that club (the Faculty Club) except in one room. They were very chilling about it. That is why the women had to build a club. It was really forced on them. I had not realized that before,” Miles said. (Miles, page 105)

Murdoch speculated in her oral history discussion of the origins of the Club that “perhaps World War I had something to do with the fact that women had status” at the Berkeley campus. According to her, while some campus departments such as English and History would allow women to earn advanced degrees but did not hire women faculty, “economics had several” women faculty, “and of course the language departments had some. Mathematics had some excellent women scholars, including Sophie Levy and Miss Pauline Sperry. Miss Tabor was in German. The Women’s Faculty Club profited by the fact that the Sperry-Tabor pair were economists of sorts, too; they handled the finances that were done most successfully and were responsible for the short time before our club was all ours and the mortgage cleared…The Library School and the University Library provided the club with several others…” (Murdoch, page 30)

Murdoch later clarified these observations by adding that “one effect the war had was bringing more scholarly women out to Berkeley, so the club profited by having sabbatical people from Wellesley or Vassar or Smith, who came to study on the West Coast instead of going abroad as the temptation had always been. So it was an enrichment to the Club.” And among those seeking to establish themselves permanently in a Berkeley academic program, “a war does affect the demand and supply and so forth. There is a better chance (for women) to get established at a time when there isn’t quite so much male competition.” (Murdoch, 57)

Murdoch also characterized the early members as “bluestockings…an expression for people that were academically renowned, but not necessarily socially acceptable because of it. At any rate, it’s a good term for a general description of the founders…they were friendly

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 33

because of their scholarly interests. In think in a sense, the building of the clubhouse was a factor due to their campus position of second-class citizens, as it were. The Faculty Club was definitely for men; the women were allowed to use one of the corner dinner rooms, the little north dining room, and the so-called powder room, where the student waitresses left all of their books and paraphernalia. It was not a gracious place to entertain visiting faculty women. I think that they felt that they wanted their own dignity and their own campus status, and a clubhouse of their own would accomplish that.” (Murdoch, page 30)

The academic and “professional” members of the Club sometimes disagreed among themselves on who should be eligible for membership. In 1925 Professor Peixotto “objected to the ‘University graduate’ requirement (in proposed membership) on the grounds that it was intellectual snobbery.” There was also discussion of how to accommodate teaching fellows—non-tenure-track faculty with instruction or laboratory appointments who earned so little that they couldn’t necessarily afford to join any club with dues. The Board agreed that women working for the University who were either university graduates, “or who have been in the service of the University for a period of not less than three years” could be proposed as active members, and that teaching fellows could be classed as “transient” members with lower dues.

Murdoch made a key distinction in her description of the club membership. “Our club distinguished between the faculty ladies and the faculty women. The faculty ladies were the wives; they had their organization and were welcomed to use the Women’s Faculty Club for their parties, which they did very amiably, but no women were eligible automatically because they were wives. To belong to the club you had to be also a faculty woman, which meant a working person more or less. You were taken in on your own distinction as contributing, rather than your husband’s.” (Murdoch, page 50) This, again, distinguished the Women’s Faculty Club from most other women’s organizations in Berkeley in the first half of the 20th century at least, although it would have made it somewhat similar to the off-campus College Women’s Club which also provided residential quarters for single women and where the members were women who had earned college degrees.

“The Club was not a social organization at any time” recalled Agnes Robb, the longtime executive assistant to President Sproul; by “social” she appears to have meant a “socially prominent” group—people with upper class status—or an organization that existed primarily to provide social activities for the members. (Robb, page 73) The club did, however, “automatically” invite the spouses of UC presidents and, later, Berkeley chancellors, to join the membership and a number of wives of leading deans were also involved in the club. (Murdoch, page 52) In the informal social hierarchy of the campus among the “faculty ladies” (to use Murdoch’s distinction), the wives of senior administrators, deans, and department heads were regarded as senior among faculty spouses.

Within the early Club, some non-faculty members felt a clear, although not necessarily stated, distinction between academics and professional staff. “The academics were snobby” (Smith, oral history, page 5) “…this was one thing that I thought was strange about the club” recalled early member May Dornin, a career employee in the University Library and later University Archivist. “They were so keen on getting things done for the women, but they were awfully snooty about who came into the club. The junior assistants (in the Library) were not invited.” (Dornin, page 84)

Eleanor Van Horn, who came to the campus as a secretary and spent most of her career in the Department of Political Science, recalled that when she arrived in 1925, “At that

34 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

time it (the Women’s Faculty Club) was reserved to faculty. There were women faculty, of course…I never gave it a thought, except being invited to have lunch there occasionally with members.” Although a career University employee, she did not become a club member until the early 1950s. (Van Horn, page 207)

The bond prospectus for the Club building, issued in summer, 1922—three years after the club’s founding—noted that “active membership averaging ninety-five persons comprises only women holding Regental appointments at the University of California. An equal number of associate members is chosen from women throughout the state who have made some definite contribution in professional, educational, social, literary, or artistic fields.” (The definition of “Regental appointments” should be clarified. At that time employees of the University were considered “officers of the Regents”, so the headcount of 95 was not just faculty but professional staff as well.)

Physical Education staff and instructors were also common among the early members of the Club. This was probably, in part, due to the fact that women’s physical education was required and there were many co-eds on campus, so a large staff was needed, and many of the instructors and staff were women. (Murdoch, page 49)

One early club member also noted that a number of the early founders and Club members were single women who lived locally with their mothers. “The pattern of quite a few of those was a scholarly daughter and an admiring mother who was pleased that the daughter had recognition on the campus.” The mothers were almost always widows. (Murdoch, page 44) Professional women in this position would not have had the then-near-universal responsibilities of either supporting a husband in his professional career, or running a household with children, so they might well have had more time for professional associations like the Women’s Faculty Club.

Some early members recalled the club as a fairly tolerant place. When asked if there was any “racial or religious prejudice” in the Club, Margaret Murdoch answered “I would say no.” She attributed this to some diversity and open-mindedness among the founders— Stebbins was Unitarian, Jessica Peixotto was Jewish—“it wasn’t all New England Presbyterians. It was a pretty broad religious scope. I don’t think anybody would have been refused membership for any of the racial or other qualifications.” She added “we always had Chinese,” although whether that meant members, or visiting residents, is unclear. (Murdoch, page 49) Murdoch did identify one resident as “a Chinese librarian” who lived on the third floor and, like Murdoch, was musical and had a piano at the club. (Murdoch, page 61) Non-Caucasian women on the faculty, and large numbers of non-Caucasian staff, would, however, not be present on campus until the last three or four decades of the 20th century so they would not have formed any appreciable part of the membership in the first decades of the Club.

The Women’s Faculty Club did not include only women faculty and professional staff but “associate” members who were distinguished women—but not necessarily women with paid jobs—on the campus or in the community. The lists of associates that appear in Club records include spouses of some leading University administrators and male professors, and well as some well-to-do women in the community.

In late 1924, not much more than a year after the building opened, the Board minutes provide a useful snapshot and discussion of the role of these women in the Club. The Club did not allow the number of associate members to exceed the number of regular members. There were 128 associates—already up against the ½ limit, since the total membership was about 250—and there was debate over whether to allow more in with the result that “the

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 35

club will be very much altered,” and the distinction between “professional women who are practicing instead of those professionally trained but not practicing.” “The membership committee found certain professions almost lacking in representation in the club and would like to see more architects and artists among its associate members, since it believes that a group of people of similar interests would find the club more interesting and valuable, as is shown by the relatively large group of doctors who find the club a pleasant meeting place.” Here, again, is the emphasis on the Women’s Faculty Club as not just a place for women to enjoy social events, but a place where women professionals could find a supportive environment among their peers.

A follow-up report on associate members in early 1925 noted that “the members in education, social services and medicine form 71 percent” of the associates. “The non- professional members are equally divided between wives of members of the University faculty and those not connected with the University.” At the time there were 127 Associate members, characterized as 56 “professional,” 64 “non-professional” and 7 “in doubt.” The professional associates included 22 in education, 10 “social workers,” 8 “medical,” 4 each of “Music” and “Literary,” 3 in “Arts and Architecture,” and 2 each in “legal” and “business.” The non-professional members included 32 “wives of faculty,” “Friends of the University” divided into “older women” and “younger women,” “ex-officio” and “civic” women.

There were other prominent women associated with the University who were benefactors of the Club. Some of the early ones were identified as Mrs. Margaret Sartori (an early Regent) who bought “a generous supply” of the Women’s Faculty Club stock when it was issued to build the structure, and Mrs. (Sigmund) Stern who “gave porch furniture in her generous way,” and would later fund the University’s first women’s dormitory. (Murdoch, page 53)

A rare direct male benefactor of the early Women’s Faculty Club was Albert Bender, “a darling and generous person” who was a friend of Jessica Peixotto and Dean (and later Vice President) Monroe Deutsch. “He was our early male honorary member.” (Murdoch, 54) Bender gave art objects and support to the Club, as well as other University programs. Although he was not directly affiliated with the University—he was not an alumnus, or staff or faculty member—he was a prominent benefactor in the 1920s and 1930s through his numerous friendships with Regents, faculty, and wealthy philanthropists in the Bay Area. He was not rich himself, but Bender gave art objects to several institutions— particularly Mills College, Stanford, what is now the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the University of California—and was the organizer of the successful effort to create an art gallery on the Berkeley campus in 1933-34.

Once the Club was established and operating, early members perceived support among male administrators and faculty. This began, of course, with administrative support in providing an on-campus site for the Club building in the early 1920s. By the 1930s when Robert Gordon Sproul was President, “I think President Sproul and Dean Deutsch had a very friendly attitude, pleased that the club existed and represented a certain quality that the other club didn’t,” observed Margaret Murdoch (Murdoch, page 55) “I think the Victorian men, you might say, I mean the Men’s Faculty Club, was influenced in the early 1900s I suppose by Henry Morse Stephens and (Charles Mills) Gayley, and some of the ones that probably hadn’t really an appreciation of women’s positions on campuses. I think as time went on that attitude changed, and the men just accepted the fact that there were the two clubs. I don’t think there was any animosity between the clubs at any time to any extent…I think they all went along quite amicably.” (Murdoch, page 55)

36 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Agnes Robb, long time executive assistant to President Sproul, said “He was interested in the club, but he and Mrs. Sproul felt the President’s House should be used in place of our facilities” for campus events. (Robb, page 76). She added Sproul “was strong for faculty women…he was criticized for not appointing more women to the faculty, but they had to come up through the prescribed faculty procedure. So there was a certain aversion to women. They had to compete, and the leaders of the Women’s Faculty Club did, you see.” (Robb, page 77)

One may speculate, however, with historical hindsight, that from the standpoint of some male faculty and administrators, the relatively early existence and creation of a separate Women’s Faculty Club on the Berkeley campus was a blessing in disguise. It meant that from the 1920s to the 1950s at least, the male campus leadership could assume a “separate but equal” provision of non-academic facilities for faculty and staff and mute any possible agitation for gender-equality in the Faculty Club. This would not have been possible, of course, on a campus like Berkeley with a large number of women employees and a growing number of women academics, if a separate building and organization for women faculty and professional staff did not exist. Without the Women’s Faculty Club a sustained effort to gender-integrate the all-male Faculty Club might have come earlier than it did, in the 1970s.

Over the decades the nature of the Club membership changed, and women faculty comprised less of the total organization, compared to the early days. In 1982, one member stated, “you look over the roster now, it’s ninety-nine and 9/10 percent administrative, and not faculty. You have an awful time to interest the faculty. I have found that they look down their noses at the administrative group.” (Smith, page 6.) “As I look back on the personnel at lunch time, ever since I can remember, more than half have been administrative people,” she also said. (Smith, page 14)

The change in membership may well have reflected the growth in the staff of the campus who did not hold academic appointments but had career administrative or professional jobs. At the beginning of the 20th century, compared with faculty, non-academic staff on the Berkeley campus were a relative handful, primarily a few administrators, some clerical staff, and specialized groups like librarians and the men who maintained the campus grounds and facilities. By the mid-20th century the career staff was an ever-increasing portion of the campus population, particularly as the statewide University grew into an institution with far-flung branches and facilities, all administered from Berkeley and as the University received large amounts of research funding that, in turn, called for laboratory, program, administrative, and support staff in addition to academic researchers. This career staff population provided then, as now, a base from which the Women’s Faculty Club could draw members.

Women faculty were also increasingly busy with their academic lives which did not necessarily allow time to participate in campus organizations. And the increasing number of women in academic fields from the 1970s onward, resulted in more organizations and networking opportunities for women scholars within their own disciplines and their own academic departments. No longer would the Women’s Faculty Club be the only place where relatively small numbers of women with academic appointments—some of them literally alone amongst a sea of male colleagues at work—could meet, share common interests, and support each other as the founders had envisioned.

Academics associated with the Club did organize some of their own activities over the years using the Club facilities. One of them was a dinner club, once a month at the

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 37

Women’s Faculty Club, in which women members would alternate presenting papers to their colleagues. This involved, according to Josephine Miles, about a dozen women from various disciplines, particularly nutrition and biological sciences, but also including German, Mathematics and English. (Miles, page 106) Josephine Miles also identified another subtle distinction between women academics on the campus. It was her view that “the women who were supported by the men (in their academic disciplines) did not want to go ahead and support other women” in academic careers. (Miles, page 108)

It is clear from the early Club records that the Women’s Faculty Club was organizationally separate from the University, but also quite well, but informally, integrated into the campus. This began with the University’s grant of a site for the Club building. And, since members were University employees, some would informally use non-financial resources of the campus. Some Club committee meetings were, for example, held in Doe Library and other campus buildings where members worked.

Margaret Murdock noted in her Club oral history interview that she received some informal relief from her duties as a University employee to do some volunteer administrative work for the Club. Leading Women’s Faculty Club members, like Dean Stebbins, could easily move through the University administration and have access to key decision-makers and advisors including the President and Supervising Architect John Galen Howard and, through them, The Regents.

Like many other independent, but campus related, organizations, the Women’s Faculty Club employed these sorts of campus connections to bring its building project along. In fact, when the Building Committee sent out a notice in 1922 that bonds were finally available for sale, members were told, “you will find us in Room 218 (Doe) Library daily,” and that bonds could be bought there.

THE WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB–CHRONOLOGY “There is no institution at any other great university in this country comparable to the Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California at Berkeley. Why that is so has to do with women’s place at various times, in different ivied halls. The women who founded and supported the concept of a separate women’s club at Berkeley were impelled to such action as the result of a grossly misguided denial to them of entry to The (significantly so capitalized) Faculty Club. That rejection galvanized a certain group of women to form a club and build a building.” (Brewer)

The history of the Women’s Faculty Club is generally divisible into these eras:

In 1919 the Club was organized, in response to a strong need identified among women academics and professional staff on the campus for an association where they could meet and advance their common interests. The Club was not conceived as a purely social group—as were many “women’s clubs” in that era—but rather as an association of women with similar interests and issues within the University. Initially, the Club held meetings and events in borrowed spaces on the campus as well as the homes of members.

Very quickly the Club members began to discuss the idea of building a “clubhouse” structure of their own. This idea soon evolved, as had the earlier (Men’s) Faculty Club, into a building that could house not only events, meals, and gatherings but also residential quarters for unmarried members. The idea of having residents in the building was also soon defined as a useful way to financially support the building, since residents would be

38 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

paying fixed rents and the Club would not be entirely dependent for its building, mortgage, and operational expenses on member dues and income from programs and services (such as meals and events).

From 1920 to 1923 the Club membership actively, astutely, and energetically engaged in planning a building. They obtained a site from the University after considerable lobbying, and hired the campus Supervising Architect, John Galen Howard, to design a building. They overcame major financial and organizational obstacles, raised funds from their members and through bond sales, went through two complete sets of plans for the building, and had it constructed and useable by the end of 1923.

From the completion of the building into the 1940s, the Club operated both as a gathering place for non-resident members and as a residence for many women who worked on campus, generally in professional jobs, and quarters for visiting women scholars. Although the Great Depression caused a decline in revenues and other challenges arose, this seems to have been a relatively solid period in which the Club faced financial economies but also established itself firmly on campus as both a building and an organization. The Club prided itself on having a handsome building and attractively furnished spaces for member gatherings.

From the mid-1940s through the early 1960s, the programmatic and residential nature of the Club continued, but a number of challenges began to appear and remained largely unresolved. The building aged and major repairs and upgrades were needed, but could not necessarily all be funded. The Club grappled with a perception—even among members— that it was becoming an “old ladies residence”—with its most visible face being long-term University staff who lived more or less permanently on the upper floors. And an issue that had existed from the beginning—the extent to which women on the faculty, as opposed to women on the University staff, participated in the Club—continued. This was exacerbated by an actual decline in the percentage of women on the faculty, as compared to earlier decades.

From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s as the Club passed the half-century mark, it underwent a period of considerable uncertainty and turmoil, as did many campus institutions in the same era when the University and the surrounding community and society at large faced rapid and unsettling change and conflict. The Club grappled in particular with: the issues of needed and increasingly urgent repairs and physical deterioration; the use of the residential floors and the residential services provided; cultural changes from being part of a much expanded, more urban, campus and diminishing member interest in building a social life around private clubs; the ability to continue to provide meal service for residents and non-resident members; and repeated consideration of the possibility of a merger with the Faculty Club. Prospective financial help came from a major gift from the Haas family to assist in renovations of the faculty clubs, but this brought its own challenges since, at the beginning, the gift was coupled with an assumption of the University administration that the clubs would merge into one “University Club.” There was internal dissension in the Club membership as some leaders and members supported merger as a way to address the financial and building problems, and others argued that the Women’s Faculty Club would essentially be subsumed into the still all-male Faculty Club and that the uncertain finances of the Faculty Club would pose problems for the women’s membership. There was the very real prospect that the building might be demolished, or physically connected to the Faculty Club and altered, or even converted into non-club uses such as academic office space or headquarters for new programs in women’s studies and services on the campus.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 39

By the end of this period, the Club was able to resolve most of the key challenges. Important repairs were undertaken. The residential character (like that at the nearby the Faculty Club) was effectively changed from a mix of long-term single residents and University visitors to a guest residence / small hotel for campus visitors; on the large campus, the Club, with its admired meal service, residential scale, and intimate event rooms, became a popular place for dining and events. Membership was expanded to include men.

Since that time—over the past four decades—the Club has continued to follow and build on the same patterns established by the end of the 1970s—operation as a guest residence, campus lunch location, and campus event space—without losing its special character as a membership organization. The Club also remains, as it has since the beginning, a membership organization run by an elected Board.

THE CLUB BUILDS THE WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB SITE The Women’s Faculty Club sits just beyond the northwestern corner of what was a tract of This 1875 map was prepared private homes developed from the 1860s onwards abutting the campus. In the 1860s the to show not only the campus but water resources available College of California subdivided much of the land it owned in Berkeley for private sale as to the University in Strawberry residential lots, in a dual effort to bring in income for the College and to establish a proper Canyon. A triangle of buildings residential neighborhood next to the campus. Of these two tracts, the “College Homestead in the lower center shows Bacon Hall, South Hall, and Tract”—south of Allston Way to Dwight Way, and west of today’s College Avenue (then North Hall, the early academic Audubon Street)—was laid out in a grid form. The second district, the “Berkeley Property core of the campus. The map Tract”—east of College Avenue and extending northwards to the campus edge near includes the intersection of College Avenue with Strawberry Strawberry Creek— was laid out by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1866. Here, in contrast Creek and campus roadways to the rectilinear Homestead Tract, Olmsted designed a curving drive that followed the adjacent to the Women’s Faculty natural contours of the land—today’s Piedmont Avenue—and irregular blocks adjacent, Club site. An unidentified subdivided into large parcels for prime home sites. The northernmost blocks of this tract building, possibly a farmhouse predating the campus, is shown lay on what is now the California Memorial Stadium site east of Piedmont Avenue and on the site. This may also be extended on the west side of Piedmont Avenue across College Avenue (which ran north the later forestry clubhouse, of Bancroft Way at an angle and extended to Strawberry Creek). The Women’s Faculty and then music building, that was removed for the Club Club site would be selected on a small parcel of campus land just west of where College construction. Avenue—then a city street—met and crossed the creek channel.

The neighborhood south and southeast of the site grew through the last quarter of the 19th century and the early 20th century into a private residential district of both modest and substantial homes, many of them residences of members of the faculty, UC staff, or professional or business people in the community. The private homes intermingled with a number of fraternity houses (including the first fraternity west of the Mississippi, Zeta Psi) and private boarding houses for students.

The Hearst Plan, as adopted in 1900, generally reserved the central campus north of Strawberry Creek as a grand, Beaux-Arts-inspired precinct of academic facilities such as classroom, laboratory, and library buildings. The edges of

40 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

the campus—particularly the fringes south of Strawberry Creek—accordingly became the site of non-academic facilities as they were independently proposed and developed. These facilities were generally smaller than the permanent academic buildings, built of more local and informal materials—usually wood—and fitted in to the existing topography and sites, such as vacant lots or converted residential buildings purchased for use, rather than being executed, as was the academic part of the Hearst Plan, on a supposed blank slate of campus grounds.

Hearst Hall was moved to a University-owned lot on College Avenue in 1900. The men of the Faculty Club were granted a building site south of Strawberry Creek in 1903. This was followed by California Field—a wooden stadium funded and operated by the Associated Students—on the Hillegass Tract in 1905. Northwest of California Field a red brick Powerhouse for the campus was constructed south of Strawberry Creek in 1905, and across the street the University began to acquire buildings and building sites along Barrow Lane (backing up on commercial storefronts on Telegraph Avenue) as locations for various campus business and service functions, ranging from storehouse operations to the campus printing department.

Senior Men’s Hall was granted a site next to the Faculty Club in 1905 and completed in 1906. In 1907, following the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire and Berkeley’s experiences coping with a large refugee population and attendant medical challenges, a Students’ Infirmary was established in a converted home at 2220 College Avenue, on the block then south of the campus. The infirmary would be expanded several times and ultimately replaced, in the 1930s, by a new purpose-built Cowell Hospital for students, also on College Avenue. In 1911, Girton Hall was allocated a site further up Strawberry Creek from Senior Men’s Hall. Stephens Memorial Union was built on the west side of Faculty Glade, opposite the Faculty Club, in 1923, and within a decade the original Eshleman Hall (now Moses Hall) was added to its west, housing student publications and musical activities. Tennis courts were also built at College Avenue and Bancroft Way, where Kroeber Hall is now located.

All of these campus-related developments came to establish the area adjacent to, and radiating out east, south, and west of Faculty Glade and north of Bancroft Way as a nexus of non-academic, but University-connected, social, recreational, and service facilities for

A 1926 map shows the setting just after completion of the Portion of the campus conditions just prior to construction of the Women’s Faculty Club building. College Avenue is still a city street with private Club. Undated postcard view is after 1917 because Wheeler Hall is present, but houses across from the Club. Piedmont Avenue terminates in an before 1923 (not only the Club, but also LeConte Hall is not yet built). This view intersection with College Avenue just north of the Club across is probably closer to 1917 than 1923. There appears to be a smaller building on Strawberry Creek. North is to the left. Map courtesy of Physical the Club site, consistent with the little house or music building that the plans and & Environmental Planning, University of California. accounts show there. Image courtesy of Steven Finacom.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 41

the campus community, initially mixed in with private homes and student living groups. Campus users could easily reach these facilities by one of several bridges over Strawberry Creek and could just as easily filter out to the south into residential neighborhoods where many of them lived.

The Women’s Faculty Club would add to, and form part of, this complex tapestry of infill and development in the early 1920s when the adjacent properties were still largely privately owned. The Women’s Faculty Club building would also become the fourth structure in a string of campus “clubhouses”—three of them designed, at least in part, by John Galen Howard—running along the bank of Strawberry Creek from west to east: the Faculty Club, Senior Hall, the Women’s Faculty Club, and Senior Women’s Hall / Girton Hall. The grouping would be reinforced in 1946 when Girton Hall was moved downhill, closer to the old College Avenue, and across the street from the Women’s Faculty Club; the unified assembly of clubhouse buildings would not be disrupted until 2014 when Girton Hall was moved from its second site to Strawberry Canyon to make way for an addition to the Business School.

From the 1950s onwards, as described in the later “Environs” section, the overall nature of the College Avenue neighborhood would dramatically change. By the end of the decade the University had completed acquisition of most of the private parcels in the area, and Long Range Development Plans fully incorporated the neighborhood into the campus. The city streets were closed, plazas and pathways developed, and major new academic buildings— for professional schools, the Music Department, Art Practice, and the Anthropology museum—were sited and constructed. This development largely erased the non-academic town/gown interface zone that had existed previously, except along Piedmont Avenue where five houses, all converted to academic offices, still remain from the early 20th century.

PLANNING AND DESIGN OF THE CLUB BUILDING Early campus maps show a small structure on the current Women’s Faculty Club site. This was identified by early Club members as a cottage. The origins of this building are unclear, but it appears to have been assigned to various uses and “for a while the Music Department was just exactly where the Women’s Faculty Club now stands,” presumably occupying the same small structure. (Murdoch, page 58) This would not have been the entire Music Department, because its early facilities were scattered among a number of small structures on the periphery of the campus. In postcards and aerial photographs that show the campus, this structure does appear as a residentially scaled building surrounding by the arc of trees along Strawberry Creek.

For a while the early Club also met in a structure called “the Forestry bungalow,” although its location is unclear. As will be described later, a room in Hearst Hall was then procured as an interim meeting location while plans for a permanent structure were developed.

The Women’s Faculty Club was organized as an association of individuals, not as a physical facility, but from early on there was strong interest in a building. This parallels the early evolution of the Faculty Club less than two decades earlier. A 1922 description of the organization of the Women’s Faculty Club stated “it was immediately clear that a clubhouse is most essential to the life of the university, since no place is available on the campus for informal meetings, rest rooms, and reading rooms for such a group. With this need so urgently before them, the Board of Directors of the Club proposed that an effort be made to obtain such a clubhouse, and the work was started in May 1920 through the election of the Club of a Building Committee to plan and carry on the building of a clubhouse.” (1922 Bond Prospectus)

42 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

“The (Building) Committee has based calculations tentatively on a clubhouse costing approximately $40,000, that shall include living quarters and furnish an income from rentals sufficient to play running expenses of the house and also the bonded indebtedness incurred in building, and has advised the immediate raising of one-fourth of this amount by the sale of stock…” Club notes from 1920 explain. The financial prospectus “based on a membership of 170,” proposed that funds for the building would be raised as follows: $850 from member initiation fees; $850 from “one-half annual dues” and $8,300, hopefully raised by each member purchasing or selling an average of ten shares of building stock. This would raise $10,000, and an additional $30,000 would be obtained by a bond issue. The Women’s Faculty Club would then pay rent to the Building Committee sufficient to retire the bonds in 25 years.

The Club moved rapidly, proposing the project to the University administration. The Regents were then the direct, not just the final, decision-makers on all building projects for the campus; then, as now, building projects also travelled to The Regents only with the blessing of the chief executive of the Berkeley campus who in 1920 was also the President of the University (Chancellors were not appointed until 1952).

Women’s Faculty Club leaders were actively engaged in lobbying for a University-provided site that would administratively parallel The Regents’ provision two decades earlier of a location for the Faculty Club. August 20, 1920, minutes report: “Miss Stebbins reported her activities in behalf of the club in furthering the selection of a site for the Club- house. Several letters were sent and many interviews held with members of the (Regents) Buildings and Grounds Committee, and with other interested persons. Sites suggested for consideration by the Committee were the west end of the (Faculty) Glade, and the ridge between the Stephens Oak and the Physiology Building. The Committee was asked to indicate other sites which they thought suitable. Mrs. Sartori (later a Regent, herself) has very kindly offered to go to the members of the buildings and Grounds Committee in behalf of the Club…Mr. Sproul (then UC Controller), Mr. Barrows (UC President) and the Committee have all received letters on the subject. Dr. Peixotto stated that Mr. Barrows was interested and would like to hear more about the Club…”

September 1, 1920, Women’s Faculty Club Board minutes note “Prior to the meeting of The Regents Committee on Buildings and Groups, the Chairman of the Board of Directors together with the Chairman of the Building Committee presented the needs of the Club as regards a building site to President Barrows, and the attached letter together with a note of financial plan of the Club was sent to the President. No formal report of The Regents’

Title page from 1921 prospectus for bonds that financed construction of the Women’s Faculty Club. Women’s Faculty Club archives.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 43

meeting has been received but the President has notified the President of the Building Committee that The Regents will grant the Club a site whose location is to be chosen later.”

The letter from Stebbins and Katherine Scott, of the Building Committee, to President Barrows read, in part: “the Building Committee wishes to emphasize the advantages to the Club of receiving from The Regents at as early a date as feasible the assurance of permission to build on the campus, such assurance having the force of a long term lease, whatever site may be chosen.”

“We realize that the selection of any particular site involves consideration of details in the whole building plan for the campus, which may not as yet be decided. We would urge certain considerations which would be advantageous to the Club…accessibility and a central location are essential to the success of the club as an important social factor in university life…the surroundings of any possible site should be suitable” for a building that contains living quarters.

The Club proposed four sites. “On the ridge to the southwest of the Faculty Club…at such a point as not to interfere with the live oak trees.” (an area roughly where Morrison Hall is today); “any possible location within the Faculty Glade or immediately adjacent;” “at the east end of the Botanical Gardens;” “a site immediately east of the Hearst Mining Building, at the edge of the Eucalyptus Grove.”

The Botanical Gardens, at the time, were in the central glade of the campus, north of Doe Library. There was consideration of relocating them to Strawberry Canyon—which would actually happen soon—but presumably this site was the on-campus one, which would have placed the Club building about where Evans Hall stands today. “East of the Hearst Mining Building” would be in the vicinity of today’s Stern Hall, but probably somewhat lower on the hillside.

None of these sites would ultimately be chosen. One may speculate that the third was too far within the academic core of the campus to be considered seriously, the first and second might have compromised the open space of Faculty Glade as it was then evolving (and perhaps even offended the Faculty Club by giving the women’s club a co-equal site adjoining Faculty Glade). The fourth might have been regarded by The Regents as a perhaps an area to be reserved for larger projects in the future—as would indeed prove to be the case.

On September 3, 1920, the Committee on Grounds and Buildings of The Regents “granted a building site on the campus” but did not specify an exact location. Ten days later the Club’s Building Committee “presented a plan approved by the Board of Directors for raising funds for the building and equipment of a clubhouse” to the Women’s Faculty Club annual meeting. Pledge slips were immediately distributed, and members were sent a non- binding questionnaire to start assessing their priorities for the project.

The Women’s Faculty Club leadership later received a note from future UC President and then Controller, Robert Gordon Sproul that “at a meeting of The Regents of the University held September 14, 1920, on recommendation of the Grounds and Buildings Committee, it was voted that a site somewhere in the northeast (sic) section of the campus be allotted to the Women’s Faculty Club, a definite location to be decided on at a later date.”

The Club responded with a thank-you letter that urged site selection and commented on the northeast possibility. “We feel that economical building as well as success in maintaining the club demands an easily accessible location with surroundings already

44 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

developed, i.e. driveways, water connections, etc. We would be most interested to learn something of the plans for the development of this (northeast) part of the campus, if these have been outlined, and the consequent advantages which the Grounds and Buildings Committee have felt will accrue to their selection of this region.”

There was a high level meeting in early October, summarized by the Club minutes. “The (Building Committee) Chairman reported…she together with the Chairman of the Board of Directors had conferred with President Barrows in regard to the Building site, and that he had shown himself very favorable to the whole project and had assured them that while it was impossible at this time to make any definite decision as to a site, that the decision in favor of a site in the northeast section of the campus was not unalterable, and that a site on College Ave. might be considered.”

In August, Lucy Stebbins had been exploring one specific site. Minutes note that she “reported her activities in behalf of the club in furthering the selection of a site for the Club-house.“ The Women’s Faculty Club also briefly discussed a member suggestion that they pursue a lot owned by the University on Piedmont Avenue—most likely in the block north of Bancroft Way—but rejected the idea because it was too far from the central campus. The Club appeared intent on not being shunted off to the side but on getting a location that would not only be convenient for their members who worked on campus, but would have some locational prestige—as did the Faculty Club—within the campus grounds.

Ultimately, The Regents—presumably with the advice of Barrows, and John Galen Howard—designated the current site, a corner of land at the very edge of the campus as it was then laid out, but not disadvantageous since it met both the core goals of the Club; within easy walking distance of the central campus, just a minute’s stroll east from the Faculty Club and Faculty Glade; adjoining what was then a residential neighborhood where many University faculty, staff, and professional people lived. It was also immediately adjacent to roadways and utility service, which had been an issue when the underdeveloped hillside area east of the Mining Building had been considered.

Although the two key approvals—Women’s Faculty Club and a University guarantee of a site on University land—were now in place, it would be another two years before completion of the structure, and the project would face several financial obstacles along the way. From the standpoint of the University, it is likely that the current site also served well because it was outside the core campus areas where major new permanent facilities were being planned, so the new Club would not become a physical or programmatic obstacle to future campus development.

The bond prospectus included a plot plan showing the club’s definitive location, but with the footprint of the original design which was later discarded because of budgetary limitations. Women’s Faculty Club archives.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 45

Meanwhile, the Club was making temporary use of other campus quarters and had relocated from the “Forestry Bungalow.” In early 1920 the Club had a formal “Temporary House Committee” and looked into borrowing “University Cottage #3” as meeting quarters, but ultimately decided it was too run down. The same month, minutes reported, “The question of the location of a temporary meeting place was discussed—the University cottage, the possibility of use of the present Infirmary buildings when a new infirmary is erected, the advisability of security a building not on the campus.” In September, 1920, Club minutes note that a member “suggested the possibility of using a room in Hearst Hall for a club room during the year, and was asked to find out if it was available for that purpose.” Not long after, October 24, 1920, “Mrs. Morgan reported for the house committee that Room 35 Hearst Hall had been placed in order for the club. It has been provided with a rug, large table and plain chairs from the equipment of Hearst Hall, two wicker chairs and a couch from the Home Economics building, and cushions and curtains purchased and made by the committee. The lock from the bungalow is there and the secretary was instructed to see that it is put on the door. The cost of purchases has been eight dollars. The report of the house committee was accepted with appreciative thanks.”

In 1920 the Club sent members a questionnaire asking their input and advice on a permanent clubhouse building. It asked, in part: “what is your idea of the clubhouse needed?” Respondents were given a choice between “social and meeting rooms only,” “two story building including approximately 10 living quarters,” and “three story building including approximately 20 living quarters.” “If you feel that living quarters should not be included, can you suggest other ways of financing building than by increasing fees and dues?”

Members were also asked, “Would you plan to live at the Club?” and, if so, what rents they would be willing to pay and what type of room: “room,” “room and bath,” “room and porch,” with “running water, bath common to 5 or 6 rooms,” or “room, porch, and bath,” plus a fireplace and, finally, a “suite of two rooms and bath,” possibly with porch and fireplace. The suggested rental costs ranged from $20 / month for a single room, to $55 to $75 for a suite with private bath.

Members were also polled on kitchen privileges, laundry facilities, and “restaurant facilities in the Club” and interest in “a Cafeteria breakfast” and “garage space.” Although a tally of the questionnaire results does not appear to survive, from the planning that followed it would appear members indicated an interest in having residential floors and dining areas, as well as club activity rooms. A Women’s Faculty Club statement soon after refers to the Club providing “much needed housing facilities for women of the faculty which can in no manner be duplicated by any other institution.”

Interestingly, Women’s Faculty Club notes show that the Finance Committee also went to meet with at least one resident of the Faculty Club, at that building itself, to discuss plans. The unnamed man—presumably a resident professor—offered the following advice: the project should be capitalized at no less than $50,000; “The Faculty Club has 21 rooms, renting for from $18 to $25 a month, with no private baths, barely paying expenses. The baths are arranged with two showers and one tub for each seven rooms…a building of less than 20 rooms would not pay; …private baths added greatly to the expense for installation, repairs and service, and that $30 a month was the lowest charge that should be made for a room with bath. The member strongly advised against installation of private baths.”

This is a useful document in that it confirms that at least one faculty resident of the male bastion was willing to meet with the women—on the male-only turf, no less—and offer

46 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

practical advice to the women on creating their own club. It also presaged the troubles both clubs would ultimately have in striving to remain financially sound with a long- term resident population, instead of transient or short term academic visitors using the residential quarters.

The core advice offered seems to have been followed, in that the Women’s Faculty Club building was planned from the start with about two dozen rooms (around the minimum of 20 recommended) and shared, instead of private, bathrooms.

There was another piece of advice obtained by the Club in this period that was not fully followed. The Finance Committee also talked to some private construction contractors. They “were not in favor of building this year anyway as a panic is expected next year, when values will depreciate. Prices are very high now, and building is being done very poorly in consequence. Their advice was to secure temporary quarters for two years, rent rooms to members, organize a building committee and begin to raise money.” Instead of an interim plan, the Women’s Faculty Club proceeded to pursue site and money, and would have the building under construction not long after that two year window that the contractors recommended be avoided.

The building was designed on the basis of having one or two lower floors of dining, office, and event spaces, and two upper floors of residential rooms. The residential rooms were essential to the financing of the building, since the rents would help pay the majority of the construction debt. The Club directors noted, “The Women’s Faculty Club holds a unique position as a social club in that, being attached to a State University, it is assured of a permanent and increasing membership.” In other words, as California grew, the University would inevitably grow, too, and would not be like a private college.

John Galen Howard was selected as the architect. Howard was the Supervising Architect for the campus at the time, having served some twenty years in that position, and was also an academic and the founder of the School of Architecture on the campus. Howard’s contract with The Regents specified that he would have first right of refusal for any design work on the campus west of what is now Gayley Road, unless a donor specified another architect. This was formally invoked only once, when William Randolph Hearst chose his

The bond prospectus showed Howard’s original design for the Women’s Faculty Club. It was larger than the Club that was ultimately built, and markedly different from it in architectural style and materials. Women’s Faculty Club archives.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 47

mother’s and his own favorite architects—Bernard Maybeck, and Julia Morgan—to jointly design Hearst Memorial Gymnasium. (Julia Morgan also donated plans for Girton Hall / Senior Women’s Hall, built during Howard’s tenure, east of today’s Gayley Road).

Since the Women’s Faculty Club was being constructed with privately raised funds, not a public appropriation, it is possible that the Club could have asked The Regents for another architect, but Howard was known to the founders and had designed not only on-campus buildings but private homes off campus for University faculty and staff. He had designed the Cloyne Court Hotel where Lucy Stebbins lived, a building which is similar in many ways to the eventual Women’s Faculty Club building—both are three story brown-shingle residences of relatively simple form and detailing, with ground floor common areas and upstairs residential spaces on two floors, and their own gardens and courtyard.

He had also designed additions to the Faculty Club, and Senior Hall between the sites of the two faculty clubs. He would have been a known quantity to the Club founders. In sum, “...they wanted to have Mr. Howard do it. It wasn’t a competition…” (Murdoch, page 31) However, as the reader will see, relations between Howard and the Women’s Faculty Club would become strained during the design process to the point where the Club did consider trying to switch architects.

Early plans for the Club structure were quite different than the final result, although the site is the same. Margaret Murdoch recalled “the ideas of grandeur that they had, which would have included a fireplace in every room, with a very fancy concrete structure.” (Murdoch, page 30)

The original building design, for which Howard’s plans still survive, was a structure of three stories above a full basement in a Mediterranean architectural style with generous common rooms. It had arched windows on the main floor, large bedroom suites, multiple chimneys, and upper floor open-air porches. The exterior would be cement plaster or stucco, and the roof appears to have been planned as tile.

In a presentation drawing prepared by Howard, probably in 1922, the building faces south, like the current club, but is much more prominent and visible from adjacent College Avenue and covers a larger footprint than the current structure. In general character it resembled other substantial women’s club buildings that would be built locally in the same era, including the three story College Women’s Club building (now the Bancroft Hotel) two blocks south at Bancroft and College (designed by Walter Steilberg), and the grand Berkeley Women’s City Club (designed by Julia Morgan) built at the end of the 1920s on Durant Avenue south of the campus.

Design revisions continued through 1922. By mid-May key design issues seemed to have been resolved. “Miss Patterson brought a copy of the latest house plan which Mr. Howard had made…in this plan the roof has been raised as suggested…twenty four living rooms are provided, with a possibility of four more, the entire cost to fall within $45,000. This plan is an improvement upon anything we have had yet, the most serious objection to it being the smallness of the rooms…”

By the end of August, 1922, the Building Committee heard a report that that “a modification of the building plan was prepared by Mr. Howard, providing 29 living rooms, including the one on the first floor designed for the matron (and exclusive of the two in the basement for janitor), the whole showing many improvements over the earlier plans. They were accepted by the Directors of the Club and the Directors of the Building Committee at a joint meeting held July 14.”

48 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The fundraising prospectus describes the building as follows: “The plan of the house, as the accompanying sketch indicates, present a three story building with a high basement, to be carried out in stucco. The lowest floor will contain dining rooms, kitchen, storage rooms, and a janitor’s apartment. The first floor is to be devoted to social quarters for the club, namely: lounge, living room, writing room, library, committee room. It will also include dressing room facilities and an apartment for the manager. The second and third floors comprise twenty-six living rooms and an adequate number of bathrooms, shower baths and sleeping porches. Service rooms for general use are to be installed on each floor. The dining room will offer restaurant facilities and is to be operated on a financially independent basis.”

As revised and actually constructed, the club building was, and is now, a simplified, scaled down, and smaller version of this plan. Instead of two floors of service and common rooms, there’s one main level (with the partial basement used for offices and service spaces). Instead of “lounge, living room, writing room, library, committee room,” there is a Lounge and a small Library. There were originally just two dining rooms. The resident / guest rooms lost their sleeping porches and fireplaces.

1921 and 1922 were fully occupied with getting the site confirmed, fundraising, bond sale planning, and building design. In September, 1921, the Building Committee reported that it had $10,000 in hand from “the sale of non-dividend bearing stock” and “the estimated cost of the building is placed at $45,000, leaving $35,000 to be raised by an issue of bonds.” A Club membership of “approximately 175” was reported, and the proposed building was described as having 20 residential rooms and dining space that would operate in a way that was not financially dependent on the building project. “The nature of the rooms will be such that, with club dues (from non-resident members) there will be sufficient income to cover the total running expenses of the building, including payments on bonded indebtedness.”

October 4, 1921, the Building Committee held an annual meeting in Hearst Hall, at which “new plans drawn by Mr. Howard for the club were shown.” Members were told that the plans would be left at the reference desk in Doe Library, and members could go there to look at them, and leave written comments with Mrs. Coulter—board member, and also Library staffer. Members were told the building was estimated to cost $76,000, which was far more than the money planned and much higher than reported the previous month; they then knew that additional funds would be needed if the structure was to be completed as designed.

A month later the Building Committee was meeting again, and some possible tension was evident within the organization. The Committee was proposing to issue $60,000 in bonds “with the expectation that but $50,000 of these will be sold,” and the notes conclude with a statement that “The point was made by the Chairman of the Committee that the building committee should not encroach upon the duties of the Committee on House Plans, but should confine its activities solely to the financial side of the building.” That indicates, perhaps, that as the financial and construction limitations of the project became apparent, participants were struggling with the issue of who would make decisions about the nature and features of the final structure.

The Building Committee and Women’s Faculty Club directors were also deeply involved in making the financial arrangements for the Club. This was not a project where the money was obtained in one quick, easy, transaction, allowing members to devote themselves solely to the building details. Instead, the Building Committee and other members were deeply involved in researching, then executing, the details of building finance.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 49

Bond for construction of the Club, purchased in 1922 by Maud Richardson, who was the wife of Leon Richardson, a prominent member of the faculty. Image courtesy of Steven Finacom.

Club minutes report numerous discussions, meetings, and consultations with banks, bankers, brokers, and other financial experts to determine the best way to issue, market, and handle the fundraising arrangements, as well as discussions about strategies for raising funds from members. This was definitely a “hands on” process in which the volunteer leadership pursued and negotiated each detail, and decided on key approaches, rather than simply resolving to do a building then turning the work over to others.

The Building Committee was also concerning itself with site preparation. The small structure on the site—which had been used by the Department of Music—had to be removed, and Women’s Faculty Club representatives worked with University staff who promised it would be gotten out of the way in time for construction to start. This indeed did happen by late summer, 1922, as later minutes indicate.

On September 15, 1922, Club representatives and Howard conferred on design. “They were all very much pleased with the development of the details. A few structural changes have been made, such as running the elevator up to the roof thus making it possible to use the roof, and the provision of decks for the third floor rooms. The plans will probably be ready for the contractor by Oct. 1.”

September 23, 1922, the Building Committee issued a letter to all members, active and associate. “Behold at last the much heralded prospectus! Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, work on the building will begin this fall.” By December 1, 1922, “$40,000 worth of bonds had been sold and the Mercantile Trust Company had engaged to take the other $10,000 whenever we needed the money for them.”

Then the project hit a major snag. The original building plans had been put out for bid. On December 11, 1922 Club leaders went to John Galen Howard’s off-campus design office “where bids from 12 contractors were read. The lowest figure was over $124,000 and the highest over $185,000, the rest around $150,000 and $160,000.” The Club was faced with a construction cost that, at minimum, was well over two times the financial plan. Margaret Murdoch, in her oral history, recalled being at work when the Club leadership returned to campus offices, in poor spirits, from the bid opening. “The lowest bid had been three times (sic) as much as they expected to have to pay for the building.” (Murdoch, page 32)

“Obviously everything beyond the barest necessities must be cut out in order to bring the building within our financial limits” the internal Club report continued. “Mr. Howard

50 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

undertook to prepare at once a plan which on an estimate of 35 cents per cubic foot would come within our figure and at the same time provide the necessary income.” This process—that would today be called “value engineering” of the too-expensive design—was not necessarily harmonious. On January 26, 1923, Howard let the Committee know “new plans were ready, and blue prints were forwarded to Miss Stebbins. On Saturday January 27 these were examined by Miss Stebbins, Dr. Bishop and Miss Martin and pronounced impossible. Miss Stebbins was authorized to confer with Mr. Sproul on the possibility of having another architect. On February 5, Miss Stebbins and Dr. Bishop returned the plans to Mr. Howard with the Committee’s report, and he began the preparation of an entirely new set of plans, which should have a sufficient number of apartments to provide rental income and at the same time provide rooms that would be in a measure adequate to the needs of the Club.

New plans were sent by Howard’s office on February 19. “These seemed much more promising.” A week later Women’s Faculty Club representatives met with Howard, who had gone over the revised plans with a contractor—H. McCullough & Sons—“who estimated that the house could be built for $50,050 with a possible extra $5,000, and offered to build it…” “They had to give up the tiled roof and stucco and have the shingled building, which is much more characteristic of a California structure.” (Murdoch)

A contract with McCullough was prepared in March, but for some reason Club leaders questioned “great risk in the matter of expense” and delayed approval. Possibly the contractor was proposing some sort of “time and materials” arrangement where costs might not be capped at a set amount. In any event, on April 1, the Building Committee met again. “The plans and the cost of the building were discussed in detail. In many respects the plans fall far short of what we had hoped for,” minutes of that meeting read. “Shall we discard them and wait another six months? Will we be able to get anything better for our money? Miss Gladding thought it doubtful. Is there any possibility of having another architect? Miss Stebbins thought not without a maximum of unpleasantness…at the close of the discussion Mrs. Grimes moved that we accept the plans with a spirit of resignation and make the best of them. The motion carried.”

The plot plan for Howard’s revised design shows the Club’s building much as it exists today, with the footprint of the existing cottage that occupied the site shown in dashed lines. Note that the existing driveway to the (Men’s) Faculty Club lay within what is now the south garden. Women’s Faculty Club archives.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 51

It was decided that the $10,000 originally raised from stock sales to members—and originally intended as a “furnishing fund”—could be applied to the building project itself. On April 21, 1923, the Building Committee signed the contract, “not to exceed $60,000.” A second issue of stock was proposed, to total $10,000, and cover furnishings. “If you already own stock of the first issue, buy a little more, or sell some to your friends,” the Committee appealed to members. “One more strong pull all together and our house will be an accomplished fact.”

As construction got underway in 1923, the Building Committee continued to meet and discuss construction details, reviewing items as specific as the location of electrical sockets and the type of light fixture in the hallways. They appear to have been active participants in the building process, not just spectators once the contract was approved. Thus, the current building was in a very real sense a product of the Women’s Faculty Club leadership’s involvement in the details, not just the broad concepts. During the summer of 1923 the Building Committee also asked the University for a loan of $4,500 to help with the project. “This request was subsequently made through Mr. Struble and turned down by the Finance Committee of The Regents,” Committee minutes laconically report.

The modified building, as completed, would become one of an informal suite of Howard- designed shingle buildings on the campus. He had done an expansion of the Faculty Club in the style, along with the current North Gate Hall (originally for Architecture) and, adjacent to it, the original Drawing Building (now part of Blum Hall). Structures like these weren’t defined by the University as permanent structures and, on campus, were quite humble compared to the grand granite and tile edifices Howard was concurrently designing within the academic core of the campus.

However, Howard was active off campus designing shingle-style homes, and the smaller wood frame and shingle-clad buildings he did for the campus complemented those projects, as well as many other institutional buildings in Berkeley—public and private schools, churches, private clubs—by other architects who were adept at shingle style design. Although considerably scaled down from the original plans, the final Women’s Faculty Club building would still have been a substantial structure in the eyes of the local and campus community and in Howard’s design portfolio.

“I think he was pleased with the club. I suppose he was disappointed that the original plans couldn’t be carried out, but after all, while his reputation was for more solid marble and granite, and later concrete, I think that he did very well with what he had to do.” (Murdoch, page 35)

Financing the project proved to be as complicated as designing it, since the Club did not own the land. The Regents were making the site available but continued to hold title to the land, so the Club could not get a conventional mortgage where the property would be surety for paying off the loan. “When you think of what they did to get this building built,” recalled one member who joined in the 1940s. “They couldn’t borrow from the bank, because they didn’t own the land on which the building was going to be built. It’s The Regents land. So that was why they formed this Building Committee which sold the bonds that raised the money to build the building. I think they were twenty-five year bonds. The bonds were paid off sometime in the late ‘40s…and they had a big celebration of burning the mortgage.” (Johnson, page 184)

The Building Committee met frequently to discuss financing and raise money. It was clearly a working committee, not an ornamental association. Brief meeting notes record detailed discussions with investment advisors and decisions by a small group of

52 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

This undated postcard view of the campus, probably from the mid-1920s, shows College Avenue (road crossing view horizontally, touching the tip of the spire of the Campanile), with evidence of the residential development between College and Piedmont Avenues visible on the far side of College Avenue. The grayish roof of the new Women’s Faculty Club is visible just in front of College Avenue, to the left of the Campanile. Image courtesy of Steven Finacom.

Committee members on specific investments for the money that was now coming in. Many of the meetings were held in borrowed rooms at Doe Library on campus; others were at the Northside homes of members.

The Building Committee sent updates to members, some of which have survived in Club records. One, dated April 15, 1921 and illustrated with a quaint outline of a home, says “Wanted: only $940 in pledges before May 1.” “We must have $10,000 in money or promises before: the SITE will be granted; the BONDS issued; the BUILDING started. Delay now means the loss of months in getting the bonds on the market. Six months in which to pay. PLEDGE NOW.” (Emphasis in original) Club records, which provide extensive information about planning and design of the building, say little about the construction process—suggesting that there may have been no surprises or crises.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDSCAPE The bond prospectus for the Club building in 1922 noted that the Club had been allocated “a beautiful and picturesque site on the campus.” The site lay just below what was then a wooden bridge that allowed College Avenue—still a city street—to cross Strawberry Creek and connect with South Drive, on the University grounds. Senior Hall already stood to the west of the Club site. An early map shows a small path and footbridge crossing the Creek from South Drive to the southwest of the building site.

In late 1923 Club minutes note: “A foot path from the roadway near the Chemistry building over a new bridge to the north door of the club house, as provided in the plan is advisable, since the service road around the club house is much used by delivery wagons. The House Committee asked that the chairman of the garden committee be authorized to ask the Superintendent of Grounds and Buildings for more gravel on the service road and for gravel or stepping stones to the north door.”

This path / bridge would later disappear in subsequent changes to the Club environs. For many decades the circulation arrangement for the Club has been a main approach from the

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 53

south—to the front door—and service / secondary entrances on the east and west. Exits to the north go onto the deck / terrace, but the rear garden area is secluded and enclosed by a bend of Strawberry Creek and there is no circulation across the Creek to the north.

“Picturesque” in the description probably referred to the natural riparian landscape. Strawberry Creek in that era was still largely unculverted and unchannelized. The south branch of the Creek, several feet below the surrounding terrain, wandered in a meandering course through the campus grounds, lined with native bay laurel and buckeye trees. The creek bed was stony and punctuated by small cascades, none more than a few feet in height. Below the tree canopy were riparian thickets of native shrubs and annuals, closely crowding the creek channel in many places.

Interestingly, the prospectus description came just a few months before construction began on California Memorial Stadium, not far upstream from the site. The Memorial Stadium project involved carving away the shoulder of Charter Hill with hydraulic mining equipment powered by impounded creek water. The creek on the stadium site was buried in a culvert, and much silt and debris washed down the channel during construction. Thus, during the construction of the Women’s Faculty Club, it’s likely the adjacent creek underwent unpleasant, albeit temporary, change, flooded with silt, and with water levels changing.

The riparian landscape of the time was considerably different from the creek landscape of today where redwoods predominate and the ground plane has low plantings—often ivy—and open views between the tree trunks. However, it would have still provided much the same effect for the north and west sides of the Club, particularly from the upper floor windows—the banks of the creek accommodating a linear, informal, grove of trees that would be the foreground view from the Club, and appear to shelter the building in a rustic landscape.

Early site plans indicate that a road labeled “existing driveway” came down from College Avenue and curved quite close along the south face of the Club, then ran between the Club and Senior Hall and west along Strawberry Creek towards the back of the Faculty Club. This may have been the “service drive” referred to in other accounts. Because of the small amount of space involved this cannot have been a very large thoroughfare. A hedge, species type unknown, lay south of the road and began where it intersected College Avenue, then ran southwest, parallel to Senior Hall.

Thus, the space in front of the Club was, at the time the building was planned, quite different from today. However, Club minutes indicate that by 1925 / 26 the “driveway” was relocated, presumably closer to its present position some distance south of the Club building, and garden plans were adapted accordingly, as noted below. A history of Club furnishings prepared in 1970 by member Florence Minard and others says that “the semi- circular garden retaining wall...was a practical and pleasing idea offered by Miss Mary Patterson.”

That the garden was not fully developed at the same time as the building is indicated by periodic notes in the Board minutes, such as this one from January, 1925. “The University is to undertake gardening that will relieve the club of much of our anticipated expense in this matter. Since the heap of garden and other refuse in the north yard is unduly conspicuous it was recommended that the secretary ask Miss Ransom (the manager) to present a plan to the directors for the better disposal of the garbage especially of the heap in the yard.”

54 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

There are notes in the Board minutes that John Gregg, founder of the horticulture (later, Landscape Architecture) program at the University prepared early garden plans. Professor Gregg often worked collaboratively with John Galen Howard on campus buildings and projects. Howard would define the type of landscape treatment he wanted around a particular building or site, and Gregg would suggest specific species and plants to be used to achieve that effect. It’s quite reasonable that Women’s Faculty Club members would have asked Gregg’s advice on how to develop their immediate site since his plant expertise was widely known.

A late September, 1925 set of minutes notes “Dr. Cunningham reported that with the construction of the new road in front of the house, decided changes in the landscape as originally projected by Mr. Gregg were thought advisable. The ground immediately in front of the entrance and the office windows is to be graded down to the level of the bottom step, terraces, steps and walks constructed and considerable planting done. Work has already begun and will be carried on as soon as Mr. Gregg can give it his attention.” (September 8, 1925)

The next report in October, 1925, says “a new blue print more satisfactory than the previous one” for the garden had been prepared. “This with some modifications which Mr. Gregg is willing to make, as for example the substitution of lawn for brick paving on the excavated section met with the approval of the directors. Delay is due to the difficulty in getting any bids on the brick work…the Superintendent of Grounds will put in the lawn and plans at no expense to the club, but…the plans and all brick work will be charged to us…Dr. Cunningham’s report (for the Garden Committee) was accepted and she was instructed to proceed with the plans.”

A photograph of the south garden and building façade found in the University Archives is undated, but appears to be early, perhaps from the 1920s or 30s. There is not yet a hedge along the road. The stone wall and steps down to the lower terrace can be seen. The lawns exist at the top of the south garden and in the southwest corner there is an arc of bergenia that separates the lawn from a planting area that appears to contain roses. Shrubs flank the entrance portico of the building.

In early 1926 “slow progress on the gardening work due to rain” was reported, along with an anonymous gift of $200 that the directors decided to use for garden improvements. The garden committee was directed “to proceed with plans for garden and lawn in the rear with especial emphasis on the flagstone walk from the rear entrance to the path leading to the bridge.” (February 9, 1926) By early March “completion of the walks, front and back” was reported. “There was slight hope for grass in the back yard (and the committee) recommended the use of cineraria and breaks with azalea along the bank of the stream. The Garden committee favors planting poplars or silver birches in the front yard.” (March 1926) In April, the Board authorized hiring a gardener, and reported “payment to Henry Maschio & Bros. $846.00 for stone wall and concrete walks.” There is later discussion of hiring the Faculty Club gardener, and of planting moss in the gaps between flagstones.

Plantings of “pansies and anemones” were reported in December, 1926, minutes. “Color”— meaning flowering plants—in the north garden was requested the next year. Pansies, anemones, and ferns were mentioned. Yews are mentioned adjacent to the “south lawn,” but there do not appear to be any yews on site today. In mid-1927 the garden committee “reported that the north garden had been laid out and planted, although neither the plan nor the plants need to be regarded as permanent unless they seemed to be appropriate. The south garden will be improved later.”

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 55

In the fall of that year the Club apparently asked members to contribute bulbs for spring planting in the garden, and “many” were left at the Club for use. In early 1928 it was reported “the garden is lovely now” and “the spring garden should be started in a week or two.”

In fall, 1928, primulas were reported as a gift from a member, and “bulbs are needed but cannot be obtained from the University gardener.” “The oak tree has been trimmed” was noted, but no clarification as to exact species or location. There is more clarification from early 1929, when “Dr. Cunningham reported that some dead limbs on the oak trees on the north side of the house had been removed. Bay trees with dead limbs will not be trimmed by the University…The tulips are in bloom. Azaleas and native rhododendrons to be planted on the banks of the stream…” In 1929, bulb planting is again emphasized, gladioli are mentioned, and the bay trees have finally been pruned.

The minutes record periodic appropriations of about $25 at a time used by the Garden Committee for purchase of plants. A central figure in the early garden work was Women’s Faculty Club board member Ruby Cunningham, a UC alumna from 1903 who was women’s physician on campus; a residence hall was named in her honor in Unit II, in the late 1950s. The Club garden committee appears to have been a fixture of the Club during the early decades; the Faculty Club had a similar gardening committee whose members, some of who were noted horticulturalists, selected and even purchased / donated specimens for planting.

In the 1920s the Club planned for a hedge east of the building so passersby on the street could not directly look into the kitchen-level windows of the Club. This particular hedge planting may have later disappeared, because later in the 20th century there is an oral history note of planting hedges along the east road so “all that parking up there won’t be visible from the dining room.” In 1940 there is a note in Club minutes that spring rains had caused earth to collect against the east end of the building and a retaining wall was being considered. Also, “the flagstone walk into the grounds from College Avenue has to be regraded for reasons of safety.”

The general nature of the Club garden in the early years of the Club can be summarized as follows:

1. A general design or plan suggested by Professor John Gregg, and augmented by the interests and investments of Club members;

2. South of the building, a sunken terrace, bordered by a curved stone wall bisected by an entrance stair, all constructed in 1926, and still extant today. One photograph from the 1970s shows the flagstones south of the building formed a “T” of slightly curved paths that connected south to the main garden stairs, east to the stairs down from College Avenue, and west to the path around the northwest corner of the Club building. The remainder of the lowest terrace area was lawn;

3. Flagstone pathways and cast concrete pathways providing hardscape routes through the grounds, and also leading to a footbridge across Strawberry Creek from the north garden;

4. Attempts, not fully successful, to establish a lawn north of the Club building;

5. A native riparian landscape—primarily native oaks and bay laurel, and a shrub understory—in an arc along Strawberry Creek adjacent to the Club;

56 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

6. Perennial plantings of flowering shrubs including rhododendrons and azaleas, as well as ferns;

7. Annual plantings of bedding plants and flowering bulbs;

8. A hedge south of the Club along the main road, and a hedge along College Avenue to the east, to block views from the street into the lower windows of the Club;

9. Some non-plant garden features including bird baths, benches, and statuary.

EARLY DECADES OF THE CLUB “In October 1923 the Women’s Faculty Club moved into newly completed quarters in a comfortable, handsome brown-shingled John Galen Howard-designed home by the waters of Strawberry Creek.”

The interior décor and furnishing, according to Murdoch “was the style and that time, and you didn’t have to match your outside and your inside entirely.” (Murdoch, page 36) Early furnishings included utilitarian painted bedroom bureaus from Gorman’s Furniture (a long-established Berkeley store on Telegraph Avenue), sleigh beds—which proved difficult because standard mattresses didn’t fit them—and area carpets. Oriental objects, including some furniture, were an important part of the early décor, some of them purchased from antique shops in Berkeley which were direct importers. Because the San Francisco Bay Area had direct commercial connections across the Pacific, East Asian decoration in that era—the early 20th century—was both available and of interest to locals. Some furniture or art objects were purchased; from the earliest days, others were donated by members or friends of the Club, a practice that continued. The history of these moveable furnishings, while not described here, has been documented by the Club and is a cherished part of Women’s Faculty Club tradition.

This view of the Women’s Faculty Club, probably from the 1920s or 1930s, shows landscape features that are still present, including the ryholite walls and cutting garden, although the building is less sheltered by trees than now. Photograph courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 57

The opening of the building came just a short time after the September 23, 1923, great Berkeley Fire which destroyed some 600 homes north of the campus and burned to the campus edge. Nearly a quarter of the University’s employees and ten percent of the students lost their homes in that conflagration, creating a large demand for temporary housing. The building “needed to be furnished pretty much in a hurry” because of the immediate housing demand. One of the members who moved in after her house burned, Mary Davidson, became a long term resident of the Club. (Robb, page 74)

This immediate use foreshadowed a longer term trend. “Quite a few faculty stayed there while they were looking for homes and getting established, and then moved to their own domiciles and continued their active interest in the Club,” Margaret Murdoch recalled in the early 1980s. (Murdoch, page 37)

Berkeley quickly rebuilt following the fire, so the need for temporary quarters soon diminished, and some longer term residents replaced them. “The early days (of the club) had quite a few campus people that were more or less permanent residents” Margaret Murdoch recalled in the 1980s. Much later “they made a regulation that people who retired—say, at the age of sixty-five—couldn’t remain at the club; they didn’t want it to become an old ladies home…there were a couple of old boys that did that at the Faculty Club…we did have two or three people who continued on at the club after their retirement. But it was supposed to be as a residence for people actively connected with the university or visiting the university.” (Murdoch, page 36)

Murdoch identified May Dornin (University Archivist) and Lucille Czarnowski as exceptions to the permanent resident rule. Dornin herself was part of a formal discussion in the late 50s that led to a general agreement that residents should not stay in retirement; she said the issue was catalyzed by one elderly resident who was frail; the other residents worried that she might have a mishap or medical problems and the Club had no arrangements to deal with that sort of situation. Dornin herself decided to move out after retirement to avoid creating the same situation.

Mary Davidson, who succeeded Stebbins as Dean of Women, and lived on the second floor in the northwest corner of the building, was a key resident in the Club through the mid- 20th century and other residents and members deferred to her. “We always consulted Mrs. Davidson before we made any changes in any rules or regulations or anything.” (Dornin, page 86) Residents would socialize at breakfast, and on holidays would organize their own special meals, when the staff were off duty. (Dornin, page 92)

Early non-residential uses of the Club building are indicated in a schedule of fees approved by the Board in May, 1926: $25 would be charged to any member “desiring the exclusive use of the large dining room” or “entertaining a group that desires in addition to the dining room, the use of the Lounge for the purpose of a meeting—of a committee, organization, or any other body…” Using the small dining room would cost $5. Exceptions to the fees were made for meetings of Women’s Faculty Club committees, “college teas,” and “University Committees—not to include student body, alumni, nor any extra- mural organizations.” Income from these rentals was to be set aside for “replacements, refurnishings and repairs.” (Board minutes)

Visiting scholars were an important rental market for the club. “One of its excellent functions was housing and caring for visiting scholars. We had wonderful people living in the club in my days of residence who were on the faculty of Vassar, of Wellesley, or other colleges, who had sabbaticals and came out and appreciated the club, as well as Berkeley, and gave it, you might say, a somewhat international reputation.” (Murdoch, page 36)

58 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Members recalled that the visiting scholars were also an important part of the Club community life. “I think with our visiting people now it still happens that people pick their brains about their fields, take advantage of their willingness to share their expertise. It’s been a blessing for the club. It probably operates more at the breakfast table than elsewhere, though when we’ve had our Lunch and Learn programs we have quite often invited short term residents to share their experiences…We had here the person who wrote Mary Poppins…Madame Alice Ehlers was doing harpsichord concerts and would be here for several weeks. She enjoyed the club very much…we had English writers, and we had a very interesting Jewish scholar from Jerusalem…there was somebody who had been here in anthropology and gone to Hawaii…” and well as women botanists who were visiting the area. (Murdoch, page 66)

“Since I had not traveled widely before coming to the Women’s Faculty Club, one of the most attractive things about it to me was the chance to meet women from other parts of the United States and from abroad who were temporary residents,” May Dornin recalled. “These were mostly women in mid-career who needed advanced university training in order to compete for promotion. (At first, in the 1940s) they came from countries that had not been battered by World War II—the United States, Canada and South America. With the 1950s, the tide seemed to turn more towards university women from Western Europe….From 1960 on, women began to arrive from Southeast Asia, not in the numbers the European women had come, but more than Asian women had previously. We had residents from Cambodia, Thailand, and Malaya, in addition to Japan and Korea.” Many of these visiting scholars were grant supported and came to study public health or social welfare. (Dornin, page 93) “Summer sessions brought school teachers by the dozen to Berkeley, mainly from the United States. Nearly always there were nuns from the College of Holy Names in neighboring Oakland…” some of who stayed at the Club. (Dornin, 94)

When new residents arrived, “the atmosphere of the club was—the minute they got there, the first dinner they had with us, or the first breakfast, why they were friends. We went and talked in their rooms; they came to our rooms.” (Dornin, page 95)

The Club always had a professional manager. Some lived in the building. The original manager was Miss Muriel Ransom, who was also connected with a private school in Berkeley founded by her sister, Marion, and came from Mills College where she had been “head of the dining department”. (Murdoch, page 54) “She was a very gracious manager, and it was very successful.” (Smith, page 9) “She ran the club in every way, administratively as well as the dining room. The dining room, was a tea room of the highest order. On and off they would serve dinners depending on labor conditions; it wasn’t always luncheon and dinner. The menus and the cooking were delightful. The meals were beautifully prepared and beautifully served.”

An accounting staffer was also employed from early on to help keep the Club books; in the early days this was Amy Bumstead, who also did accounting for the ASUC (Associated Students) and was a resident of the Club. (Smith, page 8) She worked at the Club until about 1957. Later, the accounting was managed for a time by Margaret Murdoch, who was also the Club President, and other volunteer members.

Historical accounts provide different views of the relationships among staff, long-term residents, and non-resident members. One non-resident member complained of the long- term residents, “they have not become involved in the government of or the administration of the club at all. Unless several of them get together and talk to the president or talk to the Board of Directors and so on. Some of those things can be quite ticklish, quite sticky.” (Smith, page 13)

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 59

From the perspective of the long term residents, however, the building was their home and they were actively interested in things that affected them—conditions of the building, meals, distractions like noise, availability and use of the common areas downstairs (which were also used by non-resident members), who their neighbors were in the upstairs rooms, and what staff services were available.

A staff perspective, somewhat different than that of the residents, was provided by Gudveig Gordon-Britland who joined the Club workforce in 1960 when there were still many long-term residents. She described underlying tensions between the staff and the resident members which her interviewer characterized as a “feeling on the part of the residents, that it was their home, therefore everybody who worked there were their servants…” (GB, page 128) “…of course, when they grew up, they grew up in this, that there were THEM and then there were THOSE DOWN THERE. You must favor those above you. I think that’s how they all grew up.” (GB, page 135) She recalled being told to wait for the delivery of the evening paper however late it arrived, then take it to Miss Davidson’s bedroom door, knock, and leave it outside, restrictions on what windows could be opened, and May Dornin going around in the common areas and turning off the lights at 9:00 PM, regardless of who was using the rooms. In addition, after the front door was locked, some residents, even though they had their own keys, expected a staff member to come open the door for them when they came back to the building at night. “It was desperately hard to be a manager to them.” (GB, pages 128-129) When visitors arrived, even if they were expected by residents, staff were instructed to telephone the residents and ask if was convenient of the guest to visit; only then were they allowed to send the guest to the resident’s room. (GB, page 134) And residents would come down in the morning to the basement offices and complain to staff about things other residents had done—such as leaving windows open, or not returning a book to the library—and expect the manager to convey the complaint. (GB, 136) Miss Davidson also expected breakfast brought to her room, and name cards printed for her table at lunch (GB, 141) Residents came and went as they pleased from the building. All residents had keys, according to May Dornin, so there was no formal curfew or restriction on access for residents. (Dornin, page 98)

In the early decades the Club provided breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Breakfast was for the residents, lunch and dinner for all, but dinner “proved a Jonah” (a burden on the Club), because the non-resident members would go to their own off-campus homes. (Smith, page 8) Married, non-resident, members would also bring their spouses to the Club for some meals. “You could bring a guest. But they weren’t free to come over of themselves, as they are now.” (Smith, page 8)

Although initially residents could make their own food at the small kitchenettes on each residential floor, most would eat the Club breakfast. “Most of the residents had their breakfasts downstairs.” (Murdoch, page 37) Early members also recalled the tradition of what was called the “Family Table” in the dining room at which faculty members would gather to eat their meals. Some saw this as a valued tradition; others noted that it allowed those with academic appointments to gather and socialize separate from the non- academic, career staff residents and members.

The Club employed its own cook, originally a Mrs. Mabel Battle. “I think the meals were just like home cooking. I ate there day after day and never tired of it any more than you tire of what you have at home,” recalled one early member (Smith, page 8). When Mrs. Battle retired, the Club for a time arranged for meals to be delivered by the ASUC—this, presumably, was from the student cafeteria in what was then Stephens Memorial Union (now Stephens Hall), but “it was very unsatisfactory; the organization was very hard and arbitrary to deal with. The meals came on a cart…that didn’t prove a success.” (Smith, page 8)

60 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Dinner service was eventually discontinued because the Club (in late 1971) could not sustain the cost of planning and staffing for dinners, but not knowing how many people would eat on any given day. The resident population was also limited—less than two dozen—and over time the number of non-resident members who would regularly come to dinner declined, in comparison to those who would be working on campus and come to lunch at the Club. (Murdoch, page 38)

The upstairs residents shared bathrooms in the early decades and had fairly simple living arrangements. A persistent recollection of early club members is that sound would carry, so people would hear creaking as someone came up the main stairs, or other residents talking on the common telephones in the hallways, playing the radio, or even walking around or talking in their nearby rooms. But “considering there were twenty-four residents in the house, all busy people, coming and going their various ways, I would say it was remarkably peaceful” recalled May Dornin, a resident from the 40s through 1971. (Dornin, 89) “In the daytime we were all away, working.” (Dornin, 90) The Building Committee, it should be noted, also continued to actively work on items related to the physical structure until its dissolution.

The Club had a library committee which stocked and maintained the small library on the main floor, primarily with books gifted to the Club. A house committee of the residents existed “to see that the rules of the house are observed, to see that people got along…or if there was some question about a leak in the roof, the house committee would take that in hand…tell the manager to get a plumber (sic).” (Dornin, 90)

Margaret Murdoch recalled “a good many of the little social parties” in the early years of the Club. “Not only Christmas parties, but ones during the year in which we would have a costume party, or a meeting for new members, or our annual meeting. They never were social to the extent that other women’s clubs were because they were all busy, professional people, and they didn’t join it just to play bridge and talk about children and houses.” (Murdoch, page 32) This is an important distinction, regardless of how Murdoch expressed it. Many women’s clubs in that era—including some in Berkeley like the Twentieth Century Club, and the Town and Gown Club—had a membership made up largely of married women of means who did not have salaried employment outside the home, although they might be involved in extensive volunteer activities and have responsibility for managing large households, servants, and family.

Those organizations would have had both a deeper base of volunteer time, and perhaps more financial resources, to stage elaborate social gatherings unlike a club like the Women’s Faculty Club where (unless they were retired) all the permanent members were either teaching, researching, or working in full-time administrative jobs at the University.

“People that liked to play bridge and dance and so forth did that in other groups. It didn’t turn out to be the one social activity to occupy the campus community.” (Murdoch, page 51). However, the Women’s Faculty Club did have costume parties, plays, musical events, and other social activities including “hat parties…You didn’t have to have a whole costume, but you wore a hat and people were supposed to guess what books you were representing.” (Murdoch, page 62) “They also have a lovely Living Pictures party” (Murdoch, page 63), which involved members posing as tableaux of famous scenes such as the painting “Whistler’s Mother.” The social events weren’t necessarily limited to women. Male relatives and friends would also take part, sometimes as entertainers, and some male groups were invited to entertain. Those Club members who had children would also bring them to some parties. (Murdoch, page 64) “Usually the library was the stage, or the performance

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 61

would be just at one end of the living room,” a tradition which remains today when the Lounge is used for presentations and social events. (Murdoch, page 63) As time passed it became more common for faculty and employees to leave the campus at 5 p.m., so the number of non-resident members available for social events declined. (Murdoch, page 65)

Academic members of the club, sometimes referred to as the “Learned Ladies” by the non-academic members, would also have small gatherings at which they might present papers or discuss academic topics, and there were occasional guest speakers for the whole membership. (Murdoch, page 33)

However, as Murdoch noted, social gatherings were not the raison d’etre of the Club. “The club was not entirely social, as many clubs are. It didn’t keep going because people did play bridge; it kept going because it housed visitors. It did give—and always has given—good food, well served, which appealed to the membership. And a good many faculty people, of course, even with their own homes, liked to have dinner out. And the lunch was always popular.” (Murdoch page 33)

One member noted that even though the non-academic members of the Club did not have much formal status on the campus, they had “behind-the-scenes power,” because many of them were indispensable administrative assistants, departmental secretaries, or similar campus staff. The male academic leadership would regularly change, but the staff, many of them women, were usually longer term. “Each division, like the graduate division or the (University) extension, the different departments, had some women who really, behind the scenes, managed things. I guess probably it’s still true in a good many departments… the deans could come and go, but the (staff) kept a certain amount of stability with the structure of the administration.” (Murdoch, page 33)

A useful snapshot of the Club as it evolved in its first two decades is provided by a table of income and expenses from 1923—the opening of the building—to 1940, in the Club records. Income came from: member dues; residential room rentals; meal service; garage fees (after 1933). Total amounts appear relatively modest, but adequate for the basic Club operations.

There were also periodic gifts from members. “Lucy Stebbins was the founder of the founders, and would come through anonymously with financial support when needed.” (Murdoch, page 31) She (Stebbins) was characteristic of “the members themselves who would come through if they ran short, which they very seldom did.” (Murdoch, page 53)

Membership dues revenue started out at $3,530 in the first year and grew to $5,372 by 1939. There was a dip after the Depression started; in 1930 the Club had annual dues income of $6,682, a peak, while by 1937 it had fallen to a low of $5,100. No doubt this reflected the economic hardships and retrenchments of the time. Room rentals brought in a reasonably consistent amount of money annually: $8,431 in 1923, and $8,214 in 1939, although this can also be seen as a stagnation in growth of rental income. Restaurant income started out high, between $21,000 and $23,000 in the early years, then started declining even before the Depression, and varying widely—perhaps a reflection of changes in service, meal hours, or food quality that cannot be interpreted from the raw numbers. By the end of the 1960s the Club was only garnering about $18,000 a year in meal income which, nonetheless, represented the largest single income stream. Garage fees bought in a relatively negligible $600 to $700 annually. In aggregate, the Club had more annual income when the building opened—$34,000 plus—than at the end of the 1930s—$31,000.

Expenses for most years exceeded income, but not by much. “House expenses”—operating

62 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

the building itself, presumably including the residential quarters and paying down the bonds—claimed about $7,000 a year. “Administrative expenses,” including management staff salaries, totaled between $7,000 and $10,000 a year. Restaurant expenses were by far the largest portion of the budget, ranging from about $17,000 to $27,000 a year.

(It should also be kept in mind that the “Women’s Faculty Club” was, for decades, actually two legally separate but interlocking organizations. There was the Club itself, and there was the Building Committee, whose members were elected by the Club board. The Building Committee had issued the bonds to pay for the construction and received rent from the Women’s Faculty Club to pay off the bonds. This situation came about because the building itself could not be used by the Club to guarantee the mortgage—that is, the bonds—since the bondholders wouldn’t be able to take over a piece of land owned by The Regents and liquidate it to pay off the investors if the organization defaulted on payments.)

In summary, the Club depended on three primary sources of income: membership dues, room rentals, and dining room revenue. No private fundraising or gifts are reflected in the totals, with the exception of a note that the manager’s salary was paid by a member for the first two years of building operation.

The records do not reflect absolute tranquility in Club history, however. In the 1930s the Club investigated reducing room rents because of the Depression and because other local accommodations—including hotels, International House, the College Women’s Club, and the Berkeley Women’s City Club—were now established and also renting rooms that served the campus and / or the community of professional, unmarried, women. By the early 1940s there are references to “the present economic difficulties” and, in fact, in early 1940 the whole Building Committee resigned with veiled references to dissension within the membership about Club finances and management.

The Club was regularly able to make scheduled payments on the bonds for the building, sometimes ahead of schedule, and the bonds were fully paid off, on schedule, in the 1940s. This represented a major success for the Women’s Faculty Club and a fulfillment of the expectations of the founders that even a newly formed organization could take on the major project of constructing and operating a facility. “There are probably very few clubs in the country with as small a debt as ours proportionately, and with all the bills paid,” the Treasurer’s report at the annual meeting in 1941 stated. However, it also summarized key financial challenges: “The Federal government has been dogging our footsteps for several years now, trying to convince us that we ought to pay income tax…” This had been staved off with legal help from University faculty. “We have no reserve at all to meet sudden demands such as a building of this size is subject to.”

In 1931 the Club collaborated with the Faculty Club on construction of a jointly used parking garage south of the building, across the driveway that leads west from College Avenue past the Women’s Faculty Club and Senior Hall to the Faculty Club. This took the form of a simple motor court with surface level, walled and roofed, parking spaces on either side. The Women’s Faculty Club helped finance the construction and received an allocation of spaces—nine is mentioned in some minutes—that were then rented to Club members for parking. The rents were monthly, but it is not clear whether the parking was primarily used by resident members keeping their cars next to their Club home, or other, non-resident members driving to campus; a mix of both uses is possible. The garages were designed by Warren Perry, Dean of the School of Architecture. They were part of the landscape In the two Faculty Clubs’ vicinity until the mid-1970s when they were replaced by the Minor Hall Addition which contains facilities for the School of Optometry.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 63

The garages are noted here as a component of the Women’s Faculty Club history but will not be described further in any detail since they were removed some four decades after construction, and have been gone for nearly four decades. The Club did receive an allocation of some campus parking spaces on College Avenue, east of the building, but sufficient parking and vehicle access-including guiding deliveries, arriving guests, taxis, and other visitors—to the Club building through the somewhat convoluted roadways of the campus remains a perennial issue.

THE CLUB IN THE MID-CENTURY, AND THE MERGER CONTROVERSY By the late 1940s the founding generation of Club members had largely passed on and the building was beginning to age, in both structure and equipment. The Building Committee did pay off the bonds on schedule in the 1940s and a celebratory “burning of the mortgage” was held at the Club. This ended the original indebtedness, but the Club did not have large amounts of money for building upkeep. The Club also would need to meet higher standards being imposed by regulators, such as fire inspectors.

An undated report of the Building Committee from the 1940s notes: “Repairs accomplished during the year have included completion of fire escapes, fire doors, further revamping of the electrical wiring in the kitchen and basement, installation of new refrigeration equipment, re-roofing and re-painting the trim—removal of vines and repair of vine damage to the outside of the house—redecoration of some upstairs rooms and reupholstery of part of the chairs, rebuilding of the window boxes.”

In 1950 the roof was “re-cover(ed) with fire resistant shingles,” window sills on the south side were replaced, trim was painted, damaged wall shingles replaced and the whole exterior “re-stained.” In the 50s the kitchen was also remodeled, some furniture replaced, and fire doors added upstairs. In 1967, the dining room was again remodeled.

Despite these investments, some saw the Women’s Faculty Club as “sluggish” and in need of some of organizational and physical change, even drastic and dramatic alterations.

On this 1937 map, Cowell Hospital (#10—later demolished and A postcard view, undated from the late 1940s or early 1950s, shows replaced by the Haas School of Business) stands across College the setting of the Club after construction of Gayley Road and Durant Avenue from the Women’s Faculty Club (#15), and the shared Hall reduced the residential street character of College Avenue. Image Faculty Clubs garage is in place (#20), adjacent to an area marked courtesy of Steven Finacom. as a general parking lot (#104). Map courtesy of Physical & Environmental Planning, University of California.

64 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

“There was a good deal of worry before that time that no one was doing anything. It was just kind of running down. The membership was getting smaller and so forth. I think actually the same thing was happening in the Men’s (sic) Faculty Club…People who were joining weren’t really paying any attention to what was going on.” (Scott, page 157)

Things “seriously needed repairing: install private bathrooms…it was really getting quite run down. It was already some fifty years old. And looked it…There was a kind of slow change. When I first became a member, almost everyone who lived there had lived there for many, many years. That was their home. They acted as if they really were running the place…it was organized for these permanent people.” (Scott, page 157)

A member who lived at the Club for two months in the 1960s said “I really was appalled at the condition of some of the rooms. There were several rooms that began to look so sad. The shades, for instance, would be torn. I remember in a particular room one chair even had a broken leg, and the occupant, a man, was sitting on that chair with three legs working at the desk. There were spots on the carpets and stains and scratches on the furniture.” (Van Horn, page 216)

“It (the building) was treated at one point, very poorly I think, many years ago, as a ladies dormitory in a sense, and that’s really not what it was meant to be.” (Williams, page 231)

Despite the periodic targeted investments and repairs in the 40s and 50s, by the early 1960s, “the building was almost falling apart. It needed to be painted inside and out. The rooms were badly run-down. Major plumbing repairs were needed. But there just wasn’t the money. The dining room kept running a deficit and the rooms were in such bad shape that we really couldn’t charge very much rental per month. And it was a different kind of living arrangement. Most of the women who were living here had been here for many, many years. It was getting the reputation for being an old ladies home. So the rooms that we did have available for rental were not very attractive from many standpoints. We just weren’t generating the money to be able to do the things that needed to be done.” (Johnson, page 186)

During this period the Club adopted the policy, referred to elsewhere, that residents could not necessarily stay permanently in the Club. Residential periods were a year, renewable. Part of the catalyst for this, according to the president at the time, was the effort to renovate the rooms. (Johnson, page 195)

In 1965 the Women’s Faculty Club started a fund-raising campaign to try to address some of the more serious repair issues. $12,000 was raised through gifts and events such as an art show in the Club, with members loaning some items for display. The event was open to the general public. Other events were held at Pauley Ballroom in the Student Union, and in San Francisco, and on a Bay cruise. Members organized a rummage sale in a campus parking lot. Women serving on the Board of Regents were invited to an event at the Club, a members-only fundraiser. The money raised by these activities went towards dining room renovations, but an overall goal of $60,000 proved out of reach. Professor of Architecture— and Bernard Maybeck biographer—Ken Cardwell was hired to advise on overall renovations for the building. (Johnson, 188-192) However, “we had all these fundraising activities, but we still couldn’t raise enough money to do anything significant…we had to face up to the fact that we had set a goal that we probably couldn’t attain.” (Johnson, page 196)

From the mid-1960s until the early 1970s there was prolonged, and sometimes acrimonious, consideration of merging the two Faculty Clubs. For a time the University

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 65

administration encouraged this, supporting the concept of a “University Club” which would essentially be the Faculty Club, physically expanded, and with a place for women’s programs and activities.

A newer Women’s Faculty Club Board in the 60s pushed for change and, possibly, merger. “They were a new bunch, and terribly modern, and the house—they said this was a worn- out building, and some people talked, I don’t know whether in joke or not, of tearing it down and building another one. This was the beginning, you see, of the talk of joining with the men’s club.” (Smith, page 11) This was also characterized as a period with low membership participation, according to Josephine Miles. “…the leadership said it (the building) was unviable. Nobody had come to—you know, you have a board meeting, nobody comes. You have a membership meeting, nobody comes. You know, that can be pretty awful.” (Miles, page 111)

Club President Maggie Johnson, a supporter of merging, said that both Clubs were interesting in combining because membership was in decline, income was down, but expenses were fixed, causing an operational crisis.

“Membership in the faculty clubs had sort of gone out of style and people on the campus were eating at the Golden Bear (on Sproul Plaza) or down on the avenue someplace. It just wasn’t the thing to do to gather at a faculty club…it really seemed the only answer was somehow or other to put the two clubs together and have a joint management. We were paying for our office and management staff; they were paying their office and management staff; we were both paying our kitchen staffs. It was such a duplication of expenses.” (Johnson, page 197)

The discussions on a merger were not “secret,” but as a participant Maggie Johnson also said that the group did not formally report to the Women’s Faculty Club. When the final recommendations were ready “some of our thoughts had gotten out and you had this opposition building up. And it was a very well-organized opposition.” (Johnson, page 198)

The interest of some Board and Club members in merging was given additional impetus by the Campus. In June 1967 then Chancellor Roger Heyns formed what was called the Ad Hoc Committee to study a possible merger of the Faculty Club and the Women’s Faculty Club. The Committee included leaders from both Clubs. One of the members, past Women’s Faculty Club President Maggie Johnson recalled this effort very positively. “It was a great committee and we had some really far out ideas of tearing down or moving the Senior Men’s Hall and putting some kind of walkway between the two clubs.” (Johnson, page 197)

Others did not see the effort in the same light. According to Women’s Faculty Club staff at the time the Faculty Club manager—described quite unfavorably in a number of oral history accounts—“wanted to build a dining room between the two buildings, all glassed in. And our (Women’s Faculty Club) lounge would be where they would wait to be served…this enormous, big, beautiful glassed in dining room. That was his dream… he wanted the rest of our building to be torn down. Because he was going to use that for parking. So, that’s when we started to say, ‘What will be done after you tear down our building?’ That’s when the cruel answer came. ‘We need parking’. And that’s when we started to revolt.” (GB, page 144).

“There were some members that were in favor of it (the second merger). They worked very, very hard because they were in favor of it…(others had) been members for many, many years and the club was part of them. The merger, it didn’t register at first. They thought, ‘a merger, well we could try it.’ Then suddenly, when they realized that the building would go,

66 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

that’s when they really started and that was the last minute. Everything progressed very slowly and suddenly, take it over and throw it away! Let’s start something new! But I am very happy that somebody spoke up,” recalled a staff member at the time. (BG, page 145)

Concerns about the physical condition of the Women’s Faculty Club were often cited as a reason for merger. But “one of the older members, Mrs. Samuel May, Bernice May, was very insulted that it was called an old building, all run-down, and we needed new all over. So because she was on the city council, she got the city inspector of the buildings, Mr. Atkins, to come up and review the condition of the building. He said…that the building was in absolutely sound condition.” (Smith, page 11) Club member Florence Minard, who was one of those who wanted to save the building and who opposed the merger, was also instrumental in pursuing this study.

A City inspector did provide a report for the Club building in 1970 which noted various modest deficiencies such as localized egress and electrical issues. But, overall, it said the inspectors “found all rooms (private) to confirm to the Housing Code, City of Berkeley” and “a check of the walls and ceilings revealed no indication of any structural failure.” “Our conclusion is the building, except for the items mentioned, is in sound structural condition.”

During a critical period of discussion of merger in 1970/71, the dissident members would argue “It has been stated with much repetition that we have a ‘tired old building.’ Since no review was made of the so-called ‘necessary’ items (for repairs), nor was any outside contractor consulted to give an impartial opinion of the condition of the building, we secured…the services of the Building inspector of the City of Berkeley. In his report…he states that he considers the building to be ‘in good structural’ condition’.”

Dissident members made the argument that the Women’s Faculty Club would end up with little—just some activity space—after the combination, while the Faculty Club would use the resources and membership dues of the Women’s Faculty Club to ameliorate its own deficit.

“The problem was, should we or should we not join with the Men’s Faculty Club? There were several things…the huge debt that they had. There were a lot of women who were convinced that once you joined the two clubs, then you had your share of the debt…the other argument, used by Laura Nader (Anthropology) and quite a few other people, was: look at the way they treated us all these years, why should we have anything to do with them? I think that argument was very telling too. We found out that she also had been tossed out of the Men’s Faculty Club more than once,” recalled one professor. (Scott, 161)

As earlier noted, the Women’s Faculty Club building was suggested in this era as a site for parking for the Faculty Club, or as a building that could be converted to academic use. “The University had already agreed that it was going to use it for carrels for the History Department,” one professor believed. (Miles, page 110)

There was also organizing activity among women faculty, staff, and students in the 60s to create a women’s center for the campus, and some of that activity was temporarily based at the Club. It was used for meetings, and “there were always diapers on the staircases because of the women’s center. It became a babysitting center. Nobody liked this very well.” (Miles, page 112). The child care arrangement “was supposed to be permanent. But then it didn’t seem to work out; there wasn’t space enough and too many stairs, because they didn’t have any place where they could wash the children or any place where they could feed them except in the dining room…but they had offices on the second floor. They’d

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 67

taken one, two, three of our rooms. And then everybody who lived on the second floor had to lock their rooms, because all of the little ones opened the door and they went in and had a good time looking at all these new things…” (GB, page 146)

Women’s Center activities were later moved to one of the old wooden “T” or “temporary” buildings north of Doe Library, where they would remain through the 1980s, and a campus childcare program was established, first by students in Eshleman Hall then, after 1970, in Girton Hall.

As Johnson had noted, Senior Hall would also be removed or moved under some of the scenarios for Faculty Club changes and its site would accommodate a dining room expansion for the Faculty Club or a connector between the two buildings. Senior Hall was actually scheduled to be demolished, but a campus / community effort—which involved local preservationists as well as student and alumni members of the Order of the Golden Bear, the builder and traditional custodian of the building—convinced the University to at least temporarily spare the building. As late as the early 1980s, a decade after the formal merger plans were discarded, portions of the Faculty Club leadership were still interested in expanding to the east, removing all or a portion of Senior Hall, although merging with the Women’s Faculty Club or taking over its building was no longer apparently a consideration. (Personal recollection, Steven Finacom, October, 2013)

In 1970 the Women’s Faculty Club Board of Directors had actually voted to merge with the Faculty Club. “There were many, many members that wanted it. They were in the secretarial range. In fact, several of them said that they would resign from the club if this merger didn’t go through. There was great talk about building the glass passageway between the two clubs. It was just about accomplished.” (Smith, page 16) the Faculty Club had a deficit, however, “it was enough that it was very serious.” (Smith, page 17) Smith reviewed their annual audit, and found that the Faculty Club was intending to use income from the Women’s Faculty Club to fill its operating deficit. She sent “A Financial Warning” to Women’s Faculty Club members saying “we would lose all control over our own money…we would not only lose our identity but lose control over all of our accounts and probably lose our most desirable furnishings as well.” (Smith, page 17)

“The next day after that meeting with the decision, I happened to have something to take care of in regard to bills or to the accounts or something. Anyway, I went over to the club about ten or half past ten in the morning, and there was the manager of the men’s club, the Faculty Club, proceeding to roll up OUR rugs preparatory to taking them over to the Faculty Club…I hit the ceiling. I told him that I was a member of the board, that he had no right to touch the things which were our furnishings…we had a set of brand new dishes, and they took them over…they took over our complete set of silver, which was scattered to the seven winds of heaven.” (Smith, page 15-16)

This event is recalled in several oral accounts, and appears to have been a turning point in relations between the Clubs—a signal that indicated to the Women’s Faculty Club members that the Faculty Club would not treat the Women’s club with equal consideration or respect. “He took everything from the kitchen, too” one staff member recalled. “And he wanted to come back and take everything from the other rooms. That’s when we started to hide things. But I never had the key, and it made him furious! It was a matter of months. It just went on and on.” (GB, page 142). The staff member was interviewed by the Faculty Club manager who told her “The Women’s Faculty Club was now a property of his office. And he would take it over…I want you to come here once a day and tell me what they talk about, what they plan…I said, ‘I don’t work for you. I work for the Women’s Faculty Club’. That’s when the feathers started to fly…he referred to the building as his building.” (GB, 142)

68 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The Women’s Faculty Club dining facilities were temporarily closed, and the residents and staff ate at the Faculty Club, except for breakfast for the residents. Financial accounts were taken to the Faculty Club, but the Women’s Faculty Club staff did not turn over a key to the basement vault where key items were kept. (GB, 143)

The 1970 agreement to merge was “discontinued” before the year was out, according to Smith, because the Faculty Club did a bad job of managing the joint financial accounts. (Smith, page 15) Bad blood because of the attempted appropriation of the furnishings was also, presumably, a factor.

“As a result of the decision NOT to merge, fifteen members resigned as threatened. That was that. The rest of the members, we went on with new vigor.” (Smith, page 18) Control of Women’s Faculty Club operations was returned to the Club in July, 1972, while financial record keeping was maintained by the “Joint Operation” with the Faculty Club.

A second attempt to merge was made in the mid-1970s, but according to the accounts of several Women’s Faculty Club members it died because the Women’s Club representatives felt the Faculty Club was being condescending and was not interested in fully integrating them into a joint organization. “I do not understand why these men talk to us the way they do. They are very rude,” one of the Women’s Faculty Club members was recalled as saying. (Miles, 115) Josephine Miles, who participated in some of the later discussions, said “these guys were like—I have never seen people like that before, even when they barred the door at the club…they said they did not need to explain it to us because we were new members of the board…it was a silly dialogue. So at some point…somebody (from the Women’s club) said, ‘In other words, your idea of merger is really as far as we are concerned, submerger’….the stipulations for joining were kind of funny. I mean we (Women’s Faculty Club members) were not welcome to come in there at any time and eat or anything like that. It was sort of limited what we could do.” (Miles, 117)

The second merger proposal was turned down by the Women’s Faculty Club in 1976. There were apparently two votes, the first affirmative, but rescheduled because of “a technicality,” and the second against the merger. “I came to an annual meeting and I really couldn’t get any answers to my quite direct questions” recalled one board member. “What I was doing was treading on a number of toes, I suspect. I really wanted an answer…At that time Josephine Smith sent the financial statement from the Men’s Faculty Club along, so that we had access to this information. And of course that’s why it was defeated...There was no question, and I think it changed my opinions because it was in cold print, how much in debt the Men’s Faculty Club was and how they would use this club.” (Williams, page 228)

Part of the catalyst for considering merging was an offer in 1971 of some $600,000 in gifts from the Haas family—long time, major, UC supporters—to renovate and expand club facilities. This gift was based on the assumption that the Clubs would be joined into a new, single “University Club” organization.

Ultimately, because a merger did not happen, the funds were divided between the two Clubs and the Women’s Faculty Club used its share for renovations, particularly of the guest rooms. Some $300,000 was spent at the Women’s Faculty Club. “The money came—it must have come in 1971—but it took quite a while before they got going with the changes, and it took a long, long time for the remodeling of the club. We put in the elevator and the rooms were changed—they hadn’t all had private baths—and all these bathrooms were built in. The work took a long time.” The renovation work was managed by Norma Willer, an architect on the campus staff, and also a Club member. (Johnson, page 200-02) Willer

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 69

contributed her own time to planning and suggesting some of the design modifications, particularly the main living room. (Van Horn, page 213) By the time renovations were completed the prospect of merger had ended. The Building Committee of the Women’s Faculty Club was also dissolved, ending the dual arrangement under which the Club had paid rent to the Building Committee which had, in turn, used the funds to retire the building bonds and finance repairs and upgrades.

This renovation was the Club’s major renovation to date. Plans were prepared by The Ratcliff Architects and included kitchen renovations, a physical reorganization of the dining room spaces, the current elevator, and insertion of private bathrooms into the guest rooms on the upper two floors.

After the extensive upstairs renovations, “we started to have people come in and stay (as guests) and get some money into the club. That’s when all these people started coming in from the different worlds. It was just wonderful. By that time, all the others had left the club,” one Club leader recalled. (BG, page 148)

The upstairs floors became, in essence, a regular guest residence for campus visitors, with permanent residencies ended. This was the same pattern as had evolved in the same era at the Faculty Club. Dining service, which had ended for a period in the 1970s, was resumed at the Women’s Faculty Club and the dining room has become over the succeeding decades once again a popular location for lunch for faculty, staff, members and guests. The earlier traditions of campus groups meeting at the Club also continued, as well as rental of the Lounge for both special meals and other events.

In about 1967 a group of women faculty began meeting at the Club to discuss women in the University, These included Susan Ervin-Tripp, Laura Nader, Elizabeth Scott, Herma Hill Kay and Babette Barton, most of them significant figures in later years in faculty activities. The gatherings grew out of concern over the decreasing number of women in faculty positions. “They were at that time considering only advancement of the women in the academic area, but they soon expanded their studies to staff women also on the campus. And this coincided with the start of the women’s rights movement….They met regularly for lunch and they got a lot of publicity in the Daily Cal and began to put on pressure” (Johnson, page 192)

There were other longstanding uses of the Club for meetings by campus groups. “There are groups in University Hall that will only meet here. The Chancellor’s Office will only meet here. We try very hard to restrict the lounge to—I’d like to reach the point where we don’t serve luncheon in there at all. The rugs, everything, show the effect. And yet there are groups of forty or so that just have to meet there….that kind of thing, departmental meetings. Yes I think it’s increased. I know it’s the food, because they stay here for lunch, they don’t break the meeting and go somewhere else,” one past president recalled in the 1980s. (Williams, page 249)

EVOLVING LANDSCAPE AND GARDEN Club minutes, member recollections, and site inspection identify a number of features now missing from the Women’s Faculty Club grounds / gardens. These include a statue of St. Francis of Assisi once sited somewhere in the back (north) garden, and a concrete birdbath with a water supply. In 1926 minutes reported a gift from Mrs. W.T. Sedgwick of “a stone bench and bird pool, now placed in the north garden. The bird pool is to be connected with a water pipe.” This was done, although there is no clarification as to whether this was

70 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

a raised fountain or other sculptural feature. One of the seven benches in the garden is of carved stone, and may be the donated bench.

One of the most frequently recalled features was not built, but planted: a cutting garden, including roses, south of the Club. From visual site inspection this would appear to have been primarily in the southwest corner of the Club grounds. Club members placed great value on fresh flowers and there are reoccurring mentions of both how nice it was to have flowers, and how the Club could—or should plan to—have flowers available in the grounds.

The Women’s Faculty Club spent money of its own on the garden and also, when it could, cooperated with the University grounds staff to get plantings, services, or materials provided. These were not necessarily large plans or renovations; instead, as has been the case elsewhere on campus, landscape materials not needed in one area might be reused in small ways in other parts of the campus.

In the 1980s, for example, campus landscape architect Joanna Kaufmann, “came up with this handsome plan, but it was really within reason. It wasn’t a great fountain and all that sort of thing. In fact, we’re following it. They did the rose garden, and I guess the University did pay for that—the labor and the plants and the removal of two trees that we were always afraid were going to fall over onto somebody, they’d been there so many years.” (Williams, page 247)

Immediately prior to that time, “I have a feeling that much of this garden was planted when Ben, the gardener, would see an empty spot and he’d bring us something that was to be thrown out or pulled up,” a Club president noted in the 1980s. (Williams, page 244) She said that “Ben” was also the gardener at University House, the official home of the Chancellor.

Margaret Murdoch recalled that the Club did have a “Victory Garden” growing vegetables in World War II, but it was apparently adjacent to the parking lot to the south (where the Minor Hall addition stands now), not necessarily within the current precincts of the Club. “We had several residents who got busy planting vegetables and feeding us, and even one of the maids had her little plot and helped grow things.” (Murdoch, page 65)

This portion of a 1947 campus map shows Durant Hall (now Minor Hall) completed across the driveway from the Women’s Faculty Club, while the adjacent shared Faculty Clubs garage remains. Lewis Hall has been completed north of the Women’s Faculty Club and the current alignment of Gayley Road and Piedmont Avenue has just been completed, shifting Girton Hall downhill to its site on College Avenue across from the Club. Map courtesy of Physical & Environmental Planning, University of California.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 71

Continued use of flowering plants was evident in the mid-century. “Flowers, especially roses and heliotrope” were recalled by one member in an oral history. (Brewer, page 1) By that time there were also two “flowering magnolia” (soulangia) trees that flanked the top of the staircase. They were cut back in the 1990s to make way for a crane that was lifting a portable office onto the terrace of the Optometry Addition when a new top floor was added to Minor Hall. They suffered from a water mold and died. These were extremely picturesque, with a grey barked, multi-trunk structure and brilliant light purple flowers in the spring. They were removed in the second decade of the 21st century, and replaced with two pink flowering dogwoods in roughly the same positioning.

In the early 1980s the Club planned a refurbishment of the garden in conjunction with suggestions from then Campus Landscape Architect Joanna Kaufmann, also a Club member. There are notes of a “white flower garden” in the 1980s, but apparently it was not completed, and rhododendrons and azaleas planted in, or desired to be planted, in the north garden for seasonal color in the same period. A few large rhododendrons and azaleas survive around the western / northwestern end of the building. Rhododendrons and azaleas were particularly popular landscape shrubs in the middle decades of the 20th century, a period when University of California researchers were also involved in collecting rare specimens overseas. The Faculty Club had many rhododendrons in its grounds, and some now survive south of that building; it is likely that the trend continued “upstream” around the Women’s Faculty Club.

In the 1980s a Club president advised, “We hope to add more azaleas and rhododendron in the rear garden. I’d like to see the club reach a point with its garden that cut flowers could come all year round from our own garden.” (Williams, page 245)

Club records also mention the ferns west and south of the building, and there is a 1980s note that they were used by classes—presumably in botany, or landscape architecture—as teaching tools.

There was also a new flower “cutting garden” and more sun-loving annual and perennial plantings in the south garden planned or re-planned / planted in the 1980s. Roses are again mentioned. As noted earlier, various generations of Club staff and leaders had a recurring interest in having flowers from the Club garden that can be periodically cut and brought in to decorate the interior. This is reflective of the home-like atmosphere the Club worked to cultivate for the building.

“In looking about and also kind of looking out to see where we could get cut flowers, which I think are part of the club, again we go to timing. At that moment Joanna Kaufmann became (campus) landscape architect, and she’s very much into this sort of thing and there was an immediate rapport and it all opened up into some beautiful future plans…Our new rose garden—almost every other day there can be a bouquet out of that. That’s just the beginning now (and) the two crab apple trees that were planted that were individual gifts…” (Williams) It is not clear if these crab apples survive.

When the Club had long term residents, some of them took an interest in the garden. One staff member recalled that Miss Czarnowski, a long-time resident, was in charge of flower arrangements for the Club, using flowers for the garden. She berated one of the staff when a single rose was removed from an arrangement and given to a staff member who was leaving. “She had the flower garden and we were never allowed to go out and take a rose… that was in the front. The rose bushes are still there (1982). But of course it probably isn’t given tender loving care like before.” (GB, page 133)

72 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The white flower garden to the south of the Club building was partially developed in the 1980s, according to one document. “There are lots of whites, with the white agapanthus and the white delphiniums and foxgloves and so forth up in the east corner. The semi- circle in the front will be really very formal. The Japanese anemones will be transplanted around because they really are so delightful and useful.” (Williams, page 244)

“The change will start where the ivy is, because that’s really something taken over. The Japanese magnolias (i.e. the liriodendron flanking the stairs) need to have something less high and weedy around them because they’re so handsome in themselves. But all the ferns will remain as they are because they’re used by campus classes. Apparently this is the only place where they appear. We will again use the white campanula; over where the ivy is the campanula will be planted to drop over the walls.” (Williams, page 244)

“The hedge you may have noticed is really quite in need of trimming, but we’re letting it get higher than the automobiles so that it will block that out.” (Williams, page 245)

“Part of the agreement with The Regents is that they take care of the exterior, the grounds and the gardens. Now, nobody had looked at this garden in, oh, I suppose, ten or fifteen years maybe” one Board member recalled in the early 1980s. “I talked to (Fred) Warneke (then campus landscape architect) about it and he came up and I was telling him things that I thought should be done. You see, we do have weddings here and they love to use the deck and the brick terrace, and if it’s nothing but weeds, even though they’re moved, it’s not a good idea.” (Williams, page 246)

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 73

CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

1890s First women begin to join the University’s professional staff, including a physician for women and the head of a new Appointments Bureau (student job placement center).

1894 University Dining Association founded, in borrowed cottage near Faculty Glade. Provides meals to campus community, with separate dining room for faculty. Although students are served, the building gradually becomes a dining / gathering place for faculty and staff.

1898 Alumna May Cheney convinces the University to set up an “appointments bureau” (a job placement program for Cal graduates), with herself as the first head. She will work for the next 40 years in administrative positions on campus.

1900 Men’s and women’s student senior honor societies (Golden Bear, and Prtyanean) founded.

1900 The University adopts the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Architectural Plan that lays out the central campus in a formal grid of proposed academic buildings.

1900 Hearst Hall, donated to the University by Regent Phoebe Hearst, is moved to the campus on a site where Wurster Hall now stands, and refurbished for use as a women’s gymnasium and social center.

1900 Jessica Blanche Peixotto becomes the second woman to earn a PhD. from the University of California and will later be hired as the first woman on the faculty (in the field of economics).

1901 The Faculty Club is founded by 22 male faculty; membership limited to men.

1902 The Faculty Club building is completed and opened.

1903 The Faculty Club is expanded (first of several additions) to include residential quarters for bachelor members; members pay for the construction in exchange for free quarters for ten years.

1903 Lucy Sprague (Mitchell) appointed first dean of women.

1905 Senior Men’s Hall proposed, and funded with gifts from students and friends of the University.

1906 Senior Men’s Hall opens, on a University allocated site, adjacent to the Faculty Club.

1907 Spouses of faculty members and administrators start a tradition of formal College Teas.

1910-1911 Senior Women’s Hall / Girton Hall proposed, and funded with gifts from students and others.

1911 California voters approve women’s suffrage, making California the fifth and largest state to grant women the vote. A number of the leaders of the campaign come from Berkeley and Berkeley votes for suffrage, unlike many California urban areas.

74 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

1912 Senior Women’s Hall fully opens to use on a University allocated site on Strawberry Creek.

1919 Women’s Faculty Club founded as organization.

1920 The Women’s Faculty Club forms a “House Committee” to investigate temporary quarters, and also begins planning for a permanent building. A site is requested, and in the fall the Regents grant approval for a site on University property.

1922 Prospectus issued for sale of bonds to finance the construction. Building is designed by John Galen Howard.

1923 Building plans are considerably revised and downsized because of high construction bids. Construction contract is signed in April, and construction is finished in the Fall.

1923 Stephens Memorial Union (student union) opens west of Faculty Glade, completing, with the Women’s Faculty Club, a row of non-academic activity buildings and clubhouses along Strawberry Creek.

1923 September 23. Wildfire destroys some 600 structures in North Berkeley. Early residents of the Club include members and others displaced by the fire.

1925 The Women’s Faculty Club and University officials agree that the University will “undertake gardening” at the Club. The service road between the Club and Senior Hall is realigned, creating roughly the current south border of the Club gardens. Professor John Gregg prepares design suggestions for the garden.

1926 Following plans or suggestions from Gregg, the gardens are laid out and some improvements installed. Semi-circular stone wall and entrance and paths constructed by the firm of Henry Maschio & Bros.

1927 The north garden is “laid out and planted.”

1930 Cowell Memorial Hospital is constructed across College Avenue from the Club.

1931 The Faculty Club and the Women’s Faculty Club collaborate on a parking garage for members south of Senior Hall, across the service road. The Women’s Faculty Club pays for some of the construction costs and receives an allocation of spaces, which are then rented to members. Warren Perry, Dean of Architecture, designs the garage.

1941 The “emergency classroom building” (later, Minor Hall) is constructed immediately south of the Club and east of the faculty clubs garages.

1947 The bonds are paid off and the mortgage is ceremonially burned in the Club fireplace.

1949-1950 Roof “re-covered with fire resistant shingles;” window sills on south face replaced; damaged shingles replaced; shingles stained; and exterior trim painted. Exterior fire escapes, and interior fire doors, added.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 75

1957 President Sproul is asked for a gift of repair funds from the University. $30,000 is provided, and used to upgrade the kitchen.

Early 1960s Flooding on Strawberry Creek results in construction of the “Big Inch” diversion culvert from Strawberry Canyon, that empties into the creek north of tghe Club, and construction of retaining walls along the creek banks throughout the campus.

Early 1960s New buildings of the College of Chemistry are constructed north of the Club in 1962 (Latimer Hall), 1966 (Hildebrand Hall). These replace the old 19th century Chemistry Building, but retain roughly the same setback from the creek, beyond South Drive.

1965 The Women’s Faculty Club begins a private fundraising campaign and holds events to raise money for renovations. About $12,000 is raised, far short of needs.

1966 The Club asks for a dining room subsidy from the University. Chancellor Heyns appoints an “Ad Hoc Committee” to conduct discussions about merging the Faculty Club and the Women’s Faculty Club. This body will meet for several years and generate proposals.

Circa 1967 A study of the Club is completed by the campus Office of Architects and Engineers, recommending repairs and costing out possible improvements such as adding closet space, bathroom remodels, new light fixtures, etc. Total cost, including both repairs and improvements, is estimated at $340,000.

The Club discusses with the University a plan to raise three equal increments of $80,000 by fundraising, a campus loan, and a gift from the University.

The Building Committee and Women’s Faculty Club are combined at the annual meeting. Essentially the Building Committee, which had existed to raise the funds for the building, then received rent from the Club to pay off the bond holders, is eliminated.

Fundraising for renovations begins within the Club. $38,000, including funds from the Building Committee, is pledged over a two year period.

The dining room is renovated January-March, 1967 at a cost of about $12,000.

1967 Chancellor Heyns forms an ad hoc committee of leaders of both faculty clubs, to discuss merger. The participants are generally inclined towards merging, with physical changes that would include removal of Senior Hall and construction of a connector, or a dining room, between the two club buildings.

1968 $10,000 spent on kitchen repairs.

1969 Because of lack of funds, the project of comprehensively renovating the Women’s Faculty Club building is “given up.” The Club leadership continues discussion of merger with the Faculty Club.

Late 1960s Portions of the Club building are used for women’s center activities and early 1970s childcare, activities later moved to other campus buildings.

1970 Five dissident members of the Women’s Faculty Club write to the membership questioning the rationale for a proposed merger and assumptions about building renovation costs.

76 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

1970 A City inspector, at the request of dissident Club members, provides an assessment that concludes the building is in fairly sound physical condition, although needing some repairs.

April 1971 A proposal is circulated for “A University Club of the Berkeley Campus” incorporating and renovating both club buildings into a single entity. The Faculty Club would become an event facility, with a new 4,000 sq/ft dining room extended to the east, removing Senior Hall. A separate “Women’s Education Center” would be created, possibly in the former Women’s Faculty Club building.

October 1971 The Haas family authorizes spending $600,000 of funds pledged to the campus in 1968 to renovate and expand the faculty clubs.

November 1971 Dinner and lunch service at the Club is temporarily ended. The elimination of dinner service will be permanent.

1972 After about six months, the Women’s Faculty Club board withdraws from the merger.

Mid-1970s The faculty clubs garage is demolished to make way for the addition to Minor Hall, which is completed in 1978 immediately south of the Club.

1976 Women’s Club membership votes to approve merger of the two Clubs. A second vote then rescinds the approval. This is the last formal consideration of merger by the membership.

Major renovations to the club are undertaken to plans designed by the Ratcliff Architects using Haas gift funds. The renovations include creation of private bathrooms for the bedrooms / guest rooms on the two upper floors, the current elevator, and kitchen, dining room, and basement remodels.

Early 1980s A refurbished rose garden / cutting garden is developed in the southwest corner of the property and a “white flower garden” planting concentrated in the southeast.

Circa 1995 Cowell Hospital is demolished and replaced with the Haas School of Business Administration east of the Club.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 77

JOHN GALEN HOWARD John Galen Howard was born in Chelmsford, Massachusetts in 1864. He studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology– then, the only architecture program in the United States, leaving before he completed his degree. He apprenticed under Henry Hobson Richardson and later worked for Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge, the successor practice.15 Howard left their employ to travel to California, where he sketched missions and adobe buildings, becoming familiar with one of California’s earliest types of vernacular architecture.16 Upon returning to the East Coast, Howard took a position with the prestigious firm of McKim, Mead and White. With financial support from Charles McKim, Howard attended the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris from 1890 to 1893. Although he once more abandoned his education before he completed his degree, Howard’s work was forever changed by the three years spent at the Ecole. Upon his return to New York in 1894, he established a private practice with Samuel Cauldwell. 17

In 1899, Howard submitted an entry in the Phoebe Hearst International Architectural Competition for a master plan for the University of California. Emile Benard, a French architect John Galen Howard. Courtesy of The Bancroft Library, and painter, won the competition; Howard placed fourth. Benard University of California, Berkeley. declined the appointment as supervising architect for the new University and, in 1901, Howard, assumed the position.18 In 1902, Howard moved his family to California and, by 1903, the University had allocated funds to establish a department of architecture and Howard was appointed professor of architecture.19 In 1903, Howard’s first project, the Hearst Greek Theatre, was completed and, by 1913, he was appointed director of the School of Architecture. Howard designed the classical core of campus and related Beaux Arts buildings, including the Hearst Memorial Mining Building, the Greek Theatre, Durant (formerly Boalt) Hall, California Hall, Wellman (formerly Agriculture) Hall, the University Library, Sather Tower (the Campanile), Sather Gate, Wheeler Hall, Gilman Hall, Hesse Hall, (old) Le Conte Hall, Senior Hall, portions of the Faculty Club, the Women’s Faculty Club and Haviland Hall.20 In addition, Howard designed numerous temporary buildings some of which have survived, including North Gate Hall, Naval Architecture and the first unit of the Dwinelle Annex.

During Howard’s tenure as Supervising Architect at the University, Julia Morgan worked under Howard as his assistant. She helped draw the elevations for the master plan and assisted Howard during the construction of the Greek Theatre. One year after the completion of the Greek Theatre, Julia Morgan opened her own practice.21

15 www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Orchard/8642/jghoward.html. 16 Helfand, The Campus Guide, p 14. 17 Ibid. www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Orchard/8642/jghoward.html. 18 http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/online_exhibits/romapacifica/partiv.html. Accessed 15 March 2012. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 www.hearstcastle.org, Julia Morgan.

78 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

In 1898, with the final stages of the Phoebe Hearst Competition under way, President Kellogg retired from the University. Though he had suggested several local candidates, The Regents thought that it would be more beneficial to bring an Eastern influence to their growing University. Benjamin Ide Wheeler of Cornell University was appointed president of the University of California in July of 1899 and served for twenty years, until 1919.22 Under his guidance, the University not only tripled in size, but began to establish its reputation as one of the finest universities in the nation.23 A graduate of Brown University, Wheeler came to Berkeley directly following a sabbatical in Athens. Wheeler, who had been a been a professor of both comparative philology and Greek during his tenure at Cornell, brought with him a “love of classical antiquity”24 which matched well with the Athens of the West image that the University was developing.25 President Wheeler was also instrumental in encouraging John Galen Howard to come to the University. He was interested in having him not only as the supervising architect but as a professor as well. Phoebe Hearst had already hired Howard as the architect for the Hearst Memorial Mining Building, and in 1901 he accepted the position as supervising architect, and began incorporating his own ideas and more importantly fiscal realities on the University plan.26 Howard had a simpler, Greek plan for the University and worked to incorporate that into the design that had been left from Benard.27

WOMEN’S ROLE IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY FACULTIES From the late nineteenth century into the early twentieth century, over 70% of college- educated women chose to enter the teaching profession.28 Teaching represented a traditional field for women that paid slightly more29 than some other “feminized” occupations such as social work, librarianship, nursing,30 and offered some social mobility above labor-based jobs.31 These “feminized” fields or “semiprofessions” were considered “less demanding, less permanent, and more appropriate for women” and were distinguished from those deemed by society to be more worthy professions taken on by men.32 Although advancement was limited within the teaching field since certification and further study was not necessarily required,33 it offered a path toward scholarship and entry into male-dominated professions for ambitious women.

The progress of women in academia was often related to the type and level of support they garnered from their immediate surroundings. The early women’s colleges of Vassar (1865), Wellesley (1875), Smith (1875), and Bryn Mawr (1884) based their academics on the expansion of women’s set roles and Protestant values.34 It was M. Carey Thomas, the second president of Bryn Mawr, who pushed women’s scholarship from “moral discipline

22 Wardrip, A Western Portal of Culture, p 26. 23 www.berkeley.edu/about/history/#brief. 24 Helfand, The Campus Guide, p 15. 25 Cal Performances Centennial, p 9. 26 Wardrip, A Western Portal of Culture, p 31. 27 Ibid., p 32. 28 Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 127. 29 Solomon Ibid, p. 128. 30 Solomon Ibid, p. 126. 31 Solomon Ibid, p. 128. 32 Solomon Ibid, p. 126. 33 Solomon Ibid, p. 128. 34 Solomon Ibid, p. 47.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 79

to academic rigor”35 and encouraged women to consider other professions besides teaching, though jobs were widely available.36 While the numbers of women in their traditional “semiprofessions” remained fairly consistent from 1910 to 1982, the numbers of those in professions traditionally associated with men increased, from 1 to 14% of all lawyers and from 6 to 14% of all physicians in those years were women.37 In addition, professors at both women’s and coeducational colleges encouraged women with academic promise to pursue graduate degrees, a path not often taken up by men who pursued a myriad of other professions.38 Those who took up the scholarly mantle were few and far between Although available documents do not indicate that the Women’s Faculty and faced a head-on battle to achieve doctoral degrees Club or University leadership chose the Club site (in sun, at rear) because of and equity as faculty.39 the proximity of Senior Hall (left) and the nearby (Men’s) Faculty Club in the creekside setting, the three buildings and their landscape form a cohesive Early women professors were most often single though cultural landscape. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. a few married women faculty did exist.40 As such, not only were they anomalies in academics, but also in society. In the 1880s, it was generally accepted that faculties were dominated by men and the idea of a woman professor was considered shocking. Soon, the first vocalizations were made in favor of women faculty. In 1894, a University of California at Berkeley undergraduate student, Katharine C. Felton, asserted that a woman on the faculty would provide needed incentive to female students and would be an indirect influence on the student body in general. At the time, the university had been coeducational for twenty-five years without any women on the faculty.41

Even though there were only a few at first, women as faculty would come to shape higher education, experimenting with new teaching methods and new ideas in the fields of humanities, social sciences and science.42 Though there were male professors who encouraged scholarly female students, the faculty-student relationship between women was stronger. Especially at women’s colleges, this relationship flourished with easier student access to faculty and informal communication facilitated by joint dining facilities and casual tea among those of the same sex. It was certainly beneficial that women faculty could address the difficulties of women in academia and encourage their protégées to pursue scholarship. Often, women faculty would name their students as their successors such as Maria Mitchell, Vassar professor of astronomy, and Florence Bascom, geology professor at Bryn Mawr, whose successors would be highly distinguished in their respective fields and reflect their mentors’ massive influence.43

From 1870 to 1980, the collegiate education of women in America progressively increased at a steady rate in the awards of bachelor’s or first professional degrees (15 to 47%) and

35 Solomon Ibid, p. 49. 36 Solomon Ibid, p. 128. 37 Solomon Ibid, p. 127. 38 Solomon Ibid, p. 135. 39 Solomon Ibid, p. 134. 40 Solomon Ibid, p. 89. 41 Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 90. 42 Solomon Ibid, p. 87. 43 Solomon Ibid, p. 88-89.

80 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Construction of Minor Hall in the 1940s transformed the zone south of the Women’s Faculty Club, making it more dense and institutional. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

doctorates (0% to 30%). Even so, the percentage of women in university faculties over this long period remained much the same, bubbling up and down from 1870 to 1920 with a maximum of 36% in 1880 and ranging from 22% to 26% from 1920 to 1980.44 By the 1980s, affirmative action established more opportunities for women as professors and put more women scholars on the path toward it, but progress in faculty diversity remains slow due to latent prejudice, economic factors, and demographics.45

WOMEN’S FACULTY GROUPS The earliest of campus women’s clubs were those derived for female students to organize their housing, socialization, and athletics.46 Eventually, these organizations formalized to support women in their academic and professional endeavors by supporting and promoting the role of women in academia.

Many clubs devoted to women began as informal social gatherings initiated by the wives of faculty members, such as at Butler University (1908),47 the University of Michigan (1921),48 and Johns Hopkins (1930).49 These gatherings included the faculty wives and daughters, students and a few women faculty where they existed. Later, these clubs were formalized by charter and populated by women faculty as they gained in numbers.

44 Graham, Patricia A. “Expansion and Exclusion: A History of Women in American Higher Education.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 3 (Summer 1978). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1980, 1982. Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 133. 45 Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 210. 46 Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 104-105. 47 Guide to the Butler University Women’s Faculty Club Collection. Special Collections and Rare Books, Irwin Library, Butler University. Website: www.butler.edu/media/20611/womens.pdf, accessed 4 October 2013. 48 The University of Michigan Faculty Women’s Club 1921 – 2013. Website: http://www.umich.edu/~fwc/FWC_ Website/new_home.html, accessed 4 October 2013. 49 The Women’s Club, Johns Hopkins University. Website: http://web.jhu.edu/jhuwomansclub/history, accessed 10 June 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 81

As coeducation developed between 1860 and 192050, administrators saw the need for leadership in organizing female students and their education. These institutions began to appoint female deans who became instrumental in developing groups that supported students but also faculty. Of note, at the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper, president from 1892 at the school’s inception until 1906,51 made progressive appointments of several women, which would make the University of Chicago the richest in female faculty above other contemporary coeducational institutions.52 Harper also appointed the first dean of women, Alice Freeman Palmer, former Wellesley College president, in 1892, who named her successor, Marion Talbot, who taught at Wellesley and initiated numerous organizations for women at the Chicago campus, among them was the Club of Women Fellows.53 As president, Talbot promoted the club’s social activities and encouraged the connection of women faculty and undergraduates for their academic and professional development.54 Although other universities had women’s faculty clubs, and some had substantial quarters, Berkeley’s appears to be very unusual if not unique because of its early founding, explicitly academic focus, and large freestanding building with meeting, dining, and overnight accommodations.

FIRST BAY REGION TRADITION The First Bay Region Tradition is a regional variant of the Eastern Shingle Style that flourished in San Francisco between 1890 and 1917. Less of a formal style and more of an attitude imbued with the tenets of the Arts and Crafts movement and nature worship, the First Bay Region Tradition came into existence with the seminal work of architects such as Albert Schweinfurth, Ernest Coxhead, Willis Polk, Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck. The most significant concentrations of First Bay Region Tradition dwellings emerged in the East Bay, particularly in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills but Bay Region architects were active in San Francisco as well and there are many surviving examples of their work and the work of their imitators, in the traditionally more affluent districts of the city such as the crest of Russian Hill, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights as well as isolated examples in outlying neighborhoods such as Noe Valley.

Alternately called Shingle Style or First Bay Region Tradition, examples of this style are difficult to categorize. Less of a proscribed formula than most spec-built dwellings of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Bay Region Tradition varied in appearance. The overriding characteristic of this architect-led movement included a return to simplicity, which was manifested in exposed rafter and purlin ends, stained wood trim shingle cladding and picturesque and asymmetrical massing and articulation. Heavily influenced by the teachings of Ruskin, Morris, Emerson and Thoreau, Bay Region Tradition architects avoided fashionable and meaningless ornament and instead embraced honesty of expression and craftsmanship. The influence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s early Oak Park and Prairie School work can also be discerned in the work of the architects who worked in the Bay Region Tradition.

50 Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, p. 79. 51 Gordon, Lynn D. Gender and Higher Education in the Progressive Era. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, p. 85. 52 Gordon, Ibid, p. 87. 53 Gordon, Ibid, p. 87. 54 Gordon, Ibid, p. 98.

82 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 83

Description & Conditions Assessment CAMPUS DISTRICT The Club originally was assigned a street address, 2200 College Avenue. (Dornin, page 100) “When the Women’s Faculty Club was built, the university already owned all of the west side of the first block of College Avenue (north of Bancroft)…Across Sylvan Way, south of the Club, at 2220 College Avenue, was the students’ infirmary, a former private residence remodeled and enlarged for this use.” This was before 1930, when Cowell Hospital was constructed across College Avenue from the Club. (Dornin, page 100)

College Avenue turned into the campus and joined South Drive adjacent to the Club. From the 1920s until the 1940s this was the major southeast entrance to the University grounds, and also a way traffic could make its way to North Berkeley. Residents noted increasing traffic on the street which disturbed the Club, until 1946 when Gayley Road was reconfigured to connect directly with Piedmont Avenue and most through traffic shifted one “block” uphill to the east. (Dornin, page 101) This is the same time Girton Hall / Senior Women’s Hall, was moved downhill from its original site on the north bank of Strawberry Creek, and came to rest just across College Avenue from the Women’s Faculty Club.

Over the nine decades the Club building has stood on the same site, the surrounding environs have changed considerably. The Club, as previously noted, was on the edge of the original campus. The University later purchased all of the property to the east, southeast, and south, and in a series of projects primarily during the 1950s and 1960s, incorporated this area into the central campus. College Avenue was closed as a city street, most—although not all—of the earlier private homes were demolished, and large academic buildings, several of them for professional schools, were constructed.

In the 1940s what was originally known as the “Emergency Classroom Building”—now Minor Hall—was built across the driveway south of the Club. This was later assigned to the School of Optometry, which constructed two additions—top floors for Minor Hall, and a westward wing—in the 1970s and 1990s.

When the Club building was constructed the Minor Hall site was occupied, in part, by the

Strawberry Creek forms both a backdrop and a Stair and path in south garden, looking south from main buffer from large academic buildings to the north. entry. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

86 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

University Infirmary, headquartered in a converted residence. In 1930 the Infirmary was South garden of replaced by Cowell Memorial Hospital, built across College Avenue from that site and the Women’s Faculty Club, looking south. Panoramic Women’s Faculty Club. In the early 1990s the hospital was demolished and replaced with (180 degree) view with the current, three-building, complex of the Haas School of Business. east on the left and west on the right. To the north of the Club, across Strawberry Creek, earlier buildings of the College of Chemistry have been replaced with a succession of newer buildings, but on the same general footprint of the early chemistry complex. To the west of the Club, Senior Hall (1906) remains in the same location as it was when the Women’s Faculty Club was constructed, and the Faculty Club stands beyond.

Overall, the general environs of the Women’s Faculty Club have been altered, but much of the immediate adjacent character remains. To the north and east of the Club there are still the original roadways (South Drive and College Avenue, now College Way). The Club is still flanked on the north by a riparian landscape along Strawberry Creek, and to the west by Senior Hall, which was standing when the Women’s Faculty Club was built. To the south the environs have changed considerably with the removal of residential buildings and the Faculty Club Garages and their replacement with academic buildings; however, the south garden, hedge, and roadway bordering the Club on this side have remained, buffering the change in buildings and landscapes between the Women’s Faculty Club building and the Optometry complex beyond the road.

Lawn panel on the west side of the main entry path, looking southwest. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 87

The Club also remains part of an ensemble with three other clubhouse buildings—the Faculty Club, Senior Hall, Girton Hall—all completed in the first quarter of the 20th century, all initiated by independent campus groups, all designed to provide gathering space for members of the campus community, and all wooden buildings constructed in a relatively rustic, residentially scaled, informal style.

The removal of Girton Hall to the University’s Botanical Garden in Strawberry Canyon in 2014 somewhat diminished this ensemble but the other three buildings, all adjacent to each other in a group along an open stretch of Strawberry Creek, will remain, along with their immediate landscape surroundings.

SETTING AND SITE The Women’s Faculty Club is located in a cluster of four low-scale wood buildings grouped along the south bank of the south branch of Strawberry Creek, in a wooded riparian landscape that buffers the more densely built, formal areas to the north and south. The club is sited on the south bank of Strawberry Creek, just west of College Avenue. Immediately west of it is Senior Hall, which adjoins the Faculty Club. Slightly further north than the Women’s Faculty across College Avenue to the east is Girton Hall, the fourth building in the Bay Region cluster, moved to the Botanical Garden on Centennial Drive in 2014.

The Women’s Faculty Club faces the east-west access road from College Avenue that also serves the Faculty Club, Senior Hall, and the loading dock for Minor Hall. Its principal entry and main facade face Minor Hall, although this is due to the site history and landscape of the Women’s Faculty Club and not the design or nearby location of the facility for the School of Optometry. Senior Hall lies just to the west, and the wooded banks of Strawberry Creek wrap around the club’s setting from there on its west, north, and east sides, forming a buffer between the club and Hildebrand and Lewis Halls and College Avenue. Though the two buildings and the street which predated the site’s accession to the Lawn panel on the east campus are quite close to the Women’s Faculty Club, the creek, topography, and especially side of the main entry path, looking east. Knapp Architects the dense canopy of trees create a sense of visual containment. A low hedge extends the photograph, 2013. full length of south and east boundaries of the club’s site at the pavement edge of the access road and College Avenue. There are breaks in the hedge at the west end of garden south of the building and at the main entry walk on the access road, and at the center and north end of the hedge along College Avenue.

The Women’s Faculty Club and its semi-private landscape are nestled into the wooded creek landscape on three sides, though nearly the whole south facade adjoins the front garden between the building and the access road to the south. An axial brick walkway leads from the paved access road to the front door, descending a short set of stone steps. The steps cut through a terrace that extends from the east end of the

88 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The ground plane in the zone northwest of the main building mass and north wing is bordered in flagstones, with a sparse planted border of azaleas backed by the riparian mixed woodland on Strawberry Creek. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

site to the southwest corner. In front of the building is a level garden, with a planting strip along the base of the building, a brick cross walk skirting the front of the building, and a crescent-shaped lawn bisected by the main path. This brick paving replaced the earlier flagstone pathways. A 1970s photograph of the old flagstone pathways shows that the new brick pathways were laid out in the same arrangement and roughly the same size as the hardscape they replaced. A planting bed borders the retaining wall at the face of the upper terraced area along the access drive and College Avenue. The upper terrace includes turf zones east and west of the entry walk. The walkway that runs parallel to the south facade of the building begins on the east at the opening in center of the hedge along College Avenue, and continues west past the building where it changes from brick to asphalt paving and steps up two risers, then turning to the north around the west end of the building.

Senior Hall is a short distance west of the Women’s Faculty Club, but the two buildings are relatively separate because of two redwoods and their canopy separating them. The open areas at ground level that adjoin the Women’s Faculty club on the south, west, and north sides are all hemmed in by landscape edges, giving the building’s immediate setting its own spatial definition. There is an entry to Path from south garden along the basement level of the Women’s Faculty south side of Women’s Faculty Club on the west elevation; the walkway Club leading west past Senior Hall. which leads to it connects to the one on the Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. south side of the building and to another that extends west along the north side of Senior Hall. A large open area occupies a roughly quarter-circle zone north of the main wing of the Women’s Faculty Club and west of its north wing. This area has turf with a narrow planting bed and a flagstone path at the perimeter, beyond which lies the wooded riparian landscape. At the corner of the two wings of the building there is an outdoor terrace on the first floor level; the solid walls which support it enclose service spaces at the basement level.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 89

On the north and east sides of the north wing and continuing onto the east side of the main wing, the wooded creekside landscape begins at the edge of the Women’s Faculty Club foundation wall. The grade level rises steeply from the east end of the Women’s Faculty Club over the short distance to College Avenue. A series of walkways, stairs, and utilitarian features occupy most of the space between the east elevation of the building and College Avenue.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION The Women’s Faculty Club garden / grounds comprise a small but well defined and articulated precinct within the campus. Unlike most other campus buildings that stand in open landscaping the Club grounds read as a special, enclosed, space that intimately relates to the building. They are more residential in scale, and less of an institutional landscape.

There are several parts of the grounds. They will be described starting from the south, and proceeding clockwise to the west, north, and east.

On the south side of the Women’s Faculty Club at the driveway from College Way is an Australian bush cherry (Eugenia) hedge at the edge of the road, with one central penetration on axis with the front door of the Club. The hedge has varied in height over the years. In some periods it has risen above head height, but it is currently pruned lower so passersby can look beyond and see the main façade of the Club and the entrance.

A pathway descends a small stair from the gap in the Eugenia hedge to a sunken, half- moon, terrace in front of the main entrance. The top of the entrance pathway, inside the hedge, is flanked by two very roughly triangular lawn spaces to the east and west. Two pink-flowering dogwoods, planted in recent years, flank the top of the staircase; these replaced flowering magnolias that had long framed the Club approach. There are also agapanthus plantings along the path, adjacent to the grounds entrance through the hedge.

Women’s Faculty Club, looking north. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

90 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The lawn panel to the east sits within the angle of the driveway and College Way, and is enclosed on those two sides (south and east) by the hedge. A single tulip tree stands in the east lawn; it is regarded by the Campus Landscape Architect as an important tree, since it growing in an open area unconstrained by buildings and has the potential to become a specimen tree in the future.

The west lawn ends in an irregular area at the southwest corner of the grounds, containing some loose flagstones, benches, and a mixed planting of roses, rosemary, English lavender, ferns, and bird of paradise. This is most probably the location of part of the “cutting garden” / rose garden noted in Club records.

Each lawn panel has at its northern edge, closest to the building, a single small flowering tree; these may be the flowering crab apples noted in the 1980s garden refurbishment, or they could be later plantings.

The rhyolite retaining wall that encloses the half-moon sunken terrace has a planting of ferns along it. These ferns appear elsewhere on the grounds, including to the west of the building. The top of the rhyolite wall is bordered by a planting of hydrangeas, rosemary, and low perennials.

Damaged and unsafe paving on the walkways directly in front of the building was replaced in recent years with a red brick paving.

The south face of the building has foundation plantings including a purple bougainvillea climbing the entrance portico on the west, agapanthus—perhaps remaining from the 1980s “white flower garden” planting—mixed shrubs, and a pittosporum and a privet that have grown to second story height / tree size. It is possible that, as elsewhere on campus, these latter two plants began as foundation planting shrubs which were not kept clipped low and were ultimately “pruned up” into small trees.

The path parallel to the south facade curves around the west end of the building, between the Women’s Faculty Club and Senior Hall. There are two large redwoods, perhaps dating to the 1960s, adjacent to the end of Senior Hall which form a backdrop for the cutting garden. The pathway intersects with a decomposed granite path that leads along the north side of Senior Hall, a concrete path to the basement west exit of the Women’s Faculty Club, and a flagstone path that arcs around the north side of the building. A single Japanese maple grows west of the basement entrance, in the angle between paths.

The flagstone path lies between a flat area and the riparian landscaping of the creek.

The north garden enclosed by the flagstone path is a largely flat space in the northwest facing angle of Main entry on south façade. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 91

the building. Because of the grade, this space is nearly a full story below the level of the main common rooms of the building. A deck at the main floor level sits in the angle of the building, accessed from the dining room, and descends by a n exterior staircase to a lower terrace raised three steps above the ground.

The north garden area has been planted with lawn in the past, but is currently bare earth. At the northeast corner of the north garden there is a large, specimen, English Oak that towers taller than the four story club building.

Between the perimeter flagstone path edging the north garden and Strawberry Creek there is a mixed woodland primarily containing redwoods and bay laurel on both banks of the creek. There are several large, old, bay laurels presumably from the original natural landscape that predates the club, and some newer, smaller, specimens. The redwoods are of various sizes. There are no understory plantings currently in this area, with the exception of a few small shrubs near the flagstone path. The ground is covered with a mix of redwood duff and laurel leaves.

The creek channel is intermittently edged with low stone walls of uncertain vintage. These would date, at the latest, to creek work in the early 1960s following a campus flood, and might date much earlier. There is one small, low, check dam in a bend of the creek over which water spills a few feet to the lower channel. Scattered in the landscape north, northwest, and west of the Club building are occasional single azaleas, rhododendrons, and camellias. There are some large camellias adjacent to the north wall of the building, beside the chimney. There is one small Japanese maple in the riparian border, adjacent to the flagstone path that edges the north garden.

The creek channel extends north of the club to a point where it joins a culvert that was built as part of the earthmoving that created the site for Memorial Stadium. When the Club was built, instead of a culvert there was a bridge at this point, with Strawberry Creek emerging in the same channel from below it. Slightly downstream from the culvert outflow, on the north bank of the creek, there is the outflow of a rectangular culvert structure. This is the west end of the “Big Inch” culvert which was added after flooding in the 1960s to help carry storm water from above Memorial Stadium to the lower campus. Northwest terrace adjoining west elevation of north wing (left) and north elevation At the east end of the grounds the Club building is closest to the perimeter of its site. The of main building mass landscaping is a mix of redwoods, smaller shrubs / trees, and ivy on the ground plane. An (right). Knapp Architects entrance path descends to the Club service entrance from College Avenue, as does a more photograph, 2013. southerly path that descends, via a small concrete staircase, to the sunken terrace south of the Club. The east end of the grounds primarily serves a screening function, rather than being useable outdoor spaces.

Along College Avenue there is a perimeter hedge, most of it of Eugenia, that connects with the main hedge at the southeast corner of the grounds where College Avenue meets the driveway south of the Club. The hedge serves to screen views from the Club kitchens, guest rooms, and dining room towards the roadway and parking to the east.

92 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION The Women’s Faculty Club is a three-story building with a basement that is exposed above grade on all sides, though the basement floor is at grade only on the west and part of the north elevation. The form is a modified T-shape composed of a rectangle oriented east-west with a wing on the north side. The hip roof has a dormer just west of the north wing; the roof slope is relatively gentle, so that the dense wooded surrounding restricts views of the roof except from the south. The roof is covered in asphalt composition shingles.

The south elevation is the primary facade and the only one that is readily visible through the dense tree canopy surrounding the building. It comprises the uninterrupted top bar of the T shape of the building form, and is therefore the only elevation on which the presence of the north wing is not visible. The south elevation is subtly articulated into two zones, a six-bay main bar and a slightly recessed wing comprising the three westernmost bays.

The west elevation of the main building mass is composed of three bays and is four stories in height because the basement is at grade; the west elevation of the north wing has a non-original deck at the first floor level which steps down to the garden northwest of the building.

The north elevation is divided into three segments: at the west end, the main building mass consists of four bays with a projecting chimney, with the deck at first floor level extending from the north wing onto the north elevation; the north elevation of the north wing is three bays wide; and the north elevation of the east end of the main building mass only one bay wide east of the north wing. The chimney on the main north elevation is faced in stucco; its main (north) face is articulated with shallowly recessed panels.

The deck in the northwest corner of the main building mass and the north wing has a solid base in stucco matching the basement wall, topped by a wood guardrail with solid panels below a row of openings alternating with thick balusters. The deck surface of brick pavers is at virtually the same height as the interior main floor level. A stair similar to the deck leads west along the north side of the main building mass to a lower brick terrace west of the main, raised deck. Three risers lead down from the lower terrace to grade.

Like the west elevation, the east elevation consists of the east end of the main building mass and the east elevation of the north wing. The east end of the main building mass is the most heavily altered part of the building exterior; it consists of a series of walkways and stairs as well as small additions for the walk-in cooler and equipment that serve the kitchen, with few windows on the upper floors. There are two walkways from College Avenue to entrances on the east side of the Women’s Faculty Club. North of the building a concrete walkway slopes southwest from the northern opening in the hedge along College Avenue, past a trash enclosure screened by the hedge, to the first floor level of the building. A raised wood walkway leads west from the concrete path to the accessible entry at the east end of the north elevation of the main building mass. The concrete path continues to the kitchen entry at the first floor on east elevation. A short asphalt path leads from the opening in the center of the hedge along College Avenue to a short run of wood stairs leading up to a second, sloped wood walkway which rises to the second floor exit door on the east elevation of the main building mass. A similar wood stair leads up from the second floor landing to the third floor exit door above. The wood walkways and stairs are made of uncoated, rough-cut wood planks and treads, with a solid wood guardrail. The stairs have open risers. These traits are characteristics of the Second Bay Region Tradition, and of residential and small-scale commercial or institutional architecture from the 1950s to the 1970s. An addition at the first floor level extends east from the main building mass;

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 93

it has a low-slope shed roof and a recessed entry to the kitchen on its east elevation. This addition accommodates the walk-in cooler and storage and delivery space for the kitchen. The walkway to the second and third floor exit doors passes immediately above its roof, the rest of which is nearly covered by a series of ducts, air-handlers, and cooling machinery.

The south facade is subtly differentiated from the other elevations, but otherwise the exterior is highly uniform. There is a simple but substantial cornice, punctuated periodically by conductor heads and downspouts that serve the built-in gutters above. The main building wall is flat and uniform, covered by unpainted wood shingles typical of the First Bay Region Tradition and, more so, of the Shingle Style. A small water table separates the upper, shingled wall surface from the stucco basement wall. The windows are organized into regular bays, but the composition of most of the individual elevations is not symmetrical. The windows are almost all double-hung. On the second and third floors, they are either full-size wood six-over-six sash at the guest sleeping rooms or smaller four-over-four sash at the bathrooms. The guest room windows are single, paired, or triple groupings in each bay at the upper floors. While the first floor windows, which are mostly twelve-over-twelve lights with a taller vertical proportion than the guest room windows, are aligned in the same bays as the windows on the upper floors, they are single units in most bays. Above the balustraded main entry on the south facade, there is a double-hung window similar to the first floor windows, at the landing level between the first and second floors in the main stairway. At the west elevation of the main building mass and the north elevation of the north wing, the first floor windows (which are adjacent to the fire escapes) are fixed, metal sash with the same light configuration as the typical first floor windows. They are glazed with wire glass. The basement windows have metal-framed insect screens and black metal security grilles with faux-wrought-iron decorative scrollwork.

The main entry on the south facade is a glazed wood door within a large, stepped portico flanked by Tuscan wood columns topped by a stepped, deeply trabeated hood surmounted

Main stair, from landing by a wood balustrade. A brick landing extends from the front door, flanked by the between second and third projecting concrete plinth blocks of the columns. A lantern hung from a chain lights the floors. Knapp Architects entry, and a brass plaque over the door reading “WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB” identifies photograph, 2013. the building. The side walls of the recessed entry are divided into wood panels with molded profiles; a wood box (apparently once sheltering a device which no longer exists) has been added to the center panel on the west side. The front door is painted green, while the rest of the entry is painted white like the stucco at the basement.

The shingled surface of the south facade is undivided from the cornice down to the water table below the first floor, but on the other elevations there is a simple horizontal wood band between the first and second floors. On the south facade, the basement has windows in almost all the bays, but on the other elevations the basement windows occur irregularly in selected bays only. The south facade has very little in the way added devices, exposed wiring, and building systems; the other elevations have conspicuous electrical, plumbing, ventilation, and fire- sprinkler infrastructure and components applied to the shingled wall surface.

There are steel fire escapes at the west elevation of the main building mass and the north elevation of the north wing; originally, these were formerly accessed through windows at the end of the corridors but the windows have been replaced by glazed doors. There was originally an

94 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

interior stair at the east end of the main building mass; this was removed in the 1970s to allow the addition of the elevator and a guest room on each upper floor and exterior wood stairs were added along with the kitchen additions; a glazed wood door provides access to these stairs at the second and third floors. The exterior stairs have tall guardrails of solid, rough-sawn vertical boards typical of the later phase of the Second Bay Region Tradition.

INTERIOR DESCRIPTION The Women’s Faculty Club interior consists of a main floor with public and service spaces, second and third floors with guest sleeping rooms, and a basement which houses the front desk, offices, and service spaces. The most important spaces are on the main floor and have undergone relatively little alteration; although the guest sleeping rooms on the upper floors were extensively remodeled in the 1970s they retain nearly the original layout and some of the original character; the spaces in the basement appear to have been changed repeatedly and are not hierarchically or historically significant.

CIRCULATION The public interior spaces of the upper three floors reflect the T-shaped form of the building. In the basement, both the north wing and the basement under the deck that is nested in the corner of the north wing and the main building mass are service and storage spaces, limiting the public portion of the basement to the rectangular main building mass.

The Women’s Faculty Club has one main entry, on the south façade, and one interior stair; the entry door opens onto a landing of the main stair, with a short flight up to the first floor Foyer and a short flight down to the Basement. The main stair connects all four interior levels. The Foyer provides direct access to the Lounge, the Library, and the Dining Room; the only other circulation element on the main floor is the corridor on the north side of the building from the Serving Area of the Dining Room that goes east to the accessible exterior

Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge, looking northwest. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 95

entry and also provides access to the elevator and the Kitchen. The elevator serves all four levels of the building.

The main stair has two runs between each level in a switchback layout with an intermediate landing on the south wall of the building. From the main floor to the third floor, the two runs are separated by a narrow well, and the intermediate landing is wider than the stair runs. There is a large window at the landing between the second and third floors. There is a relatively small landing in the stairwell at the second and third floor levels; it was originally part of the main corridor, but doors were installed in the 1970s to separate the stairwell from the corridors. The second and third floors have double-loaded corridors in a T-shape that mirrors the building footprint. There is a glazed door at the three ends of these corridors, providing egress through the fire escapes on the west and north ends and the wood exterior stair on the east end. At the Basement, the main stair opens into a series of rooms on the east side; a corridor leads from the west side of the main stair to the exterior entry on the west elevation.

The main stair and upper corridors have carpeted floor surfaces, gypsum board and plaster walls, and gypsum board and plaster ceilings. While the woodwork in the main stair, most notably the wood banister and newel posts, is dark-stained wood, the trim in the corridors is painted. The stairwell has a high stained horizontal perimeter trim band at the floor level, which intersects with the diagonal wood stringer at the stair treads and risers.

FIRST FLOOR The largest space in the building is the Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge, located west of the Foyer on the First Floor; it occupies roughly one third of the main building mass. With windows on three sides and two large doors on its east wall, this rectangular room is open and neutral in spatial proportions. The most prominent feature is the brick fireplace centered on the north wall. Two large beams running north-south seemingly supported by steep diagonal braces on shallow, flat pilasters follow the structural bays of the building. This framework subtly modulates the space into three zones. The beams and pilasters have the same dark stain as the fireplace mantel piece, the door and window trim, and the baseboard, creating a strong visual framework that contrasts with the plaster walls and ceiling painted in white. There is an iron sconce on each pilaster, and a pair each on the east and west walls of the room. With well padded chairs and couches arranged with side

Main eating area of Dining Room, looking northeast. Knapp Architects Serving area of the Dining Room, looking south. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. photograph, 2013.

96 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

tables and decorative furniture into informal groupings on a series of Oriental area rugs placed over the dark wood flooring, the Lounge strikes the familiar and nearly domestic tone characteristic of private clubs.

On the east wall, on the north side is a large door to the Foyer, mirrored on the south side by a door to the Margaret Whitney Uridge Library, named for the president of the Club from 1973-78, who was influential in the 1976 renovation. The Library occupies the space between the main stair and the Lounge on the south side of the building. Although it is similar to the Lounge in materials, the Library is much smaller and is quite different in character because nearly all the wall space not occupied by doors or windows consists of built-in bookcases. The Library opens directly onto the Foyer through a double door on its north wall. It has a pair of windows on its south wall. The bookcases, which match the dark stain used in the trim and baseboard of the Lounge and Library, have a slightly projecting shelf at wainscot height, with adjustable open shelves above and below. There is a section with glazed doors on the west wall; the narrow shelves flanking the door on the north wall terminate at wainscot height with a slanted display shelf on one side. The bookcases terminate in a wide, flat fascia which conceals the indirect light fixtures on top of them. The Library has a pair of sconces each on the north and south walls, with copious additional light provided by indirect fixtures on top of the bookcases as well as standing and table lamps.

The Foyer shares the same features and materials as the Main Stair, and is spatially continuous with it, in essence a large landing at the main floor. Its floor is carpeted, the plaster and gypsum board walls have dark-stained wood trim, and the ceiling is gypsum board.

The Dining Room consists of the main eating area which occupies the entire footprint of the north wing, the serving area to its south, and the Private Dining room south of that. The serving area opens through a double door to the Foyer, across from the door to the Lounge.

Like the Lounge, the main eating area of the Dining Room is a simple, rectangular space that is subtly articulated to suggest smaller zones. Its ceiling has three raised coffers. These were apparently created originally by two beams running north-south along the structural bays of the space. The ceiling was later lowered to the bottom level of the beams along the north and south zones of the room, so that three coffers appear to rise from the main ceiling plane. The ceiling is faced in square acoustic tiles. The main eating area is also

Private Dining Room, looking south. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Kitchen, looking southeast. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 97

segmented visually by four stained glass panels set in wood frames supported on each side by freestanding floor-to-ceiling posts, aligned with the beams that separate the ceiling coffers. The first of these panels, depicting winter, designed by artist Sherron Egner came from the home of Katherine Valer Van Williams, who was president of the Club’s board of directors from 1978 to 1994. After Mrs. Williams’s death, the board commissioned additional panels depicting the other three seasons, which were installed in 2006. The walls and ceiling are uniform otherwise, except for a simple, flat chair rail painted white like the walls and ceiling and a dark-stained baseboard. A round iron candelabra hangs from a chain in each ceiling coffer; there are recessed “can” down lights in the ceiling area outside the coffers. The main eating area has wall-to-wall carpet flooring.

Adjoining the main eating area to the south is the serving area. A double door on its west wall opens to the Foyer, so that patrons of the Dining Room can use the buffet in the serving area on their way to sit in the main eating area for a meal. In the east wall of the serving area, there is a door to the kitchen (currently blocked by a table) on the south end and the corridor to the accessible entry on the north end. A wide opening with five flush wood doors to the Private Dining Room (some of them semi-permanently fixed in place) occupies almost all of the south wall of the serving area.

The serving area walls are covered in wood paneling; it is stained a light color in selected areas and a darker color in most areas. The ceiling matches the lower ceiling areas of the main eating area, and has recessed “can” down lights. The serving area has a polychrome ceramic tile floor.

The Private Dining Room lies south of the serving area. Its floor, wall, ceiling, and trim, and its single iron candelabra match those in the main eating area. There is a pair of double-hung windows on the south elevation; the east and west elevations are blank. The five doors to the serving area occupy the north elevation. The door leaves are flush, stained wood. Only the westernmost leaf is hung on hinges from the jamb of the opening like a conventional door. The other four panels are fixed in place at the top and bottom by intermediate hinges and locks that can be released to open or remove the panels. This system makes it possible to connect the space of the serving area and the Private Dining Room; a sign warning against opening the locks on the inactive panels suggests the feature may not be used often.

The kitchen occupies the southeast portion of the main building mass on the main floor. It is divided into a main preparation/cooking/plating area and a dishwashing area in the

Typical guest sleeping room. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Typical guest sleeping room. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

98 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

northeast corner. An entry zone on the east provides access to the delivery entry and the walk-in cooler housed in a shed-roof addition on the east side of the building as well as a storage room (labeled on the 1970s plan as “Office”). The kitchen has flat gypsum board walls, liquid-applied impervious flooring, and acoustic tile on the ceiling. Exposed ductwork mounted to the ceiling provides conditioned air. The upper portion of the two double-hung windows on the south wall of the main kitchen is covered by a fixed, opaque panel. Fluorescent light fixtures are mounted on the ceiling surface.

The kitchen has an array of fixed and moveable counters and equipment. The stove in the southwest corner has a stainless steel surround and exhaust hood. The glassware station on the north wall adjacent to the dishwashing area has a stainless steel counter below open wood shelves. The storage room (former office) east of the main kitchen space is lined with wood shelves. It has a jalousie window on its east wall. The walk-in cooler has a large, insulated door faced in galvanized sheet metal; the interior walls and ceiling are of the same material, while the floor is diamond-pattern steel. The cooler has a variety of metal shelves.

Second and Third Floors The second and third floors are nearly identical and consist of guest sleeping rooms and service spaces. The finishes on these floors were largely rebuilt in the 1970s, but the corridor layout — and many of the guest rooms — remain close to or exactly in the same location shown on the original plans by John Galen Howard.

The guest rooms are laid out along the double-loaded corridors that run the length of the main building mass and the north wing. Each guest room has a private bath. Both upper floors have a kitchenette for guests’ common use; in addition, the second floor has a Television Room with casual furniture for guests’ social use. There are also housekeeping service and storage rooms on each of the upper floors.

The guest rooms are highly similar in materials and design character, although each one is slightly different in plan. The rooms have gypsum board walls and ceilings with a subtle, and irregular, hand-trowel or Spanish hand lace finish. Floors are carpeted. Each room has a closet, though the size, shape, and configuration of the closets varies widely. The guest sleeping rooms have double-hung wood windows; window configurations include single windows, paired windows, and triplet windows. Some rooms have more than one window grouping. Trim, including baseboard, crown molding, and window casing, is wood, as are the doors. A few rooms have communicating doors.

Guest bathroom with tub. Knapp Architects Guest bathroom with shower. Knapp Shared kitchenette on second floor. photograph, 2013. architects photograph, 2013. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 99

Unlike typical hotels (especially those built in recent decades), most of the guest rooms of the Women’s Faculty Club have the sleeping room stretching the full width from the corridor wall to the exterior wall. Most bathrooms and closets are grouped so they, too, occupy the full distance from the corridor wall to the exterior wall; between many room pairs, the two bathrooms and two closets are grouped in a rectangle so that the sleeping rooms are separated from other sleeping rooms and bathrooms. Most of the closets are shallow, with twin sliding doors, though a few are sizable walk-in spaces with swinging doors. The floors of the smaller closets a raised slightly above the sleeping room floor.

The guest rooms have steam radiators, usually one to a room, centered on a window. Each room has a television; these are mounted on the wall in some rooms. There are a variety of scones, which are wired to switches near the doors, in addition to table and floor lamps. There are a variety of built-in features, including shelves and radiator enclosures, in some of the rooms, as well as built-in dressers in some of the walk-in closets, but most rooms have no architectural woodwork other than trim. One guestroom, No. 206, has been converted into the shared television room. While the furniture and use have changed, the room itself is still the same as the other guest rooms.

Although they vary considerably in layout and slightly in fixtures, the bathrooms are completely uniform in materials, color, and character. The ceilings and most of the walls are smooth-textured gypsum board. The shower and tub surrounds, and most of the wall base is four-inch-square ceramic tile in a deep yellow hue. The flooring is one-inch square ceramic tile in an off-white color; the threshold at the sleeping room is gray marble. Most bathrooms have a five-sided “neo-angle” shower in one corner; a few have steel bathtubs with a porcelain enamel finish. In both cases, the bathrooms have metal-framed shower/ tub doors with obscure glass. The drop-in ceramic sinks are mounted in vanities with plastic-laminate countertops in a color matching the four-inch wall and trim tile. Most bathrooms have no window, though some have one or two.

The kitchenettes have smooth-finished gypsum board walls and ceilings, with resilient sheet flooring. They have plywood base cabinets with plastic laminate countertops. Each has a stainless steel kitchen sink and a two-burner electric cook top. The kitchenettes are located on one of two small light wells that penetrate the second and third floors; the other light well is located across the north wing corridor, providing light and air to a bathroom

Attic, looking down at stair from second floor. Plaster on stair walls Service space, office and Hall in basement, looking west. Office is through appears to be original. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. door on left; Hall with computer and printer for guests is through door on right. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

100 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

on each floor. The third floor kitchenette has a built-in ironing board, apparently retained from the room’s original function before the 1970s remodel as a chambermaid’s quarters.

Basement The Basement houses the front desk, hotel office, and a variety of support spaces, including the night auditor’s apartment. The public toilet rooms for the hotel are in the basement. The Basement has a variety of materials and finishes; except for the front desk and corridor, the spaces in the Basement are utilitarian.

The main stair terminates at the east end of the Basement corridor, which leads west past the public toilet rooms and night auditor’s apartment to the west entry. Across from the main stair, a door opens into the Hall and at the east side of the main stair, a door opens east into the front desk. This room has gypsum board walls and ceiling and a carpeted floor. It has built-in casework, including the front desk, in addition to various office machines and furniture. A door in the east wall gives access to the manager’s office, which is similar architecturally.

The Hall east of the main stair is a more utilitarian space, with a network of exposed pipes hanging from the ceiling and a painted concrete floor. It has gypsum board walls and ceiling surfaces. The room is used for service functions, as well as providing a computer and printer for guests’ use. To the east of it is a series of service spaces, including a laundry and the staff changing room and toilet.

The public toilet rooms are immediately west of the main stair. They have ceramic tile floors and wainscot, gypsum board walls and ceilings, and metal toilet partitions. The night auditor’s apartment is an irregularly-shaped room with a bathroom and closet. Like the public toilet rooms and service spaces, it has large pipes hanging below the ceiling. It is generally similar to the guest rooms, though its bathroom has a sink that may be original. The bathroom has an exterior door on the south facade.

Attic The attic itself is entirely unfinished, consisting of open framing and building systems, although the stair to it has plaster walls.

Men’s toilet room in basement. Knapp Office in basement, looking south from front desk area. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Architects photograph, 2013. Office in basement, looking south from front desk area. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 101

MATERIALS AND FEATURES LANDSCAPE

Trees There are three larger redwoods, two of them close to the east end of Senior Hall, which may be from earlier, more scattered, plantings on the campus. Their age is unknown but they do not appear in early photographs of Senior Hall; their size is similar to that of redwoods known to been planted on campus in the 1930s, although the growth rate of trees can vary considerably, given differing environmental conditions.

There is one large tree, an English Oak, at the northeast corner of the Club rear garden. No record has been found referring to its planting, but it is at least several decades old. There is another English Oak south of Senior Hall of similar size and perhaps similar vintage; otherwise, the tree species is not common on campus.

Hedges There is a current hedge of Eugenia (Australian bush cherry) along the College Way sidewalk. The bush cherry hedge extends down the south edge of the Club property, enclosing the south garden, and punctuated by a gap that leads to the main staircase. This hedge, trimmed to various heights over the years, is not original to the Club but recalls earlier hedges that edged the garden on that side, and provides a useful separation between the Women’s Faculty Club precinct and the adjacent service road.

Site Walls and Stairs The crescent-shaped wall in the garden south of the Club building appears to be a stone wall, possibly backed by concrete (there has not been intrusive investigation). The visible stone resembles Berkeley Rhyolite, a naturally occurring volcanic rock that was found strewn throughout the Berkeley hillside landscape. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Berkeley Rhyolite was frequently used in constructing garden landscapes, retaining walls, and even some features like small street bridges, in the town. Notable examples remain

Brick walkway along south façade of building, looking west. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Flagstone path at northwest garden. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

102 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

on campus on the street frontage of the old First Unitarian Church at Dana Street and Bancroft Way (now the Dance Facility), built in the late 1890s, along Piedmont Avenue forming a retaining wall along the street below Memorial Stadium (and forming a remnant of earlier Victorian gardens on that site), and off campus not only in North Berkeley, but on Hillside Avenue four blocks southeast of the University grounds.

Although the site around the Women’s Faculty Club has only gentle slopes, there are a number of site stairs on the south side of the building. The main pedestrian entry route on axis with the main door on the south façade has two stair runs: at the access road there is a simple concrete stair with six risers leading to a very gently sloped asphalt walkway ending in a flight made of concrete units with a rough split-face texture at the risers. The stair at the east end of the path parallel to the south façade is similar to the lower stair on the front path, but curves gently and has eleven risers. It is set into the upper terrace, with rustic stone walls on its sides which are incorporated into the terrace retaining wall. The two- riser stair at the west end of the same path is similar. The stairs have simple iron handrails which vary in details but are similar in configuration.

The wall and stair south of the building described in the mid-1920s would appear to be the split face concrete staircase descending to the garden from the south and the semicircular wall of stone that encompasses the lawn / patio area directly in front of the building, and perhaps the cast concrete stair that descends to the front terrace adjacent to the southeast corner of the club building.

Walkways A series of hardscape paths lead to the Women’s Faculty Club and across its site. They vary considerably in materials and design, just as their locations range from the prominent walkway leading to the main entrance to service and maintenance paths.

Concrete benches and glazed pots in “cutting garden” at Site stair from lower level at south garden to path leading to southwest corner of grounds. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. College Avenue, looking east. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 103

On the south side of the building, a brick walkway leads through the front lawn to the landing at the main entry from the pair of site stairs near the access road that serves the Women’s Faculty Club, Minor Hall, Senior Hall, and the Faculty Club. The path parallel to the south façade at the front lawn, between the stair on the east that leads up to College Avenue and the smaller stair on the west, is also brick. The paths have an edge of brick in a soldier position, with the brick in a herringbone pattern in the main center portion of the path. The brick is dry-laid with very narrow joints. Between the pair of site stairs on the path to the main entry and the access road, the path is paved in concrete. The path parallel to the south façade is paved in asphalt east and west of the stairs that connect it to the front lawn level of the site. A path of flagstone stepping stones leads from the asphalt path on the west to a seating area at the southwest corner of the front garden.

The path parallel to the south façade leads west toward the west entry at the basement level and a path to the west that passes along the north side of Senior Hall. At the west entry at the basement level of the Women’s Faculty Club, there is a flagstone path with thick, flush mortar joints. Two dry-laid flagstone paths continue around the west end of the site to the terrace and open area northwest of the building; one skirts the north elevation of the main building mass while the other arcs around the perimeter of the clearing to the northwest corner of the lower terrace and turns east; it has a flat edging band.

On the east side of the building, there are a series of concrete and asphalt walkways between College Avenue and the raised wood walkways and service entries. The path from the northernmost access at College Avenue that arcs down to the east service entry is wider than the other paths and can accommodate delivery vehicles.

Damaged pathway paving—perhaps some of it original—was removed from the front garden of the Club in recent years and replaced with brick pathways. Interestingly, although not necessarily planned this way, the use of brick in this area recalls the early discussion in the Club minutes of using brick in the lower garden. The flagstones in the Terrace at northwest rear yard—currently arranged in an arcing path—might be original. However, the original angle of main building layout of the flagstone pathways has disappeared and replication would no longer be mass and north wing. Knapp Architects relevant since the original pathways led to a feature—the footbridge over the creek—that photograph, 2013. has long since been removed.

Foundation wall, water table molding, shingles, and rainwater leader. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

104 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Benches and Concrete Elements There are seven small concrete or stone benches in the grounds; all are simple structures, with two pedestal legs and a backless seat. All are freestanding, so they may well have had shifting locations over the years. Three are in the southwest corner, arranged in an arc in the cutting garden. Two are on the deck / terrace on the north side of the building. One is northwest of the building, along the flagstone path to the rear garden and one is north of the building, between the flagstone path and the creek landscaping. At least one of these may be the bench donated in the 1920s along with the Saint Francis of Assisi statue which has now disappeared. The bench north of the building could be the most likely candidate since appears older than the others.

There is also a small cast concrete bird bath along the flagstone path northwest of the building, and a second, damaged, pedestal possibly for a sculpture or birdbath that is tumbled in Strawberry Creek beyond, and missing its bowl / top. It is possible that one of these is the bird bath / fountain mentioned in 1920s gifts.

A number of decorative ceramic pots, glazed green, are scattered in the landscape and planted with small shrubs or other perennials. Two of these are in the southwest “cutting garden” area, and three are on the low north terrace.

Lampposts Two light poles of relatively recent vintage flank the main entrance pathway / stair from the south. There is one green painted light pole southwest of the Club building, along the perimeter path. This has a double bell shade hanging from a triangular decorative bracket. Campus Landscape Architect Jim Horner believes that this fixture may survive from an installation reputedly planned by Thomas Church along Strawberry Creek in the 1960s. There is another lamppost in the southeast lawn area, largely shielded in a tree canopy.

EXTERIOR

Deck and Entry Landing The two most prominent entries to the Women’s Faculty Club both lead to the Foyer on the first floor, and both have notable architectural transition points on the exterior of the building. The main public entry on the south façade, with its projecting portico, has a deep brick landing with two risers flanked by concrete extensions of the podium on which the portico columns stand. Its red brick is similar to that of the two brick paths in the south garden which intersect in front of the entry, although the brick at the landing is set in mortar unlike the dry-laid brick of the paths.

The door and sidelights on the north side of the Foyer, along with the door and flanking windows on the west elevation of the dining room at the north wing, open onto a large brick deck at the main floor level, with a stair descending to a lower brick terrace bordered on the north and west sides by three risers which lead to grade at the clearing on the northwest side of the site. The terrace brick is set in mortar in a basket weave pattern.

Other entries to the building, including the public basement entry on the west façade, do not have landings or terraces.

Foundation Wall The foundation wall begins at grade and rises to the level of the first floor. The foundation and stem wall are concrete; above grade it is wood-frame construction like the rest of

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 105

the wall above. It is faced in stucco, which is painted white. There is a simple water table molding with a rectangular profile between the stucco foundation and the shingled wall above. The foundation wall wraps around all elevations of the building, including the terraces at the northwest corner between the main building mass and the north wing. At the east elevation where there is a first floor addition housing the walk-in cooler and kitchen entry, the first floor level is below grade and the foundation is not visible.

Roofing (includes flat) The main, hipped portion of the roof is faced in asphalt composition shingles. The low-slope roof over the first floor addition on the east side of the building has a built-up roofing system. The roof has two skylights opening into the attic, which are barely visible from grade.

Shingles The Women’s Faculty Club is faced in unpainted wood shingles. The shingles are nailed in consistent horizontal courses, with random widths. On the south façade, the shingles extend uninterrupted from the water table at the top of the stucco foundation to the underside of the cornice. On the other elevations, there is a small wood molding band between the first and second floor. Typical of many First Bay Region Tradition shingle buildings, the shingles are all rectangular and are nailed in the same coursing on the entire building with no variation in shape, size, or pattern.

Windows Most of the windows are painted wood sash, although the windows on the first floor at the north and west fire escapes are metal units similar in light pattern to the original wood windows that characterize the building. Almost all the windows are double-hung, with the upper and lower sash equal in size and matching in light pattern. The first floor windows are generally 12-over-12 light, while the upper floor windows are typically six-over-six light. The basement windows on the south façade have a smaller upper sash, with two lights, and a larger lower sash, with four lights. The upper sash stiles of the windows on the south elevation do not have lug extensions, but those on other elevations do.

Wood window, typical condition Wood window, typical condition Metal windows at Lounge and fire escape, west elevation. Note except on south elevation. Knapp except on south elevation. Knapp horizontal molding between first and second floors and difference in Architects photograph, 2013. Architects photograph, 2013. shingle color and window trim between first and upper floors. First floor shingles were replaced when plywood shear diaphragm was installed in 1970s seismic upgrade.

106 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Many of the upper floor windows are paired, with a flat mullion. There are also similar groupings of three windows on the east and west elevations of the north wing. Bathroom windows on the upper floors are four-over-four lights. Most of the windows have clear glazing, with a subtle wavy pattern characteristic of glass from the period the building was constructed. Some of the bathroom windows have obscure glass. Typical of Bay Region Tradition shingle buildings, the windows have very thin trim, including shallow sills, which barely projects from the face of the shingle surface.

The two small light wells at the second and third floors have double-hung windows of sheet metal with wire glass. These are visible to all guests in the kitchenettes. Many of the basement windows have insect screens with metal frames and metal security bars attached on the exterior. There are jalousie windows on the north elevation of the basement and in the kitchen. Most windows have a pair of brass pull handles on the bottom rail of the lower sash and a brass traditional sash lock at the meeting rail.

Doors and Hardware The exterior doors vary in size, design, and materials. The main entry door on the south façade is wood, with fifteen lights of clear glass. It has a brass handleset with a thumbpiece to operate the latch, and a separate cylinder lock above with a decorative rosette. The three hinges are brass. The door on the north side of the first floor Foyer is similar to the main entry door, except that it has a five-light horizontal transom, and is flanked on each side by a 10-light side light with a two-light transom. The door on the north side of the Foyer has a similar screen door. The door on the west elevation of the dining room, which provides access to the northwest terrace, is similar to the two doors at the Foyer. It has a brass lever with cylinder lock.

The basement door on the west elevation is wood, with two glazed lights divided by a horizontal muntin aligned with the hardware. It has a knob with a separate cylinder lock set in the tall door handle plate. The doors on the upper floors at the fire escapes, the east exit stairs, and the east accessible entry are similar. There are two wood, glazed doors in the basement on the north elevation under the northwest terrace, and a flush wood door on the south façade which opens into the bathroom of the night auditor’s apartment.

Door and sidelights on west entry to basement. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Door and sidelight on west elevation of Dining Room, opening onto northwest terrace. Door on north elevation of Foyer is similar. Knapp Architects photograph,

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 107

Entry The portico at the main entry on the south elevation has Tuscan wood columns topped by a stepped, deeply trabeated hood surmounted by a wood balustrade. The side walls of the recessed entry are divided into wood panels with molded profiles; a wood box has been added to the center panel on the west side. Above the portico, there is an inaccessible deck which is framed in wood like the rest of the portico. Howard’s drawing indicates “tin covered deck,” but does not indicate how the sloped surface drains. A 1920s or 1930s black and white photograph of this façade shows the columns and portico a dark color, similar to the shade of the shingle walls. This might either be the natural wood furnish, or a darker paint that was later replaced by the white paint of today.

The stepped composition of the portico creates the visual impression that the entry door at its rear plane is recessed further than the exterior wall plane of the building, but the section detail of the portico in the original drawings shows that the door is actually in the main wall plane. This visual device is consistent with the classical architectural vocabulary of the portico, which would have been slightly emphasized by the five risers from grade to the portico landing shown on Howard’s drawing, which indicated the bottom two treads were to project in front of the podia on which the portico columns rest. The carefully Pendent light fixture at main articulated three-dimensional depth of the portico contrasts with the two-dimensional entry. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. articulation of the main building wall, typified by the very shallow trim at the windows and the minimal roof projection at the eave and rake. The flat wall found in Shingle Style and First Bay Region Tradition buildings contrasts with the much deeper articulation found in Victorian architecture.

Cornice and Trim The most prominent molding on the building is the cornice, which is both an architectural cornice and a wood roof gutter. It consists of a shallow cyma recta molding over a flat corona band slightly shorter in height. Although the original details show a small supporting ovolo molding at the building wall plane under the projecting cornice/gutter, it is not present.

The other trim, including window and door trim, the horizontal band between the first and second floors on the side and rear elevations, and the water table between the stucco basement wall and the shingled wall above, is all relatively simple and restrained. The door on the north side of the Foyer to the northwest terrace has the largest trim. The adjacent door in the west wall of the main dining room is similar but simpler, as is the trim at the door at the west elevation of the basement. The other doors have simpler trim. Typical window trim consists of head and jamb molding with a flat outer band and gently chamfered inner band; the sill has a flat profile, with a rounded molding as its base. The window trim on the south elevation is shallower and narrower than on the side and rear elevations.

Conductor heads and downspouts Rainwater drains from the gutters through downspouts which lead less than a foot into ornamental conductor heads connected to exterior downspouts. The rectangular conductor heads have a large series of moldings at the top, a flat panel, and smaller moldings at the bottom, where the tapered downspout begins.

Chimney and Exhaust Stack The Women’s Faculty Club has one chimney and one exhaust duct that rises the full height

108 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

of the building. The chimney is on the north elevation, clearly visible on the exterior. It is wide at the basement and first floor at the Living Room fireplace, and tapers above that. It is covered in cement plaster, which masks its hybrid composition. The lower portion, which is original, is brick. Above the fireplace, the chimney transitions to a metal flue inside a frame chase, although this is not visible. The original drawings show the chimney surfaces flat, with no articulation; the existing raised bands at the edges of each plane are shown on the 1970s drawings.

On the east elevation, there is a metal duct from the kitchen exhaust. It starts at the exhaust fan on the roof of the walk-in cooler addition on the east elevation and rises above the eave level of the roof. It is braced to the east wall of the building. The galvanized sheet metal is unpainted.

Fire escapes There are metal fire escapes on the west and north ends of the second and third floor corridors. Each fire escape has landings at the first, second, and third floor. Steep diagonal ladders connect the levels. The first floor landings have ladders that are held vertical by counterweights that pivot down to grade under the weight of users. There is an exit door at each landing at the second and third floors. The third floor landings have vertical ladders on the face of the building that go to the roof. The fire escapes appear to be original, although they differ slightly from the configuration shown on the original drawings.

Exterior stairs The exit doors at the east end of the second and third corridors open onto landings at a wood exterior stair between the second and third floor. This stair has open risers and a solid guardrails of vertical boards at the stairs and landings. From the second floor landing, a walkway with solid guardrails leads over the roof of the kitchen addition on the east side of the building, to a landing near College Avenue where a short perpendicular run of stairs leads to grade. The stairs, landings, walkway, and guardrails are unpainted.

Fire escape, north elevation. The metal fire Exhaust hood duct from kitchen, with fan Exterior wood stair and kitchen addition, east escapes on the north and west elevations are and vertical stack in background. Knapp elevation. Wood walkway in foreground at right leads similar; the wood exterior stairs on the east Architects photograph, 2013. to main floor entry door at elevator. Kitchen exhaust elevation exhibit Second Bay Region Tradition stack is visible at top. materials and detailing. The glazed metal exit doors on the upper floor corridors are all the same. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 109

Lighting The building has a variety of ornamental and utilitarian exterior lighting fixtures; the utilitarian fixtures and most of the ornamental fixtures were installed long after the end of the period of significance, though most of the ornamental fixtures are traditional-style units compatible with the building. The one fixture that may be original is the pendant lantern hanging in the main entry portico. This Colonial-style lantern appears to be made of brass and hangs on a chain; its panels are frosted glass. A traditional-style wall lantern is found adjacent to the west entry at the basement, the base of the north fire escape, the two doors to the northwest terrace, and the doors to the exterior stair on the east elevation. This fixture type has Colonial and Arts and Crafts characteristics, and appears to have been installed recently. The building also has utilitarian fixtures such as the wall-mounted area light on the north elevation near the northwest terrace.

Electrical Components In addition to light fixtures, there are a variety of electrical components on the exterior of the building. Like other building systems, these are much more prevalent on the side and rear elevations than on the front (south) facade. These include conduit, devices such as photo-sensors for light control, junction boxes, control panels, and breaker panels. Like other campus buildings, the Women’s Faculty Club is connected to the campus power grid by underground cables, and does not have an overhead power drop.

Ventilation Openings and Louvers There are a variety of openings for ventilation, none of them shown on the original drawings, which appear to have been added over time. At the top of the main and second floor levels, apparently aligned with the floor-ceiling assembly between the floors, there are simple rectangular openings framed with wood trim and covered with wire mesh. These openings occur on the north elevation of the main building mass and on the east elevation of the north wing. Attached to the base of the foundation wall on the south and west facades of the building, there are sheet metal ducts, all painted glossy white, that rise about six to 18 inches above grade or above the foundation; they have screened metal openings. A galvanized steel louver about one foot wide and 1-1/2 feet high has been installed in the basement wall on the north side of the west basement entry door. The elevator penthouse penetrates the roof as a dormer above the east elevation, where it has a large louver.

Mechanical equipment, on roof of walk-in cooler which was added to east North elevation at east end of main building mass. “Mushroom” exhaust fan elevation in the 1950s renovation. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. and exterior sprinkler piping are visible above exterior walkway and entry door that lead to first floor elevator. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

110 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Mechanical systems The exterior of the building has various mechanical devices, especially on the roof of the first floor addition at the kitchen on the east elevation. These include fans, ducts, refrigeration machinery, a compressor-condenser unit, and a “mushroom” exhaust fan.

Firesprinklers and Plumbing In addition to the original downspouts, the exterior has a substantial network of fire- protection pipes and devices and waste and vent pipes, as well miscellaneous features including the natural gas meter and pressure-regulating devices. There is a firesprinkler riser at the northeast corner of the main building mass, with associated devices including flow detectors, an alarm bell, and pressure gauges. At the top of the main floor level, a large firesprinkler line extends west along the north elevation of the main building mass and the north wing, extending to the northwest corner of the main building mass. Smaller branch lines extend from it, penetrating the building to serve first floor spaces. There is a standpipe at the fire escape on the north wing, with twin fire department connections in the basement wall.

INTERIOR

Ceilings Plaster The original ceilings were plaster. Many ceilings were shown on the 1976 drawings to be retained in the building renovation. The ceilings in the majority of the first floor public spaces were not changed in the 1970s. The plaster ceilings have a somewhat smoother finish in general than the walls, but the finish would likewise be characterized as a hand- trowel or Spanish hand lace finish.

Gypsum Board Most ceilings that were replaced in the 1970s are gypsum board. Their finish is similar to that found on the plaster ceilings.

Acoustic Tile Tile has been applied to ceiling surfaces in the Dining Room, Private Dining Room, and a few other areas. This product consists of squares of off-white fibrous material with irregular holes and voids, and is typically glued onto an existing plaster or gypsum board ceiling.

T-Bar The kitchen has a suspended ceiling with lay-in acoustic tiles, commonly called “T-Bar.” This system allows easy access to building systems above it.

Walls Acoustic tile ceiling surface in Private Dining Room. Note color Plaster variation, apparently caused by The original walls have a plaster finish, similar to the ceilings. The 1970s renovation tile replacement. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. drawings show the original finish to be a system of wood lath and plaster about one inch thick.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 111

Gypsum Board According to the 1970s drawings, the new wall finish installed then was 5/8 inch thick gypsum board with “texture to simulate plaster.” On the first floor, installation of plywood to increase the lateral load capacity of existing walls resulted in removal of wall finishes in a number of public spaces. Gypsum Board was installed over the plywood; it was also installed on the other floors where walls were altered or opened for access.

Wood The serving area of the Dining Room has wood paneling on the walls. This is shown on the 1970s drawings, but there is no further detailed information. The paneling appears to be a hardboard substrate with a finish veneer, as it is mounted in wide panels with narrow strips at the joints between panels.

Floors Ceramic Tile The public toilet rooms and the night auditor’s apartment in the basement and the guest room bathrooms have ceramic tile flooring. The one-inch square tiles are called out on the finish schedule of the 1970s remodel drawings.

The serving area of the Dining Room has polychrome ceramic tiles with an embossed surface profile. The 1970s remodel drawings indicate no change in the flooring in the serving area.

Carpet The guest rooms and corridors of the upper floors, basement corridor and offices, the Foyer, the main Dining Room and the Private Dining Room have carpet. The 1970s remodel drawings indicate that some areas in the basement which now have concrete finish floors were to have carpet installed.

Wood Flooring The Living Room and the Library have dark-stained wood flooring.

Resilient sheet flooring The staff toilet room and utility room in the basement, and the kitchenettes on the upper floors, have resilient sheet flooring. In the toilet room the flooring turns up the walls as a wainscot; in the kitchenettes it turns up the wall to baseboard height. The 1970s renovation drawings call for vinyl flooring in the basement staff toilet room, but do not mention the other spaces where this material is found.

Seamless Impervious flooring The kitchen has trowel-applied flooring. The 1970s renovation drawings call it out as “oxychloride,” possibly magnesium oxychloride (magnesite). This product is slip-resistant and was commonly used in kitchens and commercial, industrial, and institutional applications.55 It is water-resistant and non-combustible56 and is installed monolithically so that it does not create seams.

55 http://books.google.com/books?id=qePlJk8SRkoC&pg=PA196&dq=magnesium+oxychloride+flooring&hl=en&s a=X&ei=NwhWUuu8BcfeiAKpmYD4DA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=magnesium%20oxychloride%20 flooring&f=false. Accessed 9 October 2013. 56 http://desertbrand.com/images/ffb.pdf. Accessed 9 October 2013.

112 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Doors Wood Panel Doors The most common doors on the upper floors are wood with a single recessed panel. The stiles and top rail are equal width, while the bottom rail is slightly larger; the panel molding has a simple stepped profile. These panel doors are found at the corridor, closet, and bathroom of many guest sleeping rooms. The 1970s renovation drawings do not call out most such door locations, indicating that the existing doors were to remain. For this reason, it appears likely the single panel doors date either from the 1950s renovation or, more likely, the building’s original construction.

Glazed Wood Doors The main entry door and the similar doors on the north side of the Foyer and the west side of the Dining Room that opens onto the northwest terrace, are wood with three columns of five identical lights. The Foyer door at the northwest terrace is flanked by similar sidelights; both doors at the northwest terrace have transoms. The 1970s renovation drawings indicate these doors were existing and were to remain.

Wood Flush Doors Wood flush doors are found at some guest sleeping rooms at the corridor, closet, and bathroom. The door schedule for the 1970s renovation project indicates 25 flush doors were to be installed. Some are solid wood core and others, with a higher fire rating, are mineral core. In addition to the flush doors noted in the 1970s drawings, there are many flush wood doors at guest room closets. Doors installed in the 1970s project, both interior and exterior, have metal frames.

Screen Doors The east exterior door at the kitchen has an interior screen door of wood construction.

Metal Doors As part of the 1970s project, exterior hollow metal doors with a two-light scheme otherwise similar to the glazed exterior wood doors were installed at the west basement

Typical flush wood door (these are sliding doors at a guest sleeping room closet). Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Single-panel wood door (at right) with non-original brass knob and brass wrap plate. Flush wood communicating door at left has glass knob and rectangular escutcheon plate which may be original.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 113

entry, the accessible first floor entry on the east end of the north elevation and the exterior door to the pump room below it, the east kitchen door, and the six exits at the end of the upper floor corridors (where they replaced existing windows).

Special Doors The Women’s Faculty Club has a number of special doors. These include a variety of exterior access panels and similar interior doors, some of which are wood single-panel construction. The kitchen cooler has a thick insulated door covered in galvanized sheet metal.

Windows between office in basement and main stair. Knapp Door Hardware Architects photograph, 2013. The building has a wide mixture of door hardware. In general, interior doors have brass or glass knobs and brass hinges (typically three hinges per door, typically five-knuckle hinges with ball finials top and bottom). The brass knobs vary in detail and apparent age. The knobs installed in the 1970s are nearly spherical, with cylinder locks. Older knobs have a traditional, shallower cross-section; some have a lacquered bright brass finish while others are natural brass and are probably older. Some knobs are part of mortise latchsets, while many have cylinder locks. Many entry doors, bathroom doors, and closet doors at the guest sleeping rooms have knobs of clear, faceted glass. The locks at guest room entry doors vary: in some cases there is a mortise latchset with a separate deadbolt, in other cases a cylinder lock in the knob and a separate deadbolt, and in some cases, a mortise unit with a knob and abandoned warded lock (the type of lock that can be operated with a skeleton key) and a separate deadbolt. Some doors have a brass wrap plate covering the exterior, edge, and interior at the latch; others have separate plates on the interior and exterior; and others have only a small brass rose or rectangular plate. Each guest room entry door has a security chain lock on the interior side.

Windows Lounge, looking east, with dark- The office in the basement has a pair of four-light windows at the main stair and a group of stained trim at ceiling beams and door and window casing. Knapp three windows in its north wall; these steel windows are glazed with wire glass. They were Architects photograph, 2013. installed in the 1970s remodel.

Trim Virtually all the trim is wood; it is stained in the Living Room, Library, Foyer, and Main Stair and painted in the rest of the building. In the first floor public rooms it consists of baseboard, window and door casing, and beams with a matching finish in the Living Room and Library. In the guest rooms, trim consists of baseboard and, in some rooms, a crown molding. All the trim is relatively simple in profile. The most notable characteristic of the trim is that the casing at doors and windows has square-cut head and jamb trim (instead of mitered corners), with the head trim extending slightly beyond the edge of the jambs.

114 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Guest sleeping rooms have a variety of casework, including radiator enclosures, bookshelves, and window seats. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Shelves in Library on main floor. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Casework The Women’s Faculty Club has built-in casework in public rooms and guest rooms, representing a limited portion of the original work designed by John Galen Howard as well as the alterations from the 1950s and the 1970s.

The built-in bookcases in the Library on the first floor appear to be the original ones shown on John Galen Howard’s drawing, but modified so that instead of being 4’-2” high, with four shelves, they are nearly as high as the doors and have seven shelves. Although the existing bookcases are not shown on drawings available for the 1950s and 1970 alteration projects, the high, flat top molding which lacks articulation and conceals fluorescent indirect light fixtures is consistent with the simplified aesthetic from the International Style popularized in mid-century design. The smaller but more detailed molding between the fourth and fifth shelves closely resembles the top molding shown on Howard’s drawings, suggesting that the original bookcases were expanded and fitted with indirect lighting in a mid-century alteration.

The fireplace and mantel in the Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge are almost identical to the design on Howard’s drawings. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 115

The kitchenettes on the second and third floors have upper and lower cabinets and countertops, shown on the 1970s drawings. A built-in ironing board that appears to be original survives in one kitchenette. In the basement, the main Office has built-in wood shelves, counters, cabinets, and front desk. These items are also shown on the 1970s drawings.

Guest rooms have a variety of shelves, bookcases, wood radiator enclosures, and other casework. Some of these are shown on renovation drawings, such as the deep bookshelves in Rooms 211 and 311 which occupy the space where the original kitchen chimney was located until the 1970 project. Much of the casework in guest rooms is not shown on any available drawings. All guest room closets have shelves and clothes bars.

Fireplace and Mantel The focal point of the north wall of the Living Room is the fireplace, the only one in the building. The brick fireplace has a wide firebox opening, with a single column of brick in stacked bond on each side; the lintel has a single course of brick in soldier position. The upper corners of the fireplace face have brick in a pinwheel configuration. The raised hearth extension is the width of the fireplace and mantel.

The wood mantel is stained the same dark hue as the Living Room trim and beams. It has pilasters with a single shallow panel flanking the brick firebox face supporting a tall, trabeated crown with three panels filling the frieze over the brick firebox face. The mantel shelf is relatively shallow. Both the fireplace and mantel closely resemble the design shown on Howard’s original construction drawings, except that the mantel shelf backboard shown on the drawings does not exist today. The fireplace has a brass-framed fire screen with a curtain of steel mesh.

The building includes a Light Fixtures broad range of light fixtures, The building has pendent, surface, and recessed lighting fixtures of iron, plastic, and glass. including many such as these which are entirely Available historic drawings do not show light fixtures, so it is not possible to determine compatible with the historic whether the fixtures that appear to be decades old may be original. Numerous fixtures are character of the Women’s clearly too new to be from the period of significance. Faculty Club. No records of original lighting have been There is a chain-hung lantern in the entry portico. It has frosted glass and is made of located, so it is not possible to determine whether painted metal. The chain terminates at a pair of round finials above the main body of the these are original. Knapp fixture. Architects photographs, 2013.

Sconce in Guest Sleeping Room Sconce in Lounge Pendent in Dining Room Pendent in Main Stair

116 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The Living Room, Library and many guest rooms have iron sconces with a shield shaped wall plate, on which a scrolled strip of black iron is attached, curling up to support a candle cover with a single lamp holder. These fixtures have bare, flame shaped, soft-white bulbs. The sconces on the first floor have a long iron scroll which descends well below the base of the shield-shaped wall plate, supporting a long candle cover. The sconces on the upper floors have a much shorter scroll, which barely extends below the bottom of the wall plate, supporting a standard length candle cover.

There are also iron fixtures, purchased in Mexico in the early 1980s, with bare, flame bulbs atop candle covers in the Dining Room and Private Dining Room. These round fixtures are roughly two feet in diameter, hanging on a chain from eight iron bars which extend down diagonally from the center to the main perimeter ring of the fixture. The eight lamps are mounted on the outside of the perimeter ring.

The guest rooms have a variety of sconces other than the typical iron type; these include traditional-style brass sconces, modern rectangular plastic wall fixtures, modern brass bowl up lights, and traditional-style sconces with a faux-antique finish and flared glass shade. A few rooms on the upper floors have distinctive fixtures, such as the pendent and sconce in Room 206, originally from the home of former Club President Katherine V. Williams and installed in 2006.

The building also has a wide variety of utilitarian and recessed fixtures, including fluorescent surface fixtures in spaces such as the Office and Kitchen; recessed down lights in the Dining Room; indirect fluorescent lights on top of the bookcases in the Library; surface ceiling fixtures in a variety of shapes; and plastic wall fixtures over the sinks in the bathrooms. Typical guest bathroom fixtures are shower, drop-in ceramic Bathroom Features and Fixtures lavatory in vanity countertop, and floor-mounted ceramic The guest room bathrooms have wood vanities, most with closed cabinets. Almost all have water closet. Variations include plastic laminate countertops, though a few have tile countertops. The vanities have oval- bathtubs and wall-mounted shaped, drop-in porcelain sinks. The majority of guest bathrooms have “neo-angle” corner ceramic water closets. Knapp Architects photographs, 2013. showers (five-sided, with the door on a diagonal face), though a minority have porcelain- enameled steel bathtubs. Both the showers and tubs have metal-framed glass doors and tiled walls and hand-held showers on flexible metal or plastic hoses. The sinks, showers, and tubs have chrome faucets. Most guest bathrooms have conventional floor-mounted porcelain water closets, though a few have wall-mounted units. Bathroom accessories typically include chrome towel bars and toilet paper holders, recessed metal medicine cabinets with mirrored doors, and in a number of rooms, chrome grab bars in the shower or tub. A few showers have built-in folding seats. The guest bathrooms have plaster ceilings and walls and ceramic tile floors with gray marble thresholds.

The public toilet rooms in the basement are generally similar to the guest bathrooms. They have painted metal toilet partitions and wall-mounted porcelain lavatories and metal- framed mirrors. The basement toilet rooms have the same one-inch square floor tile as the guest bathrooms, with four-inch-square ceramic tile wainscot. They have floor-mounted, tank-type water closets. The men’s room has one urinal. The staff toilet room and night auditor’s bathroom have enameled cast iron sinks which may be original. The staff toilet room has a stainless steel parcel shelf.

Kitchen The kitchen, which was remodeled completely in the 1950s project and again to a lesser degree in the 1970s, has a stainless steel exhaust hood, stainless steel counters and

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 117

dishwashing station, wood shelves and cabinets, and a walk-in cooler with galvanized sheet metal walls and ceiling and diamond plate steel flooring. The kitchen has exposed ventilation ductwork on the ceiling and ceiling-mounted fluorescent light fixtures.

Building Systems The Women’s Faculty Club is connected to the campus steam, water, and electric systems. There is extensive exposed infrastructure in the basement, including pipes and conduit hung from the ceiling. There is a sizeable steam valve and condensate pump room in the basement, from which the two-pipe steam heating system originates. The building does not have air-conditioning or central ventilation ductwork, though the Office has split-system air-conditioners. Rooms are heated by traditional-style cast iron radiators. The inlet valve and piping in more guest rooms are covered in a small wood box, with only the handle protruding. Some guest bathrooms have a purpose-built radiator made of steel pipe about four inches in diameter; these units located under vanities may have replaced conventional radiators when the bathrooms were remodeled. Guest bathrooms without windows have electric exhaust fans. The roof of the first floor walk-in cooler addition on the east elevation has a variety of equipment and ductwork for the kitchen.

Electrical and signal systems include breaker panels, a server closet in the basement, and distribution wiring for lighting, equipment, and receptacles. There is exposed surface conduit (“wiremold”) in most guest rooms. The guest rooms have two different types of smoke detectors; some have hard-wired, wall-mounted televisions.

Fire Sprinklers The Women’s Faculty Club has a full fire sprinkler system. Most of the piping is exposed on the building interior, although a substantial portion of it is mounted on the exterior of the building on the north and east elevations.

Elevator There is a passenger elevator in the northeast corner of the main building mass. It stops on each floor level, with two doors on the main floor to provide access from both the public corridor on the north side and the kitchen on the south side. Access to the elevator on the other floors is from the south side. The elevator is hydraulically operated. The cab has a carpeted floor, plastic laminate wall surfaces, and a ceiling of “egg crate” diffuser panels with fluorescent lights above.

Sprinkler riser, bell, and gauges adjacent to walkway on east end of building from College Avenue to entry door at first floor elevator stop. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013

118 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

CONDITION LANDSCAPE Note that that conclusions about condition of plants / trees is based on visual observation. An arborist has not been consulted.

Trees In the riparian landscape along Strawberry Creek, the redwoods are in Good condition. Native riparian trees—primarily bay laurels–are stressed by increasing shade cast by redwoods. Older bay specimens have died back, some are resprouting, but growth is not vigorous. Pittosporum adjacent to outdoor stair at southeast corner of building: Good, although crowded by adjacency to building. Specimen trees in grounds–tulip tree (southeast corner): Good. English oak (north garden): Good. Redwoods east of Senior Hall: Good.

Hedges Main perimeter hedge along east and south edges of garden. Good, although shaded in some areas on the east.

Site walls and Stairs 1926 Rhyolite wall, south garden: Good (structural condition not assessed, and much of wall is obscured by plantings).

Walkways There are few conditions which require repair. The asphalt path on the west end of the south lawn has some cracks. South pathways (main entrance path from south, stair from east, decomposed granite path around southwest corner of building): Fair to Good. Flagstone pathways in north garden: fair.

There is biological growth, possibly algae, at the base of the foundation wall on the north elevation. This could indicate inadequate drainage at grade or problems with gutters and downspouts. The shaded location likely encourages biological growth. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Eugenia hedge along College Avenue at east boundary of Club site. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 119

Benches and Concrete Elements

Fair to Good.

Lampposts Fair.

EXTERIOR

Terraces, Walkways, and Entry Landings

Fair. On the brick steps at the main entry, there is some unevenness in the surface, the mortar shows evidence of wear, and one brick at the stair nosing is broken.

Foundation Wall Fair. Although the wall is intact and there are no obvious signs of serious deterioration, there are conditions indicative of wear and incomplete previous alterations. On the south elevation, the stucco is cracked above a number of the windows. On the west elevation, there is delamination of the stucco at the base of the wall and unpainted patch material around a louver. There is biological growth at the base of the wall on the north elevation.

Roofing (includes flat) The observations for this report did not include access necessary to assess the condition of the roof. No obvious deterioration is visible from grade.

Shingles Fair to Poor. The shingles are still in place and continue to function as the outer component in the weather envelope, but they exhibit signs of wear and deterioration, especially on the south facade, where many shingles are warped. On all elevations, there is extensive water-staining and widespread shrinkage.

Windows The wood windows range from good to poor condition, with most in fair or good condition. A substantial number of windows, especially on the south elevation, have extensive paint failure, exposing the wood sash to water and sun which can cause

The condition of shingles varies widely, as does the degree of sun and weather exposure. Some shingles are worn and stained like this area on the north elevation (left), while others are cracked and curled like this area on the south facade (right). Knapp Architects photographs, 2013.

120 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

weathering and decay. This study does not include Ventilation opening on north elevation (above door, on left individual observations window-by-window, but side) appears to be vulnerable it is likely that at least a few windows have enough to intrusion of wind-driven rain. deterioration to require repairs to the sash before they Knapp Architects photograph, can be repainted. 2013.

The metal windows at the first floor adjacent to the west and north fire escapes appear to be in good condition. It was not possible to observe the windows with sheet metal sash in the two small light wells at the second and third floors from the exterior. On the interior, these windows appear to be in Good condition.

Doors and Hardware The exterior doors range from Good to Poor condition. The original wood doors at the main entry and the north side of the Foyer, along with the door on the south side of the Dining Room, are in Good Condition. The metal doors installed in the 1970s project appear to be in good condition generally. Some less prominent doors, such as the flush wood door on the south facade at the basement night auditor’s bathroom, are in Poor condition.

Entry The portico at the main entry on the south elevation appears to be in Good condition. Soiling and paint failure are visible in some places, but these are signs of normal aging of maintenance items. The portico appears to have been maintained regularly, and with future maintenance it can be expected to remain in Good condition.

Cornice and Trim The cornice and trim are in Fair condition overall. There is widespread paint failure, particularly on the south facade, and areas where the wood is visibly uneven are likely signs of wood decay, at least in some cases. The condition of the gutter atop the cornice is not visible from grade and is unknown.

Conductor Heads and Downspouts The condition is Fair. There is little visible deterioration, except for rust at the lower cast iron sections of the downspouts. At least one clean-out plug is missing, which could result in debris entering the downspout and clogging it.

Chimney and Exhaust Stack The chimney appears to be in Good condition. Most of it is wood frame construction, while the base is brick, both faced in stucco. Neither portion exhibits signs of significant deterioration, and the joint between them is not unduly wide or irregular.

Fire Escapes The steel fire escapes are in Good condition; they do not show extensive corrosion. They were not examined in detail, and no structural evaluation or review of the anchorage to the building wall was performed.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 121

Exterior Stairs The exterior stairs on the east side of the building appear to be in Good condition.

Lighting The exterior light fixtures appear to be in Good condition cosmetically. Their function and electrical components were not evaluated.

Electrical Components Exterior electrical components are in Good to Poor condition cosmetically; some wires are not secured adequately. The function of these components was not evaluated.

Ventilation Openings and Louvers The openings themselves consist of wire mesh and trim; they are in Good condition. These openings do not have louvers and appear vulnerable to wind-driven rain. If they lead to waterproof ducts which are not affected by water, this may not be a problem.

Mechanical Systems The exterior mechanical devices are in Fair condition cosmetically; some exhibit rust, there is failure at insulation on refrigerant lines, and paint is failing at some components. The function of mechanical devices was not evaluation.

Firesprinklers and Plumbing The exterior sprinklers, standpipes, and plumbing components appear to be in Good condition. Their function was not evaluated.

INTERIOR

Ceilings Plaster and Gypsum Board The ceilings are generally in Good condition, with a few exceptions. There are a few areas with water stains, spalls, or other damage. In some places, previous patches are uneven or do not match the texture of the original ceiling.

Some electrical components appear to be very old, though their operation, condition, safety, and code-compliance was not assessed for this report. Knapp Architects photographs, 2013.

122 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Acoustic Tile Acoustic tile is generally in good condition, although replacement tiles in the Private Dining Room do not match precisely the color of the tile on the rest of the ceiling.

T-Bar The kitchen ceiling is in Good condition.

Walls Plaster and Gypsum Board The walls are in Good condition overall. There are isolated conditions where the plaster or gypsum board is damaged or worn. More common are patches that do not match the texture or surface of the surrounding wall.

Wood The wood paneling on the Dining Room walls is in Good condition.

Floors Ceramic Tile The guest bathroom and public toilet room floors are in Good condition, with few cracks, missing tiles or uneven surfaces. The grout is discolored in most cases. The marble thresholds at the guest bathrooms are in Fair condition; the grout is missing in many cases and a few thresholds are cracked.

The polychrome ceramic tile at the serving area of the Dining Room is in Good condition.

Carpet The carpet is in Good to Poor condition. Much of it shows relatively little wear and no damage, but there are various problematic conditions, including many stains and some tears.

Wood Flooring The Living Room and the Library wood flooring is in Fair condition; some areas are worn or scratched.

Plastic laminate separating from substrate at vanity countertop in guest bathroom. This condition is widespread. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Most of the showers exhibit deterioration, repairs, or both at the base of the glazing where the original seal at the metal frame appears to have failed. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 123

Resilient Sheet Flooring The resilient sheet flooring is in Good condition.

Seamless Impervious Flooring The trowel-applied flooring is in Good condition; because the kitchen has equipment, fixtures, and appliances covering much of the floor, there could be damage that is not visible.

Basement Floor Much of the basement floor is concrete, though some rooms are carpeted and the toilet rooms have ceramic tile. At times, the basement has been subject to flooding (sometimes because of excessive flows of surface water caused by nearby projects), but installation of a sump pump adjacent to the elevator has reduced this problem.

Doors Wood Panel and Flush Doors The wood doors are generally in Good to Excellent condition. While there are minor scratches, dents, and cracks, the doors are mostly devoid of these or other problem conditions and in many cases do not even appear to need repainting.

Screen Doors The interior screen door at the east exterior door at the kitchen is in Fair condition. It has some nicks and scratches and the screen has at least three holes.

Metal Doors The exterior hollow metal doors are in Excellent condition.

Special Doors These doors vary in condition, from Excellent to Poor.

Door Hardware The door hardware is generally in Excellent condition visually. It is beyond the scope of this report to check the operation of each hardware element.

Windows The interior windows are in Excellent condition.

Trim The trim is generally in Good to Excellent condition. There are isolated conditions where it is cracked, dented, or otherwise damaged.

Casework The built-in bookcases in the Library on the first floor are in Good condition; the finish is scratched or worn in a number of places.

The cabinets in the kitchenettes on the second and third floors are in Good condition; examination of the interior of the drawers and doors is beyond the scope of this report.

124 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Guest rooms shelves, bookcases, wood radiator enclosures, and closets shelves and clothes bars are in Good to Excellent condition.

Fireplace and Mantel The fireplace and mantel are in Good condition. There are minor blemishes on the mantel and the mortar at the fireplace is discolored (which is common) and somewhat eroded.

Light Fixtures The light fixtures are generally in Good or Excellent condition. A fixture-by-fixture survey is beyond the scope of this report.

Bathroom Features and Fixtures The guest room bathroom vanities are generally in Good condition, but most of the plastic laminate countertops are in Fair or Poor condition because the laminate is separating from the substrate, especially at the backsplash. The showers’ metal-framed glass doors are mostly in Fair to Poor condition because the original glazing seal at the base of the glass apparently failed and construction sealant has been applied to prevent leaks. Porcelain sinks and water closets appear to be in Good condition. The ceramic tile at showers and tubs is generally in Good condition. Plumbing fittings in sinks, showers, and tubs appear to be in Good condition, as are the bathroom accessories. The condition of the toilet rooms in the basement is generally similar to that of the guest bathrooms. Testing or observation of the function of plumbing fixtures and systems is beyond the scope of this report.

Kitchen Architectural features and materials in the kitchen are in Good to Excellent condition. Visibility of walls and floors is limited because of the contents of the kitchen. Assessment of the function of building systems, equipment, and appliances in the Kitchen is beyond the scope of this report.

Building Systems Observation and evaluation of the function of building systems is beyond the scope of this report. According to Women’s Faculty Club Director Mary Remy, the steam-operated domestic hot water generator in the basement may soon be replaced because of ongoing maintenance and reliability issues. This report was prepared by an architect without consultations by an electrical engineer or contractor. Conditions observed that indicate some of the electrical system may be very old include knob-and-tube wiring in the attic and electrical panels that appear very old, including one with push-button switches and fuses instead of circuit breakers.

Fire Sprinklers Observation and evaluation of the function of firesprinkler system is beyond the scope of this report.

Elevator Observation and evaluation of the operation and machinery of the elevator is beyond the scope of this report. The elevator cab and doors are in Good condition cosmetically.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 125

Analysis of Historical Significance EXISTING HISTORICAL STATUS The Women’s Faculty Club is not listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places, nor included in the 1981 multiple-resources listing for the Campus. It is not listed as a State Landmark or California Point of Historical Interest. It is not listed separately in the California Register of Historical Resources (which draws most of its listings from the National Register). The building is not a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit.

SIGNIFICANCE

National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register, administered by the National Park Service, includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, only resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any of the four nominating criteria and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register:

Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and

Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource can be considered significant on a national, state, or local level to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.

As mentioned above, in addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the four National Register criteria, a property must be shown to retain sufficient historic integrity. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.”93 According to the National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the seven characteristics that define integrity are as follows:

128 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.

• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property.

• Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).

• Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property.

• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.

• Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Evaluation of Significance Criterion A - Events The Women’s Faculty Club appears eligible to the National Register under Criteria A and C. It is significant at the state level under Criterion A for its association with the growth in the role of women in higher education in the 20th Century. It is significant at the local level under Criterion C as the work of a master because it is a good example of John Galen Howard’s design of buildings in the First Bay Region Tradition.

In 1860, there were 1,800 male, but fewer than 100 female, college professors and instructors in the United States, according to the census. In 1910, when the census recorded 4,000 female professors and instructors, there were 21,700 males in these positions. By 1950, the numbers had grown to 85,200 males and 30,600 females and in 1990, there were 441,000 males and 302,800 females. The census recorded fewer than 100 female college professors and instructors nationwide until 1910, when males outnumbered them more than five to one, but by 1990 the ratio declined to less than three to one.57 While another source recorded wide fluctuations in the percentage of faculty positions held by women, with a peak of about 29 percent in 1940 that was exceeded only in 1984, but the trend was nevertheless from very low levels with substantial overall increases after 1910.58 Although they have not reached parity with men, women’s numbers grew 70% between 1920 and 1928 while men’s grew 53%;59 women continued to make headway in recent years, with female faculty members’ numbers growing 59% from 1989 to 2009, more than double men’s growth of 26% in the same period.60 Women held only 33% of instructional faculty positions in 1987, and advanced to 47% of those positions in 2009.61 Women’s opportunities in higher education improved in California more than other states. In 1920, when male professors and instructors outnumbered women nationally by four to one, they

57 Carter, Table Ba1440-1676 and Table Ba1721-1957 58 Touchton, page 63. 59 Biennial Survey of Education 1926-1928, page 692. 60 Snyder and Ditlow, Table 257. 61 Snyder and Ditlow, Table 263.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 129

outnumbered female faculty in California by five to one.62 By 1985, California was one of only 9 states where 50% or more of women professors had tenure.63

At Berkeley, women’s increasing role was reflected in the creation of organizations such as the YWCA chapter founded in 1889 and construction of campus facilities such as the Hearst Gymnasium in 1900 and Girton Hall (Senior Women’s Hall) in 1911. In September, 1920—three months after Congress approved the 19th Amendment extending the right to vote to women and 11 months before it was ratified—Dean of Women Lucy Ward Stebbins hosted the first meeting of the Women’s Faculty Club. The significance of the role of women and the organization is evident from The Regents’ grant of a site for the club building and completion of the structure in only three years.

The association of the Women’s Faculty Club with female professors’ and administrators role on campus—and in wider academe—is a recurring theme in historical Club documents. While many contemporary women’s organizations reflected the social and family roles dictated to women by mainstream society, the Women’s Faculty Club consciously avoided becoming a social organization. It did not provide membership opportunities for faculty wives and socially-prominent local women, welcoming instead visiting women scholars from other universities and colleges. The Club’s documented social stratification which strongly differentiated professors and academic administrators from the women staff who were allowed to join the Club was later characterized by some members as snobbery—but it also indicated the importance the organization as a whole attached to academic leadership.

Over the decades after completion of its building, the Women’s Faculty Club continued to maintain a significant association with the expanding influence and prominence of women at UC Berkeley. The Club weathered the Depression, successfully confronted financial crises, and managed to make significant renovations to the building in the 1950s and 1970s. Very significantly, its members successfully resisted outside pressure to merge with the (Men’s) Faculty Club in the 1970s, making clear that the importance the founders had attached to having a physical facility of their own continued to be crucial to faculty women half a century later. Although the Women’s Faculty Club was not the epicenter of campus

62 Biennial Survey of Education 1918-1920, page 289. 63 Touchton, page 67.

Senior Hall, designed by John Galen Howard, lies between the Women’s Unlike the Women’s Faculty Club, the (Men’s) Faculty Club, pictured here, Faculty Club and the (Men’s) Faculty Club. Knapp Architects photograph, was constructed in several stages over a period of decades, giving it a longer 2013. period of significance under Criterion C. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

130 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

events associated with the Women’s Movement in the 1960s and 1970s, it did host some important gatherings.

Club records make clear, in great deal, the crucial connection between the organization and the building. The structure designed by John Galen Howard has been the exclusive premises of the organization since it was completed in 1923. The contentious discussions and votes which did not lead to a merger with the (Men’s) Faculty Club in the 1970s are further evidence of the strong association between the organization and building. The fact they share the same name, and are referred to interchangeably, is also a good indication of the degree to which the building conveys the historical importance of the group of women who created it and have managed and occupied it ever since. And most simply, the building is significant because it was a free-standing facility built, owned, and occupied exclusively by women faculty and staff — an extreme rarity among universities in the United States.

Criterion C - Work of A Master John Galen Howard remains the master architect of the UC Berkeley campus and the Women’s Faculty Club is significant under National Register Criterion C because it is a prominent example of his work in the First Bay Region Tradition. Howard, the fourth place finisher in the Phoebe Hearst International Architectural Competition for design of the Berkeley campus and the architect who executed Emile Benard’s winning entry, is best known for Beaux-Arts designs such as the Hearst Memorial Mining Building, California Memorial Stadium, and Doe Memorial Library. But Howard also designed dozens of buildings in a more native American style, most of them exhibiting the characteristics of the First Bay Region Tradition. Howard’s work, both on the Berkeley campus and beyond, cannot be understood without including these smaller scale, wood buildings with a more vernacular than Classical character.

On the Campus, Howard’s work that falls within this rubric includes:

• Faculty Club additions

• North Gate Hall

• Senior Hall

• Naval Architecture Building (now part of Blum Hall)

• Dwinelle Annex

Howard’s First Bay Region Tradition designs that are relatively unchanged include Dwinelle Annex. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 131

In addition to these, Howard designed a number of wood buildings that have been demolished.64 Off-campus, Howard designed a substantial number of houses, with a significant concentration in Berkeley, including his own home north of campus (since destroyed). Of particular relevance is Cloyne Court on Ridge Road, originally a hotel in which Lucy Ward Stebbins lived and now owned by the University and used as co-op housing.

The Women’s Faculty Club is also significant because its interior subtly reflects the contemporary interest in Mediterranean revival styles, which were evident on the exterior in Howard’s first scheme for the building, but absent in the much less expensive scheme that was executed. In 1991 Club members writing a history of the early furnishings rhetorically asked and answered a question about the interior design. “Why, it is asked, did Mr. Howard choose for interior finish, contrasting, light, rough plaster walls and ceilings, dark wood trim, and black iron lighting fixtures? Possibly because this followed in simplified form, the vogue for Spanish style interior finish then prevalent in California, and recommended by some banks as a condition for a collateral loan.” (Minard, 1970).

The Women’s Faculty Club meets National Register Criterion C as the work of a master because it shares many of the defining traits of the First Bay Region Tradition and is also a meaningful individual variant. The building is relatively simple in expression, has a sloped roof and shingled walls, and is domestic in character—all of which tie it to canonical Bay Region Tradition designs. While it is not rigidly symmetrical, the Women’s Faculty Club is somewhat more regular than many buildings of its school of design, and its main entry is notable for exhibiting the influence of Colonial Revival architecture.

Landscape The Women’s Faculty Club gardens and grounds have evolved over the years from plans developed soon after the building was completed. Some themes are consistent through the history, such as an interest in having a cutting garden producing flowers for the Club, and having flowering shrubs in the landscape; other aspects of the garden have been more intermittent and changeable.

Volunteer club members, and staff, were engaged over the years in planning for and, occasionally, directly caring for, the garden spaces. At other times campus staff members have been employed by the Club to take care of the grounds. There seem to have been periods when the gardens have been carefully and actively maintained and improved, and other periods when the existing landscaping has been largely left in place, tended, but not actively “gardened.”

Starting with advice from Professor John Gregg in the 1920s, the Women’s Faculty Club has enjoyed a relationship with campus affiliated landscape architects and designers, including successive Campus Landscape Architects. In at least one instance the Campus Landscape Architect was a Club member and provided designs for renovation of the gardens. Campus grounds superintendents and individual campus gardeners have also, over the decades, lent advice to the Club, provided some plantings, and advised on garden upkeep, renovation and improvement projects, and repairs. From the evidence of the Club minute books, it appears that it was typical practice for the Women’s Faculty Club to have its own volunteer garden committee, but also to regularly and cooperative work with campus grounds staff.

64 Woodbridge, page 178.

132 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

In general, the Club gardens appear to have been treated both as a part of the landscaping along Strawberry Creek, and as a separate, semi-enclosed, residential-scale, outdoor space on the campus. In this respect the gardens are similar to the grounds of University House (the official residence of UC Presidents and, now, Berkeley Chancellors) and the grounds of California Alumni House and the Faculty Club. All these places have had their own small plantings, outdoor “rooms” adjacent to the buildings, and special species selection.

With a few exceptions, individual specimen plants in the existing WFC landscape are less important than the overall general character of the space.

PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion A The Women’s Faculty Club has a period of significance of 1923-1963 under Criterion A. This begins with completion of the building and ends 50 years ago, because National Register Criteria Consideration G excludes properties achieving significance in the past 50 years unless they are of exceptional importance. While the Club meets the requirements of Criterion A, events after 1963 do not have extraordinary significance.

Criterion C The Club building has a period of significance of 1920-1923 under Criterion C, representing the time it was designed and built. The changes to the building since its completion have not acquired significance in their own right.

INTEGRITY The Women’s Faculty Club retains a high degree of historical integrity, especially on the exterior. Although the seismic upgrade in the 1970s resulted in some changes to the south facade, they are limited in their impact. While the exterior stairway, walk-in cooler, and other additions and alterations on the east end of the main building mass do not contribute to the significance of the building, they are surprisingly unobtrusive and affect what was always the most utilitarian zone of the building.

There has been no loss in integrity of location, association, and feeling. The integrity of design, materials, setting and workmanship are all fairly high on the exterior despite some diminution of each.

On the interior, the building retains a high level of integrity of design, feeling, and association, although the alterations in the 1950s and 1970s have caused a loss of integrity of materials and workmanship in many spaces. The Foyer, Lounge, and Library retain a very high degree of integrity.

AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Landscape An entry stair on axis with the main (south) front door, descending through a semi- circular wall apparently built of rhyolite to a sunken terrace in front of the building, dominates the south garden. The central split face concrete stair, the wall, and the general form of the bottom terrace can be dated by Club records to 1926, and are Significant features. They make the south garden zone Very Significant.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 133

The presence of Strawberry Creek in a natural-appearing, sinuous, channel through the wooded landscape immediately north of the Club is one of the strongest cultural landscape influences on the campus. The creek and its corridor are Very Significant.

A perimeter arc of informally spaced trees along the northeast, north, and southwest edges of the property, growing on both sides of Strawberry Creek and screening the Club building and grounds from surrounding larger buildings give the property a rustic sense of enclosure. In the early years California bay laurels and live oaks probably predominated on the creek banks. Coastal redwoods now predominate, most of them probably planted in the mid-20th century. The specific tree species and individual specimens are not as important as the overall effect of a linear tree grove that screens and encloses the building. However, there are old bay laurels among the redwoods which may date back to before the Club and should be preserved. If / when the older bay laurels fall or need to be pruned, they will resprout from the remaining base / trunk, and should be left to re-grow. These landscape features enclose and define the area northwest of the building, creating landscape with a strong connection to the building; this zone is Significant.

Exterior The south elevation is the primary facade of the building, where the main entry is located and by far the most visible facade. It is Very Significant. The other exterior elevations are Significant, except where they have been altered or expanded after the period of significance, primarily on the east elevation.

Interior The most important parts of the building, which have the most significant materials and features, are the primary public spaces. The Lounge, the Library, and the Foyer and main stair are Very Significant. The Dining Room and the upper corridors are Significant. Although they have been remodeled, the guest sleeping rooms on the upper floors retain their original layout with few changes and are central to the character and history of the building, making them Contributing spaces. The basement has been altered significantly and was never hierarchically important; it is Non-Contributing.

Significance Ratings Please see significance diagrams for site zones, exterior elevations and features, and interior spaces.

SIGNIFICANCE OF FEATURES AND MATERIALS

Landscape A riparian zone along Strawberry Creek north of the building and the more general enclosure of the building site on west, east, and north with tree plantings that screen it from surrounding roads and buildings sets the stage for the building and is Very Significant. Many of the coast redwoods that now form the main tree planting north and west of the Club are not original to the WFC environs but most likely date to the 1950s and 60s when then Supervising Landscape Architect Thomas Church was emphasizing the planting of tall trees—usually redwoods—to mitigate the rapid construction of large new buildings on the campus, including the large College of Chemistry complex, constructed in the 1960s, on the site of older / smaller science buildings north of and across the Creek

134 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

from the WFC. Church had redwoods planted in many locations along Strawberry Creek. The redwoods are Contributing because they are crucial to the wooded character of the riparian setting even if they post-date the relevant period of significance. Surviving original / native riparian elements—primarily bay laurel trees—in the creekside landscape are Very Significant and should be preserved and encouraged.

Informal, paths through the landscape, as opposed to a rigid, geometric, circulation arrangement. There are possible fragmentary remains of early flagstone and concrete paths, but retention of these features is not required, especially since it is not clear whether the current flagstones are in an original location. The nature of path surfaces has changed with time and evolving expectations / regulations for disabled and emergency access and circulation. As a group, the paths are Significant.

The rhyolite wall (1926) enclosing the terrace south of the building is Significant because of its early construction and the way it modulates the topography of the setting to create a semi-private garden.

A perimeter hedge runs along the south edge of the garden and continuing around to the east, along College Way. Hedging in this area helps define and enclose the Women’s Faculty Club precinct and give it a sense of a residentially scaled garden, rather than an institutional property, making it Significant. The exact height or species of the hedge is not significant, as compared to the presence of a hedge of some sort.

The use of some flowering shrubs in the landscape is Contributing. Species used in the past and still present today include rhododendrons, camellias, and azaleas. Similar is the presence of some flowering annuals or perennials in the landscape. Although roses are mentioned in various eras, individual species or specimens are not as important as the presence of flowering plants, reflecting the long-term Club desire / tradition of having a garden from which flowers could be periodically gathered for indoor use in the Club building.

Exterior

The following exterior features and materials are Very Significant:

Foundation Wall

Roofing

Shingles

Windows

Main Entry and North Foyer Doors

Entry Landing

Cornice and Trim

Conductor heads & downspouts

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 135

The following exterior features and materials are Significant:

Fire escapes

Portico Lantern

Chimney

The following exterior features and materials are Non-Contributing:

Northwest Terrace, deck, and stair

Exterior stairs on east elevation

Other Lighting

Electrical components

Ventilation Openings and Louvers

Mechanical systems

Firesprinklers and Plumbing

Kitchen Exhaust Stack

Interior

The following interior features and materials are Very Significant:

Wood Flooring in the Living Room and Library

Fireplace and Mantel

The following interior features and materials are Significant:

Plaster ceilings and walls

Wood panel doors

Door hardware at Main Entry door

Beams, casing, and trim in Stebbins Lounge

Casework — Original built-in bookcases in the Library

Light fixtures: pendant fixture in Portico on south facade, iron sconces in guest rooms

The following interior features and materials are Contributing:

Door hardware: hinges, knobs, locks, and other original devices

Typical original trim

Cast Iron lavatories in staff toilet room and night auditor apartment bathroom in basement

Radiators

136 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The following interior features and materials are Non-Contributing:

Gypsum Board ceilings and walls

Acoustic Tile ceilings

T-Bar ceilings

Wood paneling on the Dining Room walls

Ceramic tile floors

Carpet

Resilient sheet flooring

Seamless Impervious flooring

Flush Wood Doors

Screen Doors

Metal Doors

Special Doors

Door Hardware - non-original

Windows — interior windows in Basement.

Trim — Non-original

Casework — non-original

Light Fixtures — non-original (most fixtures)

Bathroom Features and Fixtures, except for two lavatories in basement

Kitchen — all fixtures and equipment

Building Systems (except radiators)

Fire Sprinklers

Elevator

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 137

Recommendations LANDSCAPE The Women’s Faculty Club landscape is different from the regular “campus grounds” in that it was designed, appears, and functions as a residentially scaled space that relates to the building itself and has clear edges / borders, rather than seamlessly integrating with the broader landscape of the campus. In this respect the Club is a building in a garden, rather than a building surrounded by campus landscape.

The Club also lies in a part of the campus that was largely occupied by private dwellings and small structures, most of them along College Avenue—then a City street—at the time the building was built; thus, it is a remnant of that earlier era, before the campus expanded extensively beyond its original borders. The general approach to the Women’s Faculty Club landscape should be to maintain and enhance this sense of intimate residential grounds that directly relate to this building.

The sense of enclosure provided by mature tree plantings east, north, and west of the building is extremely important because it helps mediate between this relatively small building and the large academic / institutional structures that have been built to the north and east in particular.

The trees also contribute to the usability and enjoyment of the Club since those using the common rooms and the guest rooms look out at greenery, rather than institutional buildings.

Thus, a solid arc of trees around the east, north, and west of the building and scattered trees to the south is extremely important to the relationship between the structure and its surroundings. In conjunction with the riparian plantings, the presence of Strawberry Creek as an open, informally meandering, natural watercourse bordering the Club landscape to the north is extremely important. Culverting or rigidly channelizing the creek in this area would have a detrimental impact on the historic setting of the Club.

The general layout of the south garden of the Club is important to maintain. This includes perimeter hedging on south and east that demarcates the edges of the Club grounds, informal lawns (or groundcover plantings) within the south hedge, scattered ornamental trees, foundation plantings along the building, a residentially scaled entrance stair / path descending to the main portico of the building, and a “sunken” terrace enclosed on the south with the arc of a rustic rhyolite wall.

The use of seasonally flowering shrubs and ornamental trees, low growing perennials, and seasonal flowering plantings grouped in foundation plantings, terrace and lawn borders, and a suggestion of a “cutting garden” is important to maintain. Flowering elements in the garden are an important theme of the Club history, whether they be roses, flowering evergreen shrubs, seasonal bulbs, flowering ornamental trees, or bedding plants and annuals. Again, the individual species used is not as important as maintaining a sense of the south garden as a residentially scaled space that provides seasonal color and enjoyment and relates intimately to the building.

Pathways through the grounds should remain informally and modestly scaled, while updated as needed for current and evolving needs for circulation and access. Materials such as pavers, decomposed granite, brick, stepping stones, or concrete patterned to recall flagstone or pavers are more suitable for hardscape paving of patios and pathways adjacent to the Club than unornamented concrete or asphalt.

140 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

If the Club and the Campus wished, a small pedestrian bridge over the Creek to the north or small seating areas, informal paths, or plantings in the trees could be developed in keeping with the character of the Club. The Campus should further research the history and significance of the low stone walls along portions of the Creek bank; this is beyond the scope of this report, and the Club’s immediate landscape / groundskeeping.

Little appears to remain of the early design of the north garden, probably in part because the shade cast by the building and the surrounding trees has made it difficult to maintain the landscape plantings—such as lawn—proposed or installed in this area over the years. Thus the north garden provides the Club with an opportunity to further develop outdoor spaces, such as terraces, decks, and patios connected to the building and easily useable for events. The existing terraces and deck are Non-Contributing, but compatible with the historical character of the property because they respect the geometry of the building mass and northwest landscape. Any future additions in this area should do the same.

The Club could make use of the surviving moveable outdoor ornamental features, such as birdbaths, and stone or concrete benches, integrating them as needed into landscape upgrades, although none of the current features—with the possible exception of the birdbath and the stone bench—would appear to date to the very early Club grounds.

New small-scale benches, small sculptural elements or memorials, and small water features would, if carefully designed and sited, be consistent with the residential scale of the gardens and building and the history of the Club.

EXTERIOR The exterior has generally been approached in a way that recognizes the relative historical importance of exterior elevations and features so that its overall integrity remains high, although the exterior is in need of cyclical capital maintenance. The south facade, hierarchically the most important exterior zone, has been little altered; unfortunately, it has the greatest sun and weather exposure of any elevation, and the windows and paint are showing significant deterioration. The south facade should be restored and maintained, with an on-going effort to avoid unnecessary alterations — and this foremost recommendation applies to the entire exterior. Although the seismic upgrade in the 1970s altered the window trim on the south facade, it may not be feasible to reverse this change and if investments are limited, this would not be the highest priority.

The east facade is by far the most altered and has received the least appropriate treatment. Construction of a service entry and walk-in cooler on the east end of the building makes sense. The appropriateness of demolishing the original interior stair at the east end of the main building mass and constructing exterior stairs for the second and third floors in its place is debatable. But covering the roof of the walk-in cooler with exposed mechanical equipment is very difficult to justify from a historical point of view — and open to question from the stand-point of maintenance because equipment housed on the interior usually outlasts exterior units. It should be kept in mind that the previous alterations may justify future ones here.

The north and west facades have been altered only in fairly appropriate ways: addition of the basement entry on the west, construction of the northwest terrace, and the attachment of many devices and building systems to the exterior. Although the third item in this list consists mostly of features that are not compatible with the building, almost all of them are

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 141

small and commonplace so that they do not detract actively from the way the building is perceived. If possible, these items should be moved to concealed locations.

The following are recommendations for each level of significance, with specific provisions for individual materials or features where stated:

VERY SIGNIFICANT These elements should be maintained consistently so that they continue in service and retain their original appearance. If damaged or deteriorated, they should be patched with like material. Specific guidance includes:

Roofing — asphalt shingles are appropriate

Windows — the wood windows should be maintained even though the ones on the south facade are not original.

Downspouts — should be repaired where needed and painted so they do not rust.

SIGNIFICANT These items should be maintained so they continue in service. Only in case of a specific feasibility challenge should they be removed or replaced with anything different.

CONTRIBUTING These items should be retained wherever it is practical. If they must be removed or altered for a safety, building code, or unavoidable programmatic requirement, the change should be limited to the minimum extent that is mandatory and new work should be fully compatible with the character of the property.

NON-CONTRIBUTING These items may be removed or altered as long as the resulting work is compatible with the property and does not create a false historical appearance.

Specific guidance includes:

Kitchen Exhaust Stack — This should be removed or concealed inside the building if practical (the location of the original chimney removed in the 1970s might be able to accommodate a new stack). At the least, it should be painted to match the building.

Mechanical equipment on roof of walk-In Cooler — This should be moved to a concealed location if possible. At a minimum, it should be screened.

142 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

INTERIOR The most important spaces architecturally are also the most important in terms of historical integrity; every effort should be made to avoid changes deleterious to their character. The main stair, Foyer, Lounge, and Library set the tone for the entire building and are also nearly unchanged since its completion in 1923.

The next level of importance would be the Dining Room and the upper floor corridors. The Private Dining Room and Serving Area of the main Dining Room have already been altered somewhat; it would help maintain the integrity of the public spaces if the main Dining Room can be maintained intact. The upper floor corridors are very unlikely to change in layout unless the use of the building changes; their overall character should be maintained, as they play a substantial role in the perception of the building by overnight guests.

The guest sleeping rooms have been altered fairly substantially, but their overall character is highly compatible with the historic building. While extensive alterations in the future— including wholesale replacement of bathroom fixtures and finishes—would not have much impact on character-defining-features, it should be kept in mind that new work needs to be compatible with the historic spaces and features.

The basement, kitchen, and service spaces have a relatively low level of historical integrity and were not hierarchically important in the original design. They can be altered extensively without ill effect as long as new work that is visible to the public is compatible with the historical character of the building.

The existing elevator is far from the Main Stair, the Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge, and the Library. If it is decided that the elevator should be relocated adjacent to the main public spaces in order to remedy this shortcoming in the accessible path of travel on the main floor, the least obtrusive location would probably be an exterior addition on the north side of the existing main building mass, just west of the existing north door in the Foyer. The benefit would be that the elevator would be located near the central circulation point of the building on all floors. The drawbacks would be that on the main floor, it would open into the Lounge, and on the upper floors it would eliminate Room 306 and would open directly into the common “TV” room 206. (Reconfiguration of back-of-house space in the basement would also be required.) Most importantly from the point of view of accessibility, it would require disabled people to enter the building from the north, far from the main entry paths leading to the main entry on the south facade.

Alternate locations for an elevator include locations inside the existing building just east or just west of the main entry on the south elevation, but these locations would disrupt important interior spaces and would mar the main facade if an exterior elevator door were provided. Putting the elevator inside the existing building footprint in the northeast corner of the Lounge would improve its interior adjacencies over the adjacent exterior location described above—at the cost of intruding on the most important interior space, and without mitigating the problematic exterior access. Installing a limited elevator (“LULA lift”) from the interior landing at the main entry to the first floor (which would require extensive regrading to the exterior walkways and would adversely affect the integrity of the main entry) could make the main entry accessible but would seriously impact both the architectural and historical value of either the Library or the Private Dining Room, and it would not solve the existing deficiency in the public access path to the existing main elevator on the main floor. In addition to meeting the letter of state and

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 143

federal accessibility requirements, new schemes should be carefully considered in light of the topography around the building and the directions from which people approach it. For example, a wheelchair user approaching from the Haas School of Business might be better off with the existing elevator location than with a new scheme in which the main entry becomes accessible to wheelchairs but only from an exterior path which begins near Senior Hall. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code include provisions allowing alternate means of access where modifying the primary entry is not feasible or would cause an unreasonable impact on a historic building. While access must be provided for all building users, the serious constraints of site topography at the main entry and the interior layout of the building mean that any design solution will have substantial drawbacks, no matter how expensive or architecturally intrusive it is.

The following are recommendations for each level of significance, with specific provisions for individual materials or features where stated:

VERY SIGNIFICANT These elements should be maintained consistently so that they continue in service and retain their original appearance. If damaged or deteriorated, they should be patched with like material. Specific guidance includes:

Wood Flooring in the Living Room and Library—The flooring may be sanded if needed. It should be refinished with the same stain as existing.

Fireplace and Mantel—These should be cleaned, with blemishes in the wood carefully patched or stained to make them less obvious. The brick and mortar may be cleaned if desired, and the mortar should be re-pointed as needed.

SIGNIFICANT These items should be maintained so they continue in service. Only in case of a specific feasibility challenge should they be removed or replaced with anything different.

Plaster ceilings and walls—May be opened where needed to repair or replace building systems. They should be patched to match the original condition. Careful attention should be paid to the distinction between the slightly rough but well tooled finish intended in the original design and the irregular patches that exist in numerous locations where imperfections were more a matter of lax construction than artistic execution.

Wood panel doors—While the doors are not highly significant individually, they lend an important degree of historic detail to the building—especially at the upper corridors. Great scrutiny should be given to major alteration or replacement of these doors.

Stained woodwork—The dark stained trim in the Lounge, Library, Foyer, and main stair should be cleaned, and repaired and refinished only where needed. Some of the shelving in the Library may need refinishing, which should match its original color and gloss.

Door hardware at Main Entry door—The hardware contributes importantly to the overall character and integrity of the entry. Only if the entry door is included in a new fully accessible path of travel should changes to the door hardware be made because of accessibility.

144 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

CONTRIBUTING These items should be retained wherever it is practical. If they must be removed or altered for a safety, building code, or unavoidable programmatic requirement, the change should be limited to the minimum extent that is mandatory and new work should be fully compatible with the character of the property.

Door hardware: hinges, knobs, locks, and other original devices—This study does not include a full survey of hardware on each door. Generally, the brass knob latchsets are the oldest and probably date from the period of significance. They should be retained where a door is not being made accessible, but will need to be replaced in order to provide accessibility. New lever hardware should be simple and unobtrusive.

Typical original trim—This should be maintained.

NON-CONTRIBUTING These items may be removed or altered as long as the resulting work is compatible with the property and does not create a false historical appearance.

Acoustic Tile ceilings—May be retained where they are necessary for acoustics. If carpet, drapes, or other measures would satisfy acoustic requirements where a space is being renovated (especially Significant and Very Significant spaces), acoustic tile should be replaced with gypsum board matching the original ceiling finish.

T-Bar ceilings—Are acceptable in the kitchen and service spaces rated Non-Contributing, but should not be installed in spaces rated Contributing or higher.

Wood paneling on the Dining Room walls—May be maintained. If the Serving Area is renovated, consideration should be given to making the walls more compatible with the finishes in the main Dining Room.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 145

Conclusion 148 KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

The Women’s Faculty Club is a unique place on the Berkeley campus, a venue conceived of, financed by, and maintained by women faculty and staff from decades before the modern Women’s Movement achieved widespread notice. Architecturally, the 1923 building is a good example of the First Bay Region Tradition and illustrates one of the variants of that style that characterizes John Galen Howard’s work. It is set in a picturesque zone of the campus, near two other buildings in the same style which are already listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the (Men’s) Faculty Club and Senior Hall. The Women’s Faculty Club appears eligible for listing in the National Register, although it has not yet been designated officially as a historic building.

The building retains a very high degree of historical integrity on the exterior and in its primary interior spaces. Although there were significant renovations in the 1950s and the 1970s, the only noticeable exterior changes were egress and service additions on the east elevation and a new terrace at the northwest corner of the two wings. Although Club records indicate the landscape has probably changed considerably in terms of plant materials and some of its paths, its character is very similar to what is reflected in documents from the early decades.

Despite earlier renovations—and because the most recent one was almost 40 years ago— the building exhibits deterioration in some important elements. The shingles are seriously worn in many places, some of the building systems are reported not to be working well, and many finishes though clean and intact are blemished in places or generally lackluster. The building lacks many requirements for accessibility, particularly the exterior and main floor approaches to the elevator.

Any assessment should note one of the most salient features of the building: its scale, materials, and architectural expression strongly reflect its purpose and identity. It is informal and somewhat domestic in many respects, from the woodsy setting near Strawberry Creek to the ample trim in the Foyer and main stair and finally to the varied layout of guest sleeping rooms. But it conspicuously lacks features which would make a men’s club seem clubby — no dark paneled room with leather armchairs for reading the paper, no imposing bar for sharing a drink. The building and the institution that created it go hand in glove, a relationship that should be carefully maintained.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS 149

Appendix I Bibliography

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX I BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.acuclubs.org Britland,” an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, Andrus, Patrick W. and Shrimpton, Rebecca, editor. National 1919-1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, Register of Historic Places Bulletin No. 15, How to Apply the University of California, Berkeley. 1983. National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service. Washington, DC, 2002. www.geocities.com/SiliconValley

www.berkeley.edu/about/history Gordon, Lynn D. Gender and Higher Education in the Progressive Era. Yale University Press. New Haven, 1990. Binggeli, Corky. Interior Graphic Standards, Student Edition. John Wiley & Sons. San Francisco, 2011. Graham, Patricia A. “Expansion and Exclusion: A History of Women in American Higher Education.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture Brewer, Helene Maxwell. “Introduction to the Women’s Faculty and Society 3 (Summer 1978). Club,” an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, www.hearstcastle.org 1919-1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983. Helfand, Harvey University of California, Berkeley. Princeton Architectural Press. New York, 2002. www.brown.edu www.indiana.edu Butler University. Guide to the Butler University Women’s Faculty Club Collection. Special Collections and Rare Books, Irwin Library, http://web.jhu.edu/jhuwomansclub/history Butler University. www.butler.edu/media/20611/womens.pdf Johnson, Mary Ann. “An Interview with Mary Ann Johnson,” Cal Performances, UC Berkeley. The Cal Performances Centennial, an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The 1906-2006: 100 years of Performing Arts Presentation at the Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919- University of California, Berkeley. Cal Performances. Berkeley, 2005. 1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983. Carter, Susan et al, editors in chief. Historical Statistics of the United States, from Earliest Times to the Present/Millennian Edition, Vol. 2. Miles, Josephine, “An Interview with Josephine Miles,” an oral Cambridge University Press. New York, 2006. history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. http://club.rice.edu Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983 www.desertbrand.com Murdoch, Margaret. “An Interview with Margaret Murdoch,” Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education. Biennial Survey an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The of Education 1918-1920 and 1926-1928. Government Printing Office. Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919- Washington, DC, 1923, 1930. 1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983. Dornin, May. “An Interview with May Dornin,” an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Noonan, Mary Lee. “Faculty Wives: The History of the University Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. Regional Section Club,” Chronicle of the University of California, Volume 1, #2. Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983. www.ohio-statefacultyclub.com

Ferrier, William Warren. Berkeley, California: The Story Of the www.oncampus.osu.edu Evolution Of A Hamlet Into A City of Culture and Commerce Published by the author. Berkeley, 1933. Robb, Agnes. “An Interview with Agnes Robb,” an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Gordon-Britland, Gudveig. “An Interview with Gudveig Gordon-

ii APPENDIX I KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. Regional Van Horn, Eleanor. “An Interview with Eleanor Van Horn,” an oral Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California. history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Berkeley, 1983. Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of Scott, Elizabeth. “An Interview with Elizabeth Scott,” an oral California. Berkeley, 1983. history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. Wardrip, Mark Allen. A Western Portal of Culture : the Hearst Greek Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of Theatre of the University of California 1903-1984. Dissertation. UC California. Berkeley, 1983. Berkeley Department of Dramatic Art. Berkeley, 1984.

Smith, Josephine. “An Interview with Josephine Smith,” an oral Williams, Katherine Van Valer. “An Interview with Katherine Van history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Riess, in The Women’s Valer Williams,” an oral history conducted in 1981 by Suzanne B. Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley, 1919-1982. Riess, in The Women’s Faculty Club of the University of California, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of Berkeley, 1919-1982. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft California. Berkeley, 1983. Library, University of California. Berkeley, 1983.

Snyder, Thomas and Ditlow, Sally. Digest of Education Statistics www.wisc.edu 2011. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC, 2012. Women’s Faculty Club Records Women’s Faculty Club 1922 Bond Prospectus Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women. Women’s Faculty Club Board Meeting Minutes Yale University Press. New Haven, 1985. The Women’s Faculty Club holds its old collection of records, kept Stadtman, Verne A. The University of California, 1868-1968. A by the manager in secure storage. These include board meeting Centennial Publication of the University of California. McGraw Hill minutes, ephemera, and other documents and items related Book Company. New York, 1970. to the history of the Club. They are not formally catalogued or http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory indexed, so the citations in the text are informal. Most of the records are arranged chronogically so a researcher seeking to Touchton, Judith and Davis, Lynn. Factbook on Women in Higher explore them would start with the relevant date or time period Education. American Council on Education and MacMillan and ask the WFC staff for access to the material from that time Publishing Co. New York, 1991. period.

UC Berkeley. 2020 Long Range Development Plan EIR. UC Berkeley, Woodbridge, Sally. John Galen Howard and the University of Berkeley. 2005. California. University of California Press. Berkeley, 2002.

UC Berkeley. Greek Theatre HSR Request for Proposals. UC Berkeley, Berkeley. October 24, 2006.

UC Berkeley. Roma Pacifica: The Phoebe Hearst International Architectural Competition and the Berkeley Campus, 1896-1930. UC Berkeley. Berkeley, 2006. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/ archives_exhibits/online_exhibits/romapacifica/partiv.html

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1980, 1982. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, DC, 1980, 1982.

http://www.umich.edu/~fwc/FWC_Website/new_home.html

www.universityclubofmsu.org

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX I iii

Appendix II Original Drawings

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX II WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX II ii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX II iii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX II iv

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX II v

Appendix III Drawings for Alterations 1956

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX III WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX III ii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX III iii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX III iv

Appendix IV Drawings for Alterations 1976

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV ii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV iii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV iv

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV v

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV vi

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV vii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV viii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV ix

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX IV x

Appendix V Significance Diagrams

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V ii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V iii

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V iv

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V v

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V vi

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX V Vii

Appendix VI Survey Forms: Exterior and Selected Rooms

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX VI

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.13.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1,2,4,5

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some patches do not match the texture of the original wall

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), stained, matches door trim & ceiling beams

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Wood Condition: E Notes: Oak strip flooring, face-nailed; finish is worn, numerous scuffs, small scratches & uneven in some places; four sizable area rugs

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Plaster with wood trim Condition: G Notes: Some patches do not match texture of original plaster ceiling; Rift-cut wood stained dark like rest of trim in room, diagonal knee braces at matching wall pilasters

OTHER: Fireplace Type: Brick with wood mantel matches rest of room Condition: Notes: (Pic. No. 3)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pair, 1-hour rated / Foyer Condition: Notes: Steel frame, wood trim matches room trim Hardware: Operation: Crash bar with brass knob on Foyer side Lock: Closer: Yes (recent), may be hold-open on alarm/sprinkler system Threshold: Wood

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Pocket, single panel pair / Library Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls on edge & faces Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung, 12/12 light Condition: Notes: Window trim matches other trim Hardware: Brass lock, one has recent lock that does not match others; brass sash pull handles

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Fixed at fire escape on west elevation Condition: Notes: Window trim matches other trim, wire glass Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconces (8) with incandescent lamps (Pic. No. 6,7); Track (4) with incandescent lamps, mounted on sides of ceiling beams with surface conduit Electrical Surface metal electrical conduit Mechanical Cast iron radiators (3) Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Library Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.13.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 8-12

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some patches do not match the texture of the original wall

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Base, stained, matches door trim & ceiling beams

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Wood Condition: F Notes: Oak strip flooring, face-nailed. finish is worn, numerous scuffs, small scratches & uneven in some places; sizable area rug

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Plaster Condition: G Notes: Some patches do not match texture of original ceiling; water stain

OTHER: Bookcases Type: Wood, stained to match trim Condition: Notes: Finish on 1 of 2 glass doors does not match rest of room; one of the lower cases on the north wall has a flat top while the other is a slanted display shelf (Pic. No. 13)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pair, 1-hour rated / Foyer Condition: Notes: Trim matches room Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs (recent) Lock: Closer: Yes (recent), may be hold-open on alarm/sprinkler system Threshold: Wood

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung, 12/12 light Condition: Notes: Window trim matches other trim Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull tabs

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (4) with incandescent flame lamp, same as Living Room (Pic. No. 6,7); Indirect fluorescent lighting over bookcases Electrical Surface electrical metal conduit, floor receptacles with brass switch plates, phone jacks Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Dining Room Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 14,15,18

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Dining walls (G); Serving area walls (G), wood paneling, various trim light & dark stains

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, painted; Chair Rail/Wainscot, flat, painted

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Polychrome ceramic tile at serving area Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: F Notes: Acoustic tile, with beams and soffits making 3 raised coffers; small water stains, some uneven & missing tiles

OTHER: Room dividers Type: Wood dividers with stained glass panels Condition: Notes: Original panels donated to club; others added to match (Pic. No. 16,17)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Glazed to match adjacent windows / Exterior west elevation Condition: Notes: Self-contained alarm mounted in interior stile Hardware: Operation: Brass lever Lock: Closer: Yes Threshold:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pair, 1-hour rating / Foyer Condition: Notes: Steel frame, wood trim Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs (recent) Lock: Closer: Yes (recent), may be hold-open on alarm/sprinkler system Threshold: Wood

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Kitchen Condition: Notes: Blocked; trim stained to match serving area Hardware: Operation: Double-swing hinges, ornamental brass pull Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung (6), 12/12 light Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass locks, one has recent lock that does not match others; brass sash pull handles

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Fixed (2) Condition: Notes: Wire glass Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Recessed can downlights with incandescent lamps; Iron chandeliers (3), incandescent lamps Electrical Surface metal conduit Mechanical Steel convectors (recent) Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Private Dining Room Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1-2

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: May need paint but substrate has no defects

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G) some scuffs and scratches, needs paint; Chair Rail/Wainscot (E) matches Dining Room; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: E Notes: Minor wear

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some holes from abandoned wires, etc; come replacement tiles that are not perfect matches (Pic. No. 3)

OTHER: Type: Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush, solid core Condition: Notes: 5-leaf full-wall system with removable center leaf and one active leaf (Pic. No. 4) Hardware: Operation: Lock: Brass Closer: (1) leaf N Threshold: Ceramic tile

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung (2) Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull tabs

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron pendant with incandescent flame lamp (Pic. No. 5) Electrical Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 206 / Television Room Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some bumps, patches

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Base

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Type: Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush Condition: G Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: G Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp (Pic. No. 2) Electrical Mechanical Radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Kitchenette Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:11

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Smooth finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: resilient flooring Condition: Notes: Resilient flooring wraps up base of wall

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Resilient sheet Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Upper & lower cabinets N; plastic ceramic tile counters, plywood cabinets Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush Condition: Notes: Note trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall (Pic. No. 21) Hardware: Operation: Brass lever N Lock: Cylinder lock Closer: N Threshold: Metal

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung, wire glass Condition: Notes: Interior wood shutters N Hardware: Lock, sash pull handle (steel)

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Metal with plastic lens surface & under-counter fluorescent N Electrical Electrical stove top N; wood/metal fusebox – both older, built-in box with fuses, push-button shutoffs, and Bakelite panel and newer steel, surface-mounted panel with surface mounted conduit appear to be in operation Mechanical Plumbing Stainless steel sink

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Kitchenette Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 27

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Smooth finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: resilient flooring Condition: Notes: Resilient flooring wraps up base of wall

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Resilient sheet Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Upper & lower cabinets N; plastic laminate counters, plywood cabinets Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Ironing Board Type: Built-in wood ironing board (Pic. No. 29) Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush Condition: Notes: Note trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall (Pic. No. 21) Hardware: Operation: Brass lever N Lock: Cylinder lock Closer: N Threshold: Oak appears N

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung, wire glass (Pic. No. 28) Condition: Notes: Interior wood shutters N Hardware: Lock, sash pull handle (steel)

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Metal with plastic lens surface N Electrical Electrical stove top N; wood/metal fusebox – both older, built-in box with fuses, push-button shutoffs, and Bakelite panel and newer steel, surface-mounted panel with surface mounted conduit appear to be in operation (Pic. No. 25, 26) Mechanical Plumbing Stainless steel sink

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 200 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 15,16

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: G Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N, O Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder lock with large brass escutcheon Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / to Room 207 Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs Lock: Closer: No Threshold:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 3 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 200 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 17

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Grout cracked at threshold

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 201 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 21,22

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), some dents and nicks; Picture Rail/Crown (G), some irregularities at edges

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, water stain

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: G Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 201 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 23

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint; uneven patch

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter (straight not angled) delaminating from plywood cabinet (Pic. No. 23) ; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome- framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Ceiling exhaust fan; No heating; Radiator Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – floor-mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum shower door, tile pan, in alcove, not neo-angle (Pic. No. 24)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 202 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 15,16

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt, push-button privacy lock on door edge Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 2 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 202 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 17

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - wall mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 203 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1,2

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (F), some cracking between bottom flat board and profile termination; Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Minor wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks and bumps

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in night tables (Pic. No. 3) Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: All windows have mini-blinds Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 203 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 5

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet (F); steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish and hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E) (Pic. No. 7); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E) (Pic. No. 6,8)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory – oval drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – wall-mount tank porcelain (Pic. No. 6) Shower (F)- aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing (Pic. No. 4)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 204 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 9,10

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks and bumps

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 204 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 11

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Grout missing at threshold

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter and plywood cabinet (E); steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish and hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E) (Pic. No. 7); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E) (Pic. No. 6,8)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory – oval drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – wall-mount tank porcelain (Pic. No. 6) Shower (F)- aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing (Pic. No. 4)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 205 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date:05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 9

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some patches, knockdown finish in places

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), Picture Rail/Crown (G)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks

OTHER: Type: Condition:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs Lock: Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Good interior condition Hardware: Brass lock

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce (2) Electrical Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing Exposed fire sprinkers, typical all

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 205 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 10

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory – w1 Water closet – wall-mount Shower - aluminum / glass

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 207 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 18,19

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Textured finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / to Room 200 Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Panel / Closet Condition: G Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs O Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 207 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 20

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Grout cracked at threshold

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Panel / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs with lock, thumb-turn both sides Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling; custom pipe cast iron Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome lever faucets, mixing Water closet – floor-mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 208 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 12,13

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Minor wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod; built-in dresser and counter (Pic. No. 14) Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs O Lock: Surface lock at interior Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 5 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Brass sconce N (2) with incandescent flame lamp (Pic. No. 13) Electrical Surface wiremold conduit & telephone on baseboard / wall and trim Mechanical Cast iron radiator (2) Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 208 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 20

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Flat finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: F Notes: Irregular surface at previous repair

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet, special unit for large bathroom (Pic. No. 16); typical mirror; typical accessories

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs Lock: Thumb-turn both sides Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pulls, curtain rod mounting brackets at lower sash

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling; custom pipe cast iron (Pic. No. 18) Plumbing Lavatory - typical Water closet – floor-mount tank porcelain Bathtub – porcelain enamel steel with ceramic tile surround and glass doors (Pic. No. 17)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 209 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date:05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, 206; Chair rail, 206; Picture rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Type: Condition:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Pic. No. 7 Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs O; Brass knobs N Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: G Notes: Hardware: Brass lock

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconces Electrical Mechanical Box around steam pipe Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 209 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory Water closet – No flush valve Shower - Tile

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 210 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 19,20

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown, a few irregularities

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls; sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 3 windows, steel security grate at east window Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel with glass shade sconce N (2) with incandescent flame lamp (Pic. No. 21) Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 210 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Flat finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Some wear at grout

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes: This bathroom appears to have been modified to remove some barriers for people with disabilities, but it does not have all the features and clearances required for accessibility.

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with porcelain enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E), lamp shades block door; typical accessories

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull-lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at guestroom Lock: see above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel sconce over sink with incandescent lamp Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Lavatory - Typical Water closet – High, elongated, floor-mount with steel grab bars at side and rear (Pic. No. 22) Shower – Alum. frame, tile pan, grab bar, folding seat, glazing compound failing (Pic. No. 23)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 211 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 24,25

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown has a few irregularities

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves Condition: Notes: Pic. No. 27

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls; sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 211 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 05.15.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 26

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Flat finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Flat finish with eggshell paint

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with porcelain enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); typical accessories

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull-lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at guestroom Lock: see above Closer: None Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink with compact fluor, bulbs in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - Typical Water closet - floor-mount Shower – Alum. frame, tile pan, grab bar, folding seat, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 212 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 12,13

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), some scuffs; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: E/G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 212 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Second Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 14

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - Floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 301 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 25,26

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), trim separating from wall; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: G Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder with large brass escutcheon Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles N & O

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 301 Bathroom (Same as 201) Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 27

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint; water damage next to shower

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Some staining, grout damage

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: No Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling; No heating; Radiator Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 302 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1,2

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), uneven in a couple of places

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt, push-button privacy lock on door edge Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket; surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 302 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 3

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - wall mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 303 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 4,5

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Troweled finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Troweled finish

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs – O; lever Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 3 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 303 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 6

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish and hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory – drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – wall-mount tank porcelain (Pic. No. 6) Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 304 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 7

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown (G), some irregularities

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in window seat / radiator cover Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 304 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 8,9

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Marble threshold is cracked

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter and plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish and hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Glazing obscure Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory – drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – wall-mount tank porcelain Shower (F)- aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 305 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves Condition: Notes: (Pic No. 24)

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod (Pic. No. 19) Condition: Same as Guest Room, except light: surface N, (Pic. No. 18)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall (Pic. No. 21) Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder lock with large brass cover plate Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush sliding / Closet Condition: Notes: (Pic. No. 22) Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Lock, sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Plastic sconce (2) (Pic. No. 23) Electrical Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 305 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate delaminating from plywood

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory Water closet Shower – aluminum, tile base

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 306 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 11

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base, Picture Rail/Crown

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves Condition: Notes: (Pic No. 13)

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod (Pic. No. 19) Condition: Same as Guest Room, except light: surface N, (Pic. No. 18)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: (Pic. No. 20) Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs O Lock: Closer: No Threshold: No

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 1 has Wooden Window label; other has wavy glass Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Brass sconce N (2) (Pic. No. 12) Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 306 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet (Pic. No. 16,17) Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate delaminating from plywood cabinet

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Sconce over sink (Pic. No.14) Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling; cast iron radiator Plumbing Shower – alum. frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing (Pic. No. 15)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 307 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 10,11

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), irregular where apparently patched by bathroom door; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves / seat at radiator (Pic. No. 11) Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knob Lock: Closer: Threshold: Wood

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Panel / Closet Condition: G Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Surface conduit on baseboard / wall, phone jack and wire Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 307 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 12,13

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes: Grout cracked at threshold

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling; Cast iron radiator; Custom cast iron pipe Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome lever faucets, mixing Water closet – floor-mount tank porcelain Bathtub – frameless sliding glass doors in steel track (Pic. No. 13)

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 308 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 8,9

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: Notes: Minor irregularities

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod; built-in dresser and counter Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs / thumb turn O Lock: None Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 5 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (3) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator (2) Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 308 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:10

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G/E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint; grout cracking at tile

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome- framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs Lock: Thumb-turn room side (occupant can be locked into bathroom) Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pulls

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing Lavatory – drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet – floor-mount tank porcelain Bathtub – porcelain enamel steel with alum. frame glass doors, rust stains on sealant at base

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 309 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date:06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:14,15

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture rail/Crown (G), some irregularities

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves Condition:

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appear N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush Condition: Notes: (Pic. No. 14) Hardware: Operation: Brass knob N Lock: Cylinder Closer: No Threshold:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding Flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls; sliding hardware Lock: None Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: G Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Polished brass sconces (2), quarter sphere bowl N Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 309 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.14.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:16

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome- framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 2 windows, obscure glazing Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. in standard base Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 310 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 5,6

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish, uneven edge at picture rail

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Glass knobs - O Lock: Deadbolt Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls; sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: No

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: 3 windows Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Plastic sconce with fluor./incand. in standard base Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 310 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:7

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Minor voids in grout

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with porcelain enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull-lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at guestroom Lock: see above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Obscure glazing Hardware: Brass lock and sash handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical

Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 311 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 2,3

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Knockdown finish has some irregularities at previous repairs, some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (G), some nicks and old fasteners; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: E Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Knockdown has a few irregularities

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves, plexiglass shelf surface Condition: Notes: Pic. No. 27

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Sliding flush / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls; sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Plastic sconce (2) with incandescent lamp Electrical Surface wiremold conduit on baseboard / wall Mechanical Cast iron radiator Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 311 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 4

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter delaminating from plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome-framed glass mirror (E);chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull-lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at guestroom Lock: see above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/Plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor, bulbs in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 312 Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some cracks and bumps

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (E), room fully furnished for resident staff; some baseboard concealed; Picture Rail/Crown (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some wear and stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood built-in shelves / window seat Condition:

OTHER: Closet Type: Wood shelves/hanger rod Condition: Notes: Same as Guest Room

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single-panel / Corridor Condition: Notes: Note door trim is not mitered; does not match trim in hall Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs - N Lock: Deadbolt, cylinder Closer: No Threshold: Oak appears N

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Lush wood / Closet Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised brass pulls, sliding hardware Lock: No Closer: No Threshold: Raised floor

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Iron sconce (2) with incandescent flame lamp Electrical Flat screen tv wall-mounted on bracket Mechanical Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 312 Bathroom Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Third Floor Date: 06.07.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.:

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: E Notes: Smooth finish with eggshell paint

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes: Grout worn at marble threshold

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Vanity counter, cabinet, medicine cabinet Condition: Notes: Plastic laminate counter with plywood cabinet; steel medicine cabinet with enamel finish, hinged chrome- framed glass mirror (E); chrome towel bar, toilet paper holder (E)

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pocket / to Guestroom Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Mortised pull/lock unit, chrome at bathroom, brass at room Lock: See above Closer: Threshold: Marble

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic sconce over sink with compact fluor. lamp in standard base Electrical Mechanical Exhaust fan at ceiling Plumbing Lavatory - drop-in porcelain with chrome faucets, mixing Water closet - Floor mount tank porcelain Shower - aluminum frame, tile pan, glazing compound failing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Attic Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Floor A Date: 05.10.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Apparent Era/Age since renovation: Original Pic. No: 30-33

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Original plaster; no walls except stair

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes:

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Planks Condition: Notes: none except from stair to dormer

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: E Notes: Open rafters and sheathing

OTHER: Type: Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / 3rd floor Condition: G Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knob N Lock: Cylinder lock Closer: N Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Dormer, louver Condition: Notes: Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Ceramic lamp holder Electrical Wiring, various including original knob & tube, telephone Mechanical Plumbing Sprinkler

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 001 / Back office, service Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 28-30

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Scuffs, etc.

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: F Notes: Base, many scuffs, dents, etc.

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Concrete, painted Condition: F Notes: Various pits and patches

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Stirage cabinet/base cabinet Condition: Notes: Plywood with plastic laminate counter on base cabinet

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush, solid core (7) Condition: Notes: 5-leaf full-wall system with removable center leaf and one active leaf (Pic. No. 4) Hardware: Operation: Brass knobs Lock: Cylinder Closer: Some N Threshold: Wood/metal

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Aluminum Jalousie (3) Condition: Notes: Metal frame, wood trim, clear glazing Hardware:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Fixed steel Condition: Notes: Wood trim, wire glass Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Metal recessed can downlights, incandescent/fluorescent lamp; brass/glass sconce with flame incandescent lamp Electrical Conduit Mechanical Plumbing Porcelain enamel steel sink on base cabinet in laundry alcove (Pic. No. 30); Plumbing and steam pipes (steel & copper, paper-faced insulation, extensive piping at ceiling

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 002 / Staff locker, changing room Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 05.23.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 1,2

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Wall does not extend to ceiling at entry to room; some nicks and scrapes

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: Base (F), scratches and cracks; Chair rail / Wainscot (E)

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Concrete Condition: F Notes: Raised footing, pitting & uneven patches

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Storage plywood cupboards Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Single panel (2) Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knob/pull Lock: None, brass deadbolt Closer: None Threshold: Metal

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush pair, solid core Condition: Notes: Metal frame Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Lock: Cylinder Closer: Threshold: Metal

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: None Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Glass/metal surface-mounted ceiling globe N Electrical Conduit Mechanical Plumbing Plumbing & steam pipes, steel & copper, paper-faced insulation, extensive piping at ceiling

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Cooler, Food Storage Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 14

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Galvanized sheet metal Condition: E Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes:

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Diamond-textured stainless steel Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Galvanized sheet metal Condition: E Notes:

OTHER: Type: Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush, insulated (Pic. No. 13) Condition: Notes: No trim Hardware: Operation: Lock: Refrigerator latch Closer: Threshold: Steel

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Condition: Notes: Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/glass wet environmental wall sconce with compact fluorescent in standard base Electrical Mechanical Refrigeration system Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Kitchen Storage Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 12

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Wall not full-height in kitchen

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: Notes: None

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Liquid-applied self-leveling compound Condition: E Notes: Same as kitchen

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Same as kitchen; some mismatched replacement tiles

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood shelving Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Y Lock: Cylinder Closer: None Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Jalousie aluminum, obscure glazing Condition: Notes: Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Same as Kitchen: Steel/plastic surface with fluorescent lamps Electrical Surface metal electrical conduit Mechanical Cast iron radiators (3) Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Kitchen Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: First Floor Date: 05.21.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 8-11

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Some scratches and small spalls

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Base, dents and spalls

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Liquid-applied self-leveling compound Condition: E Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes: Some mismatched replacement tiles

OTHER: Casework Type: Wood shelving Condition: Notes:

OTHER: Equipment Type: Dishwasher & slop counter, prep counter with built-in sink, mostly stainless steel; non-permanently fixed equipment includes range, broiler, ice machine, refrigerator & ovens Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush / Corridor Condition: Notes: No trim Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Lock: Cylinder Closer: N Threshold: Metal

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Panel with Screen / Rear (Pic. No. 7) Condition: Notes: No trim, upper panel has screen Hardware: Operation: Aluminum knob, broken Lock: No Closer: Spring hinges Threshold: Metal

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush glazed, wire glass upper portion Condition: Notes: Wood trim Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Lock: No Closer: N Threshold: Metal

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung (Pic. No. 6) Condition: Notes: Trim includes panel covering upper sash Hardware:

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel/plastic surface with fluorescent lamps Electrical Surface metal electrical conduit Mechanical Exposed supply duct & grilles, sheet metal at ceiling; exhaust hood Plumbing Porcelain lavatory

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 004 / Hotel Office, Front Desk Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 05.23.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 6,7

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Exterior wall projects below windows, with wood cap; some uneven patches in wall surfaces

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Base

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: F Notes: Wear, stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Desks, cabinets, shelves, counters N; plywood with plastic laminate counters Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Flush access door / Storage compartment under stair Condition: Notes: See Rooms 001 & 005 for other doors Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Lock: Cylinder Closer: Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung (4) Condition: Notes: See Room 001 for window to that room Hardware: Brass locks and sash pull handles

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Fixed, wire glass / Main Stair (Pic. No. 8) Condition: Notes: Wood trim Hardware: Brass locks and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Steel, plastic with fluorescent lamps Electrical Mechanical Original cast iron radiator; different from prevailing type in building; steam piping exposed at wall & ceiling (Pic. No. 9); Plastic split A/C system N Plumbing

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 005 / Manager’s Office Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 05.23.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 6,7

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Exterior wall projects below windows, with wood cap; some uneven patches in wall surfaces

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes: Base

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Condition: F Notes: Wear, stains

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Tile Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework Type: Desks, cabinets, shelves, counters N; plywood with plastic laminate counters Condition: Notes:

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Glazed, 10 lights Condition: Notes: See Rooms 001 for door to it Hardware: Operation: Brass knob Lock: Brass deadbolt Closer: Threshold: None

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung (1) Condition: Notes: See Room 001 for window to that room Hardware: Brass locks and sash pull handles

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Surface ceiling, steel/plastic with fluorescent lamps Electrical Conduit Mechanical Plastic split A/C system N Plumbing Plumbing & steam pipes, steel & copper, paper-faced insulation; extensive piping at ceiling

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: 003 / Staff Toilet, Changing Room Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 05.23.2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: 3-5

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes:

Trim Wood Plaster Other: Resilient flooring on wall with wood cap Condition: G Notes: Wainscot

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Resilient flooring Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Various Condition: Notes: Steel toilet partitions; steel/glass mirror with parcel shelf; stainless steel/plastic accessories: towel dispenser, soap dispenser, toilet seat cover dispenser, toilet paper dispenser

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: Notes: Hardware: Brass lock and sash pull handle

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Glass/metal surface ceiling globe N Electrical Conduit Mechanical Plumbing Lavatory – original cast iron with enamel, chrome faucets- separate hot & cold Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain Plumbing & steam pipes, steel & copper, paper-faced insulation; extensive piping on ceiling

Women’s Faculty Club, UC Berkeley Knapp Architects Room No. / Name: Men’s and Women’s Toilet Rooms Historic Structures Report - General Room Survey Wing / Floor: Basement Date: 14 June 2013 Surveyor: FHK Legend: E Excellent G Good F Fair P Poor Pic. No.: toilet basement, men toilet

WALLS General Gyp. bd. Plaster Other: Condition: G Notes:

Wainscot Ceramic Tile. Condition: G

Base Wood Plaster Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G

FLOORS Carpet Asph. Tile Other: Ceramic Tile Condition: G Notes:

CEILINGS Gyp. bd. Acou. Plas. Other: Condition: G Notes:

OTHER: Casework & Accessories Type: Various Condition: Notes: Steel toilet partitions; steel/glass mirror with parcel shelf; stainless steel/plastic accessories: towel dispenser, soap dispenser, toilet seat cover dispenser, toilet paper dispenser

DOOR Leaf: Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim: Metal Wood Other: Type/Location: Condition: Notes: Hardware: Operation: Lock: Closer: Threshold:

WINDOWS Sash Metal Wood Other: Frame/Trim Metal Wood Other: Type: Double-hung Condition: G

INFRASTRUCTURE Lighting Glass/metal surface ceiling N Plumbing Lavatory – porcelain wall-mount N Water closet - floor mount tank porcelain N Plumbing & steam pipes, extensive piping on ceiling

Appendix VII Additional Photographs

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX VII Lucy Ward Stebbins, the first president of Jessica Peixotto earned her bachelor’s Sarah R. Davis was the Club’s first the Club (1919-1941) and the second dean degree at UC Berkeley in 1894 and in 1900 secretary-treasurer. She taught in the of women at UC Berkeley (1912-1941), was a was the second woman to earn at PhD at Physical Education Department for professor in Social Economics. Photograph the University. In 1918, she became the first Women and introduced a number of from Club collection, provided by the woman to be a full professor at Berkeley, team sports to the campus. Photograph Bancroft Library. and in 1921-22 was the first woman to chair from Club collection, provided by the the Economics Department. She was the Bancroft Library. first vice-president of the Club. Photograph from Club collection, provided by the Bancroft Library.

President of the Club from 1941-1944, Agnes Mary Frances Patterson taught in the Faye Morgan was a professor of Nutrition and Department of Home Economics and ultimately chaired the Department of Home Economics served as its chair. She designed the Club’s logo. from 1918 until her retirement in 1954. Photograph from Club collection, provided by Photograph from Club collection, Bettmann the Bancroft Library. Archive/CORBIS, Stock Photo ID: U899155ACME 3/31/1949.

ii APPENDIX VII KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

West elevation, showing landscape and walk adjacent to building. North elevation of north wing. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge, looking east. Door to Foyer is on left and door to Library is on right. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Below: Lucy Ward Stebbins Lounge, looking northwest. Peg Skorpinski photograph, 2004.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX VII iii

Foyer, looking northeast into serving area and Dining Room beyond. Peg Skorpinski photograph, 2004.

Dining Room, looking east. Peg Skorpinski photograph, 2004.

Margaret Whitney Uridge Library, looking southeast. Peg Skorpinski photograph, 2004.

iv APPENDIX VII KNAPP ARCHITECTS WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Left: Door to walk-in cooler from kitchen. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Right: Interior of walk-in cooler. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

Twin suite guest sleeping room. Mary Remy photograph, 2011.

Left: Single occupancy guest sleeping room. Mary Remy photograph, 2011.

Right: Built-in drawers and open shelves in guest sleeping room closet. Knapp Architects photograph, 2013.

WOMEN’S FACULTY CLUB HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT KNAPP ARCHITECTS APPENDIX VII v

Knapp Architects Historic Preservation 5 Third Street, Suite 920 San Francisco, CA 94103 www.knapp-architect.com