Normandy Village

A Cultural Resource Survey of a Post-World War II Development

Report prepared by Caitlyn Price, Eric Litchford, Meg Schloemer, and Amber Edmonds UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

FALL 2013

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... 3

Methodology...... 5

History...... 7

Analysis...... 25

Recommendations...... 32

Bibliography...... 35

Glossary...... 39

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cultural resources are some of the most valuable, yet most endangered resources in the United States. Progress often results in the demolition of buildings deemed “old” or “unattractive” in order to build “new and improved” structures. Post-World War II housing developments, such as Normandy Village in Fredericksburg, Virginia, are currently at the greatest risk of being destroyed in the name of prog- ress, but these neighborhoods have much to offer in terms of American history. Therefore, this cultural resource survey was undertaken to investigate Normandy Village to determine whether it is an impor- tant cultural resource worthy of protection through historic preservation.

The research team surveyed each property to collect information on structural features such as style, materials, condition, alterations, and evidence of construction date in order to determine historical integrity. These features were compared to characteristics of early suburban housing developments to establish the degree to which Normandy Village exemplifies the composition and character of post- war neighborhoods.

Results from the survey and analysis show the neighborhood is primarily a single-family housing development predominantly built from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. The neighborhood features characteristics of typical post-World War II suburbs. Further, the majorities of the structures are well-maintained and have not been substantially altered from their original mid-century forms. Thus, Normandy Village is a significant and largely in-tact example of the changes in American housing and lifestyle after World- War- II.

While the majority of structures contribute to the historical integrity and post-war character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood faces multiple threats. The largest is the neighborhood’s current lack

3 of significance. Without being recognized as a cultural resource, Normandy Village is at risk of being lost to neglect or new construction and future expansion.

In order to maintain the character and significance of Normandy Village, we recommend the neigh- borhood be extended some degree of protection. There are various options, to be discussed in a subse- quent section, but the overall purpose of each is clear: to educate the public on the contribution neigh- borhoods like Normandy Village make to the interpretation of American history. Once the subdivision is identified as a significant cultural resource, action can be taken to preserve and protect its character.

4 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of undertaking this Cultural Resource Survey in Normandy Village was to assess the history and integrity of the properties within to determine the neighborhood’s potential for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In September of 2013, two classes were divided into ten groups of four people to survey different areas of the 1950s neighborhood in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

During our work in the field from September 22 to September 25, 2013, we surveyed these assigned properties in groups of two or three people. The surveying process began with sketches and documentary photographs. We then recorded the characteristics of the properties that were relevant to the significance criteria of the National Register. The characteristics vital to our analysis include the overall style, architectural features, condition, materials, integrity, and use of each property, as well as any immediate threats to the structures such as new construction or large trees.

In addition to our time in the field, we also conducted archival research to help us figure out both the construction dates of the properties and the overall history of the neighborhood. This information was collected from the Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg Clerk’s Office, the Fredericksburg Research Resources database, Simpson Library, and Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, and the Virginiana Room at the Central Rappahannock Library.

After preliminary data was collected and archival research was completed, SPSS was used to correct any mistakes present in the survey information to ensure accuracy in our analysis. Mapping software and Photoshop were used to create maps based on the data, and Excel was used to create tables and charts to better illustrate our results. We compared our results to our research finding to analyze the extent to which Normandy Village reflects national trends in the mid-twentieth- century. This comparison

5 allowed us to propose treatments for the preservation of the neighborhood as an early example of the new suburban lifestyle that characterized post-World War II America.

Online survey form

6 HISTORY

The area known as Normandy Village is a mid-nineteenth-century development in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Although the area consists of two distinct tracts, the Fairgrounds subdivision and the later Normandy Village subdivision, together the neighborhoods are local examples of significant events and changes in American history that still affect modern life.

Early Fredericksburg

Although the land upon which Normandy Village was built was not always part of Fredericksburg, it shares much of its history with the City. Fredericksburg was part of a 2000 acre tract granted to John Buckner and Thomas Royston in 1671, who in 1721 laid out a town of 50 acres (Royston and Buckner, 1721). Seven years later in 1728, the town of Fredericksburg was officially established as a port for Spotsylvania County (Fredericksburg City Charter, amended 2009). Its location on the south bank of the Rappahannock River made it a convenient and popular sea port where containers of tobacco, weapons, and other goods could be shipped to and from Fredericksburg. The river also led to the development of many lumber and flour mills in and around the area, and trade and industry became the staples of Fredericksburg’s thriving economy throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

During this period, Fredericksburg had many famous residents such as Mary Washington, James Monroe, and John Paul Jones. The town welcomed many influential visitors as well, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who are said to have met in many of the town’s taverns and whispered about plans for the Revolutionary War (Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce, 1976). Fredericksburg would see many more famous visitors in the coming century, as its location between the Union capitol in Washington, D.C. and the Confederate capitol in Richmond made the area a natural battleground. The Battles of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Chancellorsville, and the Wilderness raged no more than twelve miles from Fredericksburg and brought devastation to much of the area 7 (Heidler & Heidler, 2000). Commerce and progress came to a halt and important buildings were damaged or destroyed. Worse, while the United States was moving toward reliance on railroads for travel and trade, Fredericksburg had no railroad connection (Shibley, 1976). It took some time for the economy to rebound, but by the mid-1870s, Fredericksburg was a thriving town again and in 1879, it became a city independent of Spotsylvania County (Fredericksburg City Charter, amended 2009). Civil war damage in Fredericksburg

A Growing City

Before its chartering as a city, the boundaries of Fredericksburg were expanded six times (Alvey, 1978). As the economy and the population of the City grew after the Civil War, residents began looking for entertainment. By the late 1880s, a fair had not been held for the city for over twenty-five years. The last fair had been held in 1860 near Spotswood Street, but was forced to stop when the Civil War began in 1861 (Quinn, 1908). By 1878, that area had been developed and was no longer large enough to house the fair (Gray, 1878). The search began for sufficient fairgrounds and Amaret Farm, just west of town between Fall Hill Avenue and the Rappahannock River, was the clear favorite. The Rappahannock Valley Agricultural and Mechanical Society purchased the 64 acre farm in 1887 and it was there that annual agricultural fairs were held for almost half a century with “great success” (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1887; Quinn, 1908, p. 170).

The fairgrounds became a popular gathering place for many other events, especially horse racing. The property featured an equestrian race track and stables, and these amenities allowed Fredericksburg to host the 1928 “Greater Fair” in which the main event was a race between over 60 horses from across

Aerial of the old fairgrounds (note: the race track in the center) the country (Washington Post, 1928). By the early

8 1930s, the Great Depression had once again challenged Fredericksburg’s economy, and the fairgrounds suffered into oblivion (“History of the Fair,” 2012).

The Great Depression and the decades following it marked a turning point not only in Fredericksburg, but across the nation, and the resulting changes still affect American life in highly conspicuous ways. Although it took some time for Normandy Village and the Fredericksburg area to adapt to the changes that would present themselves in the years following the Great Depression, the true context for this neighborhood lies in national trends. Therefore, before exploring the history of Normandy Village specifically, we will examine the national developments that set the stage for the interpretation of the local neighborhood.

Desperate Times

In the early 1930s, the Great Depression swept the nation, causing deplorable living conditions in many areas and little chance of economic improvement, as few paying jobs were available. Developers could not afford to build or repair structures because people could not afford to pay for such services. There was an inescapable need for an improvement in the American economy and quality of life.

Recognizing this, the federal government took action with the National Housing Act of 1934, which hoped to create paying jobs and stimulate the economy by offering federal funds for home repairs and new construction (Pettis et. al., 2012). The Act also established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which encouraged lenders to invest in mortgages by providing insurance and limited lender interest rates to encourage people to buy homes (Pettis et. al., 2012; Public Law 73-479, 1934). Finally, up to this point, mortgages were 5-10 year instruments, which made them affordable to only a small, read wealthy, portion of the public. The National Housing Act extended mortgage terms to 20 or 30 years with fixed-interest rates, which made buying a home a more attainable, but not certain goal for the middle and lower classes (Public Law 73-479, 1934).

9 America at War

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the American naval station in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The next day, the United States entered World War II and converted to a full-scale war economy. Jobs were immediately plentiful and 15 million men and women went to work in some capacity for the armed services alone (Har- ris, Mitchell, & Schechter, 1984).

The vast majority of American resources were focused on the war effort. Americans conserved all they could, from money to bacon fat, and were encouraged to buy war bonds to insure victory Poster advocating for rationing during the war overseas. Gas was rationed, the speed limit on roads was set to 35 miles per hour, and pleasure driving was banned in order to save rubber and gasoline during the war (Harris et. al., 1984).While housing was not rationed, the influx of defense workers to military bases made housing a scarce commodity during the war. Local residents offered temporary shelter to those in need in places like garages, warehouses, and tents (Harris et. al., 1984). This desperate solution, while it fulfilled a need, would not suffice for long.

Great Changes

In September of 1945, the Allied Forces claimed victory over the Axis powers. Thousands of troops returned to the United States and exacerbated the already severe lack of housing. To make matters worse, many of the returning veterans were of marriage age, and the marriage rate soon reached its highest point to date (Super, 2005). The increased marriage rate led to the baby boom, the period from about 1946 to 1964 in which birth rates skyrocketed and maintained high levels (Ciment, 2007). This increase in family size meant that not only did America have veterans to house; it also had to house their wives and growing families.

While the federal government may not have anticipated the marriage and baby boom, it did

10 anticipate the housing problem. In order to combat the housing issue and the various other issues returning veterans would face, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Veterans Readjust- ment Act in 1944. This Act, better known as the G.I. Bill, gave war veterans access to unemployment compensation, federal funds to receive higher education and training, and low-interest loans to start businesses or build homes (“The GI Bill’s History,” 2012). Perhaps the most significant part of the legislation, however, was that it extended mortgage insurance to all veterans which, combined with veterans’ ability to secure loans, made it

easier for them to buy and build homes upon their return to the Severe lack of housing for returning troops United States (Pettis et. al., 2012).

Despite these benefits, there was an unfortunate lack of homes for returning veterans to purchase. New homes were being constructed, but most often only for the wealthy with “easy money to spend” (Bondi, 1995). This led the new president, Harry S. Truman, to sign the Veterans’ Emergency Housing Act in 1946, the objective of which was to make affordable housing for veterans the greatest priority for current resources without interfering much with the economic success of the construction industry (Bondi,1995). To do this, the federal government provided subsidies to producers of new materials that would allow developers to construct homes for veterans quickly and at less expense (Pettis et. al., 2012). Developers took the benefits of this legislation to the next level.

Traditional home construction was neither quick nor inexpensive, as most houses up until this point were uniquely designed for each client. Even with governmental subsidies, low-cost residential con- struction was at the bottom of developers’ lists; until William J. Levitt came along. Levitt was a real estate developer who, in 1946, bought 1200 acres of farmland in the Hempstead area of Long Island, New York (Bondi, 1995). He bulldozed everything on the farm, including the trees, and built the model for post-war housing: the suburb.

11 The idea of the suburb was based on the concept of economies of scale, which states the cost of an individual object in a homogeneous production process decreases as volume increases. Levitt capitalized on this, offering only a few moderate home styles to be built on lots just large enough to accommodate the house and a modest yard. The homes lined winding roads that were designed to slow down traffic. This model was extremely A street in Levittown, Maryland successful; not only was it attractive to families with young children searching for a safe, affordable place to live, it also used a standardized process that allowed Levitt to purchase materials in bulk and build up to 30 homes per day in his neighborhoods in the northeast United States and Puerto Rico (Ciment, 2007).

Levitt’s affordable idea was replicated throughout the United States at varying scales. Americans uprooted by the war were looking for a permanent place to call home, and home ownership became the center of the American Dream (Ciment, 2007). Levittowns and its successors opened home ownership opportunities to the expanded middle class and non-veterans. At the same time, the G.I. Bill helped make new suburban neighborhoods affordable for returning veterans. In fact, in both 1946 and 1947, over 40% of new home mortgages were financed through the G.I. Bill (Pettis et. al., 2012).

The combination of these housing innovations and the new American Dream of homeownership impacted the American way of life: more single family homes were purchased from 1946 to 1956 than had been purchased in the first half of the twentieth century preceding World War II (Super, 2005). However, while these events were important factors in the establishment and success of suburbs, they were not the only elements to significantly shape the new American landscape.

12 Great Prosperity

Aside from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was the only power in World War II to not be invaded or have its cities destroyed by bombs (Harris et. al., 1984). Because the infrastructure was intact and there was no need to spend resources rebuilding, America was able to essentially pick up where it left off, but this time in a better economic condition. After the war, per capita income increased by 35% (Super, 2005). With growing incomes and four years of saved money, Americans were ready to spend and as a result, consumerism became a way of life. People purchased homes, cars, appliances, and other modern conveniences in record numbers, and this willingness to buy fueled the development and longevity of suburban neighborhoods.

The economy continued to grow in the 1950s, with 60% of the population having a middle-class income midway through the decade (Super, 2005). The decade wascharacterized by a feeling of confidence and optimism and a never-ending desire for progress (Super, 2005). The general quality of life, particularly in terms of economic prosperity, helped fuel the baby boom. From 1945 to 1955, the birth rate increased by 25% while the Gross National Product more than doubled (Ciment, 2007). This coupling of economic prosperity and the baby boom directly influenced the growth of suburbs. In 1940, children ages five to eighteen

Saftey in the suburbs accounted for 20% of the population, 19.5% of which lived in suburbs. By 1960, one in three Americans was a school-age child, and 30.7% of the United States population now lived in suburbs because they provided a safe, controlled environment for children (Ciment, 2007).

The factors that characterized the 1950s continued into the 1960s, which was the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in American history in which per capita income increased by 41% (Hamilton, Brunelle, Scully, and Sherman, 2000). The baby and housing booms also continued into

13 the 1960s. In fact, from 1940 to 1960, home ownership grew from 43% to 62%, and the most modern, stylish housing situation was a single family home in the suburbs (Super, 2005). Again, while the baby boom and affluent society of the 1950s and 60s made significant contributions to the growth of the suburbs, these events do not fully explain “mass exodus” of middle-class families to the suburbs.

Car Culture

The 1950s was one of the most significant turning points in American history. Not only was this decade characterized by mass production and consumerism and the peak of the Baby Boom, it also solidi- fied the United States as an automobile culture. Automobile sales skyrocketed from 2 million in 1945 to 51 million in 1955 (Super, 2005). This was no doubt due to the economic prosperity the country was experiencing, but it was also the result of gradually improving road conditions. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, roads were often nothing more than dirt paths littered with dangers like ruts, rocks, and improper drainage. Combined with less than ideal The automobile ride as leisure time tires, cars that left the city limits risked getting stuck in the mud (Heitmann, 2009). Citizens began pushing for better roads in the early 1900s, and it soon became a national movement.

Concerns about roads were finally addressed in 1956 when the Federal-Aid Highway Act was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Its provision for $175 million to aid the construction of interstate was the first federal funding of its kind. Eisenhower said this act was simply to get the interstate system started, but that more must be done. Following this notion, the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act, which allowed for $25 billion to be spent from 1956 to 1968 on a 41,000 mile network of new roads, was passed in 1956. The roads built under this program were to be of the “highest standards” of safety and efficiency (Pettis et. al., 2012).

While the project took longer than expected, the new highway system did transform American life.

14 Travel time in America decreased, and citizens could live further from their jobs. In fact, it is unlikely that any of these elements: automobiles, highways, or suburbs would exist to the extent they do today without each other. Cars fueled the need for highways and the success of the suburbs, while suburbs fueled the use of cars and the building of highways and access roads. Instead of building schools, stores, and services within walking distance, suburbs were built to be large, single-use, residential tracts (Jennings, 1990). To access their jobs, run errands, and take their children to and from school and other activities, families had to buy cars and use roads.

There were risks associated with the increased use of automobiles and the increased speed the new highways facilitated. Newspapers often featured stories of multiple motorist deaths, especially over holiday weekends, and safety became a large concern in and out of the car, particularly when children were involved (Free Lance-Star, 1959). Despite its associated dangers, it is clear that the automobile was both a contributing factor to and a result of the new prosperous, suburban lifestyle. The American dependence on cars facilitated the “mass exodus to the suburbs” and formed the neighborhoods and streetscapes that are still familiar today (Super, 2005).

Suburban Iconography

The new consumption-driven culture was evident in every aspect of American life. The American Dream was not just about owning a home; the home needed to be as safe, comfortable, and efficient as possible. Before World War II, more people lived in cities than in suburbs. After the war, however, growing concerns over safety and vice in the city led young families to look for a more quiet and safe place to live

where they still had access to what the city had to offer (Hall, Winding streets of Levittown, New York 2006). They found this in rural areas just outside of the city and small towns, where life was simpler and reminiscent of pre-modern America. These two factors, the demand for urban amenities and a

15 mythical neighborhood “cloaked in a rustic atmosphere”, formed the vision of the American suburb and caused middle-class families to flock to the suburbs (Hall, 2006, p. 663).

What did the “rustic atmosphere” mean in terms of the appearance of suburbs? It meant planned communities with pattern-book homes neatly placed on spacious, individual lots on carefully winding roads (Hall, 2006). The goal was to create the look and feel of a park, so lots often featured lush landscaping and winding sidewalks. Suburbs were also meant to be a clean place to live for modern families with strong morals. In fact, the popular culture image of the model family was a nuclear group with an uncomplicated life “nested in a colonial, ranch, or cape cod house with modern conveniences” (Hall, 2006, p. 665).

The image of the model home and family translated to reality, as the most common home styles in the early 1940s and on were the cape cod and ranch. After the war, more modern styles began to dominate. While the cape cod and ranch remained very popular, the minimal traditional home became the dominant style (Lewis, 2011).

Each of these styles were popular because their designs reflected the social, economic, and technological trends in America. Suburban homes were stressed as places where the wife established and enforced morals and created a nurturing atmosphere for her family. To promote family bonds, these homes often featured single-story open plans with a cooking, eating, and lounging area and a roomy, easily accessible front and backyard perhaps equipped with a patio and barbeque for outdoor fun (Hall, 2006; Carley, 1994). Multi-pane and picture windows became popular because they allowed natural light into living spaces and made homes more “people-friendly” (Carley, 1994, p. 230). The ranch floor plan was designed to easily accommodate all of these features, and as a result it became the “ultimate symbol of the American Dream” in the decades following World War II (Carley, 1994, p. 236).

Suburban housing tracts were made possible by the American highway system and the automobile, but

16 they also encouraged the use of cars. New single family homes featured driveways that often led to a carport or, if the family could afford it, a garage (Jennings, 1990). This dependence on cars transformed roadside America as well. Commercial architecture took over to capitalize on and facilitate the popular use of cars; gas stations, motor courts, motels, restaurants, service stations, and strip shopping malls with off-street parking lined suburban access roads (Jennings, 1990). Some businesses even went as far to have automobile service stations in or immediately outside of suburban neighborhoods in order to be as close to their middle-class, paying customers at all times (Jennings, 1990).

Strip malls and shopping centers were also built in close quarters to suburban neighborhoods to not only capitalize on consuming neighborhood customers, but also people driving through town who may be compelled to stop. Shopping malls enticed locals and passers-by to “stop and shop” at their facilities where virtually anything the consumer wished to buy was available, which gave rise to the idea of “one- stop” shopping (Super, 2005).

Drawing Conclusions

It should now be clear that suburban America would not have been possible, or at least not become as widespread, without the four factors discussed above: housing legislation, the baby boom, economic prosperity, and the solidification of the United States as a car culture. These national trends reached every community across the nation, and examples of their impact are visible virtually everywhere. The aftermath of World War II still affects American life, and Normandy Village is a quintessential local example of the impact.

Local Impact

The complex events discussed above fundamentally altered American life across the nation, but not overnight. Regional differences and varying circumstances allowed some towns to adopt trends early while others took some time. While Fredericksburg, Virginia was not an early adopter, it certainly wasn’t a laggard either. Instead, the timetable by which the city adopted national trends seems to have been based on local demand and need.

17 Recall the negative impact the Great Depression had on the quality of life in the early 1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act into law in June of 1934, and it seems as though Fredericksburg had a need for affordable housing and at least one contractor who was willing to build it, because the city took action (Pettis et. al., 2012). A local development that is likely a result of this legislation is Elmhurst Avenue off of Pelham Street between Washington and Fall Hill Avenues. This small “subdivision” was established in 1935 and predominantly features Cape Cod houses (Short- er, n.d.). Building multiple houses in the same style with bulk materials could be done quickly and at relatively low expense, all while creating jobs and homes in the community. Therefore, Elmhurst is an example of the National Housing Act’s influence right after its passing; the country was still suffering economically, but places with substantial demand and willing contractors were encouraged to do what they could to improve quality of life and stimulate the economy because their efforts were backed by the full faith of the federal government (Pettis et. al., 2012; Super, 2005).

The National Housing Act may have also eventually given new life to the old Fredericksburg fair- grounds. On October 31, 1940, fifteen blocks were laid out on the land in Spotsylvania County to establish the new Fairgrounds, also known as Amaret Farm, subdivision (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1940). [advertising plat from Meg/Stanton] Over thirty people invested in the land, many of which were prominent local businessmen and some of which who purchased entire blocks. Despite the inves- tors’ fervor, it seems construction of homes was soon abandoned due to the United States’ entrance into World War II on December 8, 1941.

World War II did more than just stall residential construction in Fredericksburg; it brought road construction to a halt. Since May of 1927, Princess Anne Street and Lafayette Boulevard, collectively known as U.S. Route 1, were the principal roads used to pass through the City of Fredericksburg (Jef- ferson Davis Highway Opening Parade Program, 1927). However, early in 1941, construction on a new Route 1 that would begin at the Falmouth Bridge and end at Four Mile Fork, bypassing the city, was begun. The project lost priority later in the year when the United States entered World War II as all productive resources were to be put toward the war effort (Free Lance-Star, 1945).

18 Construction of the Route 1 bypass actually resumed during the war in October of 1944, and even though the length of the bypass was only about five miles, it took another two years to complete (Free Lance-Star, 1945). The bypass opened in the summer of 1946, and played a major role in the transformation of the look and feel of Fredericksburg after World War II and into modern times (Free Lance-Star, 1946).

Advertisement for the fair grounds subdivision

One of the first developments along the Route 1 bypass corridor was the Fairgrounds subdivision. Records show the first few homes were built in 1945, but it was not until 1947 and 1948, after the Route 1 bypass was built, that home construction in the neighborhood takes off (Fredericksburg City Directory, 1945). Roads such as the bypass directly influenced the growth of suburbs because they made traveling further than just a few blocks not only possible, but also fast. Families could now live further from their jobs and other activities in Fredericksburg because cars and roads allowed them to drive there in an acceptable amount of time. Post-war families found this lifestyle compelling, because they could live a safe, quiet, moral life in the suburbs without giving up the amenities the city had to offer. 19 The fairgrounds subdivision was populated with the most prevalent housing styles of the post-war era in which the ideal modern family was said to live: the ranch, minimal traditional, and Cape Cod. It may have been the subdivi- sion’s stylish and attractive potential that caused so many prominent citizens in the Fredericksburg area to purchase lots for personal homes or for investment profits. Original A model built by L.C. Mitchell investors who purchased more than one lot included the President of the Fredericksburg Mutual Building and Loan Association Cecil L. Reid, attorney A.W. Embrey, insurance and real estate agent John W. Allison, and Robert B. Payne, who started a heating and cooling company that is still successful today (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1940). Many of these investors trusted their lots to contractors Louis C. Mitchell or B&C Homes, Inc., who were active in the area in the 1950s and built many of the homes along Hanson Avenue Woodford Street, respectively (“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011).

Not all of the original landowners bought in bulk. Suburban neighborhoods were a place for the middle class, so it follows that some of the first owners would purchase single lots upon which to build a family home. Potential examples of the first inhabitants of the Fairgrounds subdivision are Miss Ruth M. Olds, a stenographer for John W. Allison’s real estate and insurance company, and W. Percy Brown, who worked at the post office (Fredericksburg City Directory, 1938). It is unclear if any veterans in the Fredericksburg area took advantage of the G.I. Bill to purchase homes in the Fairgrounds subdivision, but the federal championing of affordable single family home construction certainly allowed families like those of Olds and Brown to purchase homes outside of the city.

Unfortunately, the Fairgrounds subdivision did not welcome everyone. American suburbs, with few exceptions, were homogeneous developments for white, middle class families. This is likely due to the fact that suburban neighborhoods were conceived in the mid-twentieth-century, when prejudice and segregation were a general social norm. Since it would be built in part of the old south, the contract

20 that started the Fairgrounds subdivision in 1941 contained a clause that banned any person of African descent from purchasing, leasing, using, occupying, or serving as a domestic servant in the neighborhood for 99 years (Spotsylvania County Clerk, 1941). Therefore, life in the suburbs was arguably not as moral and clean as it was made out to be.

Nevertheless, the Fairgrounds subdivision grew, and Fredericksburg expanded as well. Up to this point, the fairgrounds were part of Spotsylvania County. It was not until 1951, when the city annexed 234 acres, that the Fairgrounds subdivision became part of Fredericksburg (Fredericksburg City Clerk, 1951). While the annexation expanded Fredericksburg’s population and tax base, it did not change much in terms of the neighborhood. The roads in the Fairgrounds subdivision, which were laid out by the time the first homes were built in the late 1940s, had been named for important figures in Fredericksburg history. Woodford Street, for example, was named for General William Woodford who commanded Virginia troops during the Revolutionary War while Wallace Street was named for the Wallace family who was active in Fredericksburg throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century and donated their book collection to form the basis for the Central Rappahannock Regional Library (Alvey, 1978).

The Fairgrounds subdivision saw substantial development in the 1950s. It’s almost immediate success, and the popularity of suburbs across the nation, kept demand strong, and developers took advantage of the situation. A Free Lance Star article that ran in the June 26, 1954 issue reported the biggest [housing project] in city history” had begun on the old 37.5 acre Normandy Farm across Fall Hill Avenue from the Fairgrounds subdivision.

The planned community, called Normandy Village, would feature 100 affordable brick homes in five stylistic variations (Free Lance-Star, 1954). When surveyor L. R. R. Curtis created a blueprint of the 22 homes constructed by November of 1954, three house types were shown; types A and C were ranches while type B was a ranch rotated 90 degrees, which resulted in a long and deep, bungalow-like floor plan with a minimal traditional exterior (Curtis, 1954).

21 These first homes were a trial run by the contractor Normandy Village, Inc., likely to make sure the neighborhood would catch on. Their strategy was much like that of William J. Levitt and Louis C. Mitchell: build many of the same houses to conserve time and money. Money seemed to be of great concern for Normandy Village, Inc. from the start, as it was incorporated in Delaware where legal and monetary requirements on corporations are minimal compared to most other states (Agreement be- tween Fredericksburg and Normandy Village, Inc., 1955). To further cushion their profit margin, Normandy Village, Inc. designed their homes and construction process to allow a home to be complet- ed in about three weeks (Free Lance-Star, 1954). While the Normandy Village area was predominantly residential, the blocks closest to the Route 1 bypass often contained commercial and industrial developments. This was not abnormal; recall that automobile service stations were often placed as close to suburban neighborhoods as possible to capitalize on

Blanton’s bypass service station the middle class residents’ use of cars. Normandy Village is no exception. Blanton Motor Company, a repair shop and car dealership, was built by L.C. Mitchell on Wallace Street in 1952 and less than two years later, another repair shop called Service Transportation, Inc. was built down the street (“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011).

As the American reliance on the car automobile escalated, commercial development increased as well. The George Washington Motor Court was built about a mile from Normandy Village in the 1950s to house travelers and soon after, the strip mall was born to fulfill their shopping needs, as well as those of Fredericksburg residents. The first of these “stop and shop” centers, called the Amaret Shopping Center, was built cross the bypass from Normandy Village in 1956 by L.C. Mitchell (“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011).

22 At this time, car culture in America was thriving and automobile sales were rising as families were buying vehicles to accommodate their new lifestyles. While husbands were at work, wives were in charge of taking care of the children and transporting them to their schools that were no longer within walking distance. Local car dealership Beck Chevrolet realized the sales potential of the “second family car” to fulfill these modern family needs

and therefore aimed its advertisements at suburban Another ad from Beck’s aimed at suburban women Fredericksburg women. They ran an ad in August of 1958, just before the school year began, that featured an attractive woman above the words, “Mother: for that second car to take junior to and from school, see and drive a safe-ok used car from Beck’s” (Free Lance-Star, 1958).

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 further intensified the ease and frequency of use of the automobile in the United States. The Fredericksburg area was somewhat of an early adopter of the legislation, as a 17.4 mile stretch of the brand new Interstate 95, which would run from Route 17 just north of Fredericksburg to Prince William County, was approved in 1958 (Free Lance-Star, 1958). The $24.2 million project took quite some time to complete and was expanded to reach Massaponax to the south, but by December of 1964, the “superhighway” was ready. An opening ceremony was held in the frigid cold to celebrate Fredericksburg’s modernity and its new connection to a vastly expanded network of roads, destinations, and visitors (“95 at 40,” 2004).

It is important to note that while cars were celebrated in American culture, they also posed great danger to human life both inside and outside of the car. Even suburban neighborhoods like Normandy Village, where roads were designed to slow traffic, recognized the dangers associated with the reliance on automobiles. In an October 1958 letter to the Fredericksburg City Manager, housed at the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center in Fredericksburg, the president of the Normandy Village Civic

23 Association expressed concerns over the safety of the neighborhood’s roads. He requested various improvements, such as twenty-five mile per hour and speed limit and “children at play” signs. The association president also requested a stop sign at the intersection of Fall Hill and Hanson Avenues, where a “rash of minor automobile accidents” had occurred and meant it would “only [be] a matter of time before someone [was] hurt seriously or killed” (Letter from William H. Hughes to F. Freeman Funk, 1958).

The construction of I-95, which saw its own share of automobile accidents, relieved some of these safety concerns as traffic on Route 1 decreased. This decrease in traffic along the corridor did not stop development, however, because the consumerist fire was still burning in Fredericksburg. The Fredericksburg Shopping Center, which was built in the 1970s just beyond the backyards of homes on Woodford Street in Normandy Village, was the epitome of one-stop shopping (“Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits,” 2011). It featured an Italian restaurant, barber shop, and bank in addition to stores selling groceries, shoes, sports equipment, electronics, and of course tires (Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce, 1976). As time went on, the area of the Route 1 corridor on the outskirts of Normandy Village was fully developed and continued to reflect architectural trends. For example, the 1960s and 70s began to push for less offensive roadside architecture (Hamilton et. al., 2000). This resulted in more residential forms like the structures on Route 1 in front of Normandy Village that today house the BB&T and Wells Fargo banks.

Looking at Normandy Village and the surrounding Route 1 corridor, not much has changed. Many of the buildings that resulted from post-war trends remain standing. In addition, since America still relies on cars for daily activities, roadside attractions still cater to the automobile. Fast food restaurants, car washes and repair shops, shopping centers, gas stations, and convenience stores line not just Route 1, but countless American arterials. Many of these arterials and commercial strips, new or old, are in close quarters to large tracts of identical homes like Normandy Village. In other words, the post-World War II ideals of the suburban lifestyle and planned community still hold strong today, and their prevalence is likely to remain until another fundamental shift in American life occurs.

24 ANALYSIS

Development

While the 269 structures in Normandy Village were constructed between 1944 and 2010, graph 1 shows development primarily took place between 1949 and 1959. 46% of the surveyed structures were built in 1955 and 1956. This is likely a result of the 1955 construction agreement between Normandy Village and the City of Fredericksburg that required at least 100 homes to be built on the Normandy Farm property. Map 1 shows the grouping of homes built in this time period in the true Normandy Village section of the neighborhood. Out of the structures surveyed, 88% were historically used as single family residences. This data reflects the national trend of post-World War II suburban, single family, housing development. Between 1950 and 1959 over 15 million new homes were built nation- wide opposed to the 7.4 million constructed between 1940 and 1949 (Checkoway, 2009). Of homes built in 1950s, 80.6% were built in suburbs outside of cities (Checkoway, 2009). The suburban boom of which Normandy Village is a part can be credited to government programs and changing transportation, cultural, social and economic trends in post-World War II America.

Chart 1: Normandy Village Construction Dates by decade

25 Map 1: Construction dates in Normandy Village

The development of Normandy Village as a whole coincides with the age of the automobile. The postwar development of freeways, inexpensive gas and affordable automobiles drastically increased automobile ownership (Pettis et. al., 2012). The ratio of car ownership went from 1 car per 13 people (1:13) in 1920 to 1:4.8 in 1940 to 1:2.3 in 1970 (Fink, 1988). This allowed for people to move out of the city and into nearby suburbs.

Post war economic affluence also gave people the means to fund new construction. The median family income rose from $3,343 during the war to $5,150 post-war (The Impact of World War II on Postwar American Culture). The improved economy along with the return of nine million veterans also increased marriage and birth rates (Pettis et. al., 2012). The resulting increase in family size furthered the need for housing following World War II. The primary construction period and building use in Normandy Village shows the influence of these trends.

26 The construction of the majority of Normandy Village in the 1950s can also be contributed to government programs, such as the National Housing Acts of 1934 and 1949 that provided mortgage insurance and made home buying more attainable (Hoffman, 2002). These acts represent the Federal Government’s precedence of single family home construction over other types of development. This created a political environment that allowed for Normandy Village to later develop as a primarily single family residential neighborhood.

The remaining 22% of structures that were not constructed between 1949 and 1959 fall into three categories. Some were simply built later in the twentieth century, while others are modern homes that were built after an original home was torn down. The remaining buildings are commercial structures that developed along Route 1. Aesthetically the commercial buildings are distinct from the residential buildings in Normandy Village but they still fit within the larger development pattern of the neighborhood. The commercial structures developed from increased automobile use and favorable economic conditions the same as the residential area of the neighborhood. The difference being that the commercial buildings developed to provide services to the new population of people using automo- biles and living in suburbs

As shown in map 2, the residential structures surveyed in Normandy Village consist of 8 different styles. 90% of the buildings are homes built in the ranch, cape cod, neocolonial, and minimal tradi- tional style, additionally, 0.7% are split level structures (refer to chart 2). These building styles reflect the 5 architectural styles proposed by the original developers of Normandy Village (Free Lance-Star, 1954). On a national scale these styles were used in suburban development because their prefabricated nature allowed for cheap and quick construction which could efficiently satisfy the post- war housing demand (Super, 2005).

27 Chart 2: Structure Style Frequency

Two styles of houses make up the majority of the area surveyed; 58% of the homes are ranches and 23% are minimal traditional. The dominance of the ranch style in the surveyed area correlates with this style’s post-war popularity. 90% of the ranches in the survey area were constructed in the 15 years after World War II. The ranches constructed in Normandy Village during this time reflect the development of suburbs as ideal places to raise children and live a safe, clean, modern life. As automobiles became the primary means of transportation neighborhoods were not required to be as compact as in cities or street-car suburbs. The ranch’s sprawling form, often complete with built-in garages, compliments the greater space provided by suburbs (McAlester, 1984). The minimal traditional homes in the surveyed area are again a product of post war housing developments. The cheap and efficient mass construction of minimal traditional homes served to quickly satisfy the postwar housing demand (Draft Preservation Plan Workbook).

The cape cods (4.8%) and neocolonial (4.1%), were largely built in the same peak period between 1949 and 1959, but their lower frequencies indicate that they were not as cheaply and efficiently constructed in mass as the minimal traditional and ranch styles. The two split level houses in the survey area coincide with the popularity of the ranch as the split level was a popular modification of the ranch style (McAlester, 1984). The commercial and industrial structures that account for 9% of the buildings 28 developed apart from the residential structures of the neighborhood. All of the commercial structures and all but one of the industrial structures are located on the eastern border of the neighborhood in close proximity to Route 1. 75% of the commercial and industrial structures were built after 1949-1959. Their later construction correlates with the approval of Interstate 95 in 1958 and its construction in 1964. (Free Lance-Star, 1958). This reveals that the commercial structures were developed as a function of even greater automobile traffic that was afforded to Fredericksburg through the construction of new roads.

Map 2: Building Styles in Normandy Village

29 Condition

As shown in chart 3 the buildings surveyed in Normandy Village were categorized as excellent, good, fair or poor based on their condition. 4.5% of the buildings surveyed were considered excellent, 90% were considered good, 4.8% were considered fair and 0.7% were considered poor. The large portion of buildings in good condition is a result of many of the structures being maintained well but having some replacement features such as windows and doors. The structures in poor condition were typically a result of aesthetic and or structural degradation due to neglect.

Chart 3: Condition of the buildings in Normandy Village

Eligibility

From the information gathered, Normandy Village can be identified as a significant example of one of the many post-World War II suburban housing developments nationwide. This establishes the neighborhood’s period of significance as the 1949-1959 period in which 77% of the structures were built. 81% of the structures surveyed in Normandy Village meet the historic associations and architectural qualities to be considered a contributing structure to the neighborhood’s post-war suburban identity. To be considered a contributing structure it must be a single family home and built in an architectural style consistent with the neighborhood.

30 While ranches dominate the neighborhood, the cape cod, minimal traditional, and neocolonial structures provide the neighborhood with architectural diversity. Additionally, these structures were largely built within the period of significance and are prevalent enough to be considered homogenous with the neighborhood. Non-eligible structures, which accounted for 19% of the structures surveyed, consisted of 26 buildings that were not residences, 2 that were multi-family homes, and 23 that were single family homes but feature architecture inconsistent with the neighborhood.

Map 3:Contributing and non-contributing structures

Conclusion

Through this analysis, Normandy Village has shown to be a significant example of a post-World War II suburban development. The structures surveyed are largely in good or excellent condition and retain much of their historical significance. The neighborhood’s main period of growth, building use, and architectural styles embody a distinctive period in American history.

31 RECOMMENDATIONS

The research and analysis clearly show Normandy Village is an intact example of the changes World War II brought to American life, but it is important to note that it is not the only example. Neighborhoods such as this one were so necessary and popular after the war that they are common occurrences across the country. However, this does not mean Normandy Village is insignificant.

When thinking about Fredericksburg, one most often imagines the downtown historic district. However, Normandy Village is just a mile from the center of downtown and, as the archival research shows, shares much of its history with the City of Fredericksburg. The old fairgrounds were located by the Rappahannock River, and therefore shared in the City’s milling and sea trading industries. The Normandy Village grounds were later used as a gathering place and event location before being annexed into the City. When the land was turned into a housing development after World War II, many of Fredericksburg’s middle-class, white residents flocked there. Therefore, Normandy Village is as much a part of Fredericksburg as the historic downtown and adds a new, nationally-significant dimension to the City’s history.

It is also important to consider what will happen if Normandy Village is not preserved. Not only are these neighborhoods plentiful, many people also believe they are unattractive. This general opinion is why mid-century neighborhoods are at such great risk for demolition and substantial change. If mid-century neighborhoods are not protected, they will eventually disappear, and America will have lost a significant aspect of its culture and history.

Normandy Village is a prime candidate for preservation. As the analysis shows, the majority of the residential structures were built in the 1950s, making these structures eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as they are at least fifty years old. In addition, many of the structures are 32 largely unchanged and give the neighborhood a distinctive mid-century character. The types of structures and the general integrity of form and materials in Normandy Village fulfill National Register evaluation criterion (c), which recognizes locations that “embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2008).

To reiterate the history, the neighborhood also exemplifies the major trends of the post-World War II era that changed American life. This characteristic also qualifies Normandy Village for the National Register under criterion (a), as the neighborhood is “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2008).

For these reasons, we recommend an overlay district be established by the City of Fredericksburg to include the region shown in Map 4. This zoning tool would institute authoritative guidelines for alterations to structures visible from the public right of way in the historic district. Any landowner in the historic district wishing to modify their structure would need to petition an Architectural Review Board, which would also enforce the rules of the district.

Map 4: Proposed historic district 33 Historic overlay districts are not always supported by residents because guidelines are often strict and enforced as such. In addition, historic districts can increase property values and therefore property taxes. In the event that a historic overlay district is not feasible in an area like Normandy Village, other preservation methods exist that are less restrictive on residents.

One option is to allow property owners monetary incentives in order to invest in maintenance of their historic homes. For example, a tax freeze grants an owner a period of time in which property taxes will be frozen at the previously assessed level. Therefore, if an owner makes improvements to their home that would increase the property’s value, as long as the improvements uphold the structure’s historical character, the property tax will not increase. A tax abatement reduces or eliminates a tax for a given period of time. Another possibility is a subsidy, provided by the local government, for home improvements and maintenance done to preserve a historical structure. Each of these methods encourage property owners to only utilize materials and repair methods that do not jeopardize the structure’s integrity.

Another possibility is a revolving fund program, which would provide a pool of money that could be used to acquire properties in danger of demolition or neglect. A sympathetic owner then purchases the structure, and the proceeds from this sale are put into the revolving fund to offset the cost of the original acquisition of the building (Preservation Virginia, 2013). While the new owner of the property must use personal funds to rehabilitate the structure, this type of program could benefit Normandy Village, as multiple properties therein are threatened by the expansion of Route 1 and neglect.

No matter the degree of protection eventually afforded to Normandy Village, we feel an agreement can, and should, be reached between the community and city officials to preserve this neighborhood. The sooner action is taken, the better we can ensure that the contribution of Normandy Village to our local and national history is preserved for future generations.

34 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (2008, March 11). National register evaluation criteria. ACHP.gov Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.achp.gov/ncriteria.html

Alvey, E. Jr. (1978) The streets of fredericksburg. Fredericksburg: The Mary Washington College Foundation, Inc.

Bettmann/CORBIS. (1954). Levittown, N.Y. [photograph] Retrieved from http://online.wsi.com/news/articles/SB123033369595836301

Bondeson, M. & Payne, D. (2013, September 23). 437 hanson avenue. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/6020-fall2013/

Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1930-1939. New York: Gale Research, Inc.

Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1940-1949. New York: Gale Research, Inc.

Bondi, V. (1995) American decades: 1950-1959. New York: Gale Research, Inc.

Carley, R. (1994) The visual dictionary of american domestic architecture. New York: Roundtable Press.

Central Rappahannock Heritage Center. (n.d.) Blanton’s by-pass service station. [postcard]. Fredericksburg, VA.

Checkoway, B. (2009). Large builders, federal housing programmes, and postwar suburbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4(1), 23.

Ciment, J. (2007) Postwar america: An encyclopedia of social, political, cultural, and economic history (Vols. I-II). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

City of Fredericksburg. (1945). City Directory. Fredericksburg: Fredericksburg area chamber of commerce.

City of Fredericksburg. (2009). Fredericksburg city charter, amend. Ch. II, §§ 7, 16. Retrieved from: http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/ charters/Fredericksburg.pdf

City of Fredericksburg. (1927). Program from the fredericksburg parade celebrating the opening of jefferson davis highway. Accessed October 23, 2013 from the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Clements, C. & Graff, M. (2013, September 25). 362 riverside. [photograph] Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/1003-fall2013-2/

Curtis, L. R. R. (1954) Blueprint [Map] Accessed October 23, 2013 from the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, Fred- ericksburg, Virginia.

Deed of Sale from Charles Tyler and wife to Rappahannock Valley Agricultural and Mechanical Society, 1 January 1887 (filed 31 March 1887), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book ZZ, page 414.

35 Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 31 October 1940 (recorded 1 November 1940), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book 125, page 425. Clerk’s Office, Spotsylvania, Virginia.

Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 4 June 1940 (recorded 1 November 1940), Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Book 127, page 88. Clerk’s Office, Spotsylvania, Virginia.

Deed of Sale from Alvin T. Embrey, Special Commissioner to Fredericksburg Fair Association, 31 October 1941 (recorded 4 June 1941), Fredericksburg, Virginia, Deed Book 76, page 1. Clerk’s Office, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Department of Veterans Affairs (2012) Born of controversy: The gi bill of rights. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline/index.html

Embrey, A. T. (1937) History of fredericksburg, virginia. Richmond: Old Virginia Press.

Envisioning the American Dream. (n.d.). Sunday’s drive. [print]. Retrieved from http://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2012/05/10/searching-for-suburbia/

Flink, J. J. (1988). The Automobile Age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fredericksburg Agricultural Fair (2012) History of the fair. Fredericksburg Argricultural Fair. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://fredericksburgfair.org/about-the-fair/history/

Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce. (1976) The fredericksburg area story. Lynchburg: Progress Publishing Corporation.

Fredericksburg Clerk’s Office. (1721). Plan of Fredericksburg, Virginia: 1721. [plat map].Retrieved from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats/fredericksburg-1721.jpg 2. civil war damage

Free Lance-Star. (1940). Valuable lots at public auction. Free Lance Star, p. 3.

Free Lance-Star. (1945, December 10) Route 1 by-pass project planned. Free Lance Star, p. 1.

Free Lance-Star. (1946, January 15) By-pass will be ready in summer. Free Lance Star, p. 1.

Free Lance-Star. (1954, June 26) Planned million-dollar housing project is begun, seen as the biggest in city history. Free Lance-Star, p. 2.

Free Lance-Star. (1955, February 7). Subdivision asks city to finance 10 –year program: $142,000 total involved in plan. Free-Lance Star, p 1.

Free Lance-Star. (1956, July 18). Building of homes sets new record. Free Lance-Star, p. 9.

Free Lance-Star. (1957, September 12). Advertisement. Free Lance-Star, p. 11.

Free Lance-Star. (1958, October 11). Receiver’s sale of valuable city lots, p. 9.

Free Lance-Star. (1958, June 13) Don’t leave your wife marooned. Free Lance-Star, p. 4.

Free Lance-Star. (1958, August 20) Beck chevrolet corp. Free Lance-Star, p. 18.

Free Lance-Star. (1959, April 3) Accident kills baby: Young couple’s trip is ended in tragedy. Free Lance-Star, p. 1.

Free Lance-Star (2004) 95 at 40. Fredericksburg.com. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://fredericksburg.com/News/ Web/2004/122004/I95/SlideShow/index_html?qstart=1

Goolrick, J. C. (1959, November 13). No rise forseen in city’s ebb tide of home-building. Free Lance-Star,p. 1

36 Gray, O. W. (1878) Gray’s new map of fredericksburg [Map], Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats.htm.

Hall, D. R., & Hall, S. G. (2006) American icons (Vol 3). Wesport: Greenwood Press.

Hamilton, N. A., Brunelle, J. K., Scully, B., & Sherman, R. (2000) Atlas of the baby boom generation. Detroit: MacMillan Library Reference.

Harris, M. J., Mitchell, F. D., & Schechter, S. J. (1984) The homefront: America during world war II. New York: Putnam.

Heidler, D.S., & J. (Eds.). (2000). Encyclopedia of the american civil war: A political, Social, and military history (Vol. 5). United States: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Heitmann, J. (2009) The automobile and american life. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Hoffman, A. V. (2002). A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2), 306.

Jennings, J (Ed.). (1990) The automobile in design and culture. Ames: Iowa University Press.

Layman, R. (1995) American decades: 1960-1969. New York: Gale Research, Inc.

Levittown Public Library (1949, November) Curved streets are viewed from above in Levittown, New York. [photograph] Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-25/suburban-pioneer-levittown-thrives-as-imitators-falter.html

Lewis, T. T. (2011) The forties in America (Vols. I-III). Pasadena: Salem Press.

Library of Congress. (1862 September). Street in fredericksburg, va., showing houses destroyed by bombardment in December, 1862. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.Gov/pictures/item/2012647804/

Lounsbury, C., & Patrick, V. E. (1994). An illustrated glossary of early southern architecture and landscape. New York: Oxford University Press.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (1958). Why did you buy a house. [advertisement]. Retrieved from http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/money-ads-1950s/12

McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A field guide to American houses. New York: Knopf.

Pettis, E., Squitieri, A., Slattery, C., Long, C., Kuhn, P., McClane, D., & Groesbeck, S. (2012) NCHRP Report 723: A model for identifying and evaluating the historical significance of post-world war II housing. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_723.pdf

Preservation Virginia.(2013). Revolving fund program. Preservation Virginia. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://preservationvirginia.org/programs/revolving-fund-program

Quinn, S. J. (1908) The history of the city of fredericksburg, virginia. Richmond: Hermitage Press. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/historyofcityoff00quin

Roberts, H.A. (1958, August 5) Suburban family loading ford four door sedan automobile for trip.[photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/blast_of_the_past/5260782869/

Rood, K. L. (1994) Dictionary of twentieth century culture: American culture after world war II. Detroit: Gale Research, Inc.

Royston & Buckner (1721) Plan of the Town of Fredericksburg [Map], Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://resources.umwhisp.org/Fredericksburg/plats.htm.

37 Seventy-Third U. S. Congress (1934) National Housing Act. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/martin/54_01_19340627.pdf

Shibley, R. E. (1976) Historic fredericksburg: A pictorial history. Norfolk: The Donning Company.

Stafford County, Virginia. (1937). 1937 aerial. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.staffordcountygis.org/geoprime.html#ymax=6897554.559258397;ymin=6756487.892591731;xmax=11 990923.279631369;xmin=11626656.6129647

Super, J. C. (2005) The fifties in america (Vols. I-III). Pasadena: Salem Press.

Tallassee Democrat (1991, December 8) The Impact of World War II on Postwar American Culture. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 4.

Tennessee State Library and Archives. (n.d.). Do with less-so they’ll have enough. [poster]. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/tsla/exhibits/food/

Veteran’s Housing Center. (n.d.) Veteran Housing Center Advertisement. [poster].Retrieved from http://everydayfinesse.blogspot.com/2012/11/thanks-to-those-who-served.html

Vercruysse, A. & Hulfish G. (2013, September 20). 3209 normandy. [photograph] Retrieved from http://survey.umwblogs.org/site/4005-fall2013/

Washington Post. (1928, September 18). Fair starts today at fredericksburg: Crowds expected to see exhibits at annual four-day event. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com.ezproxy.umw.edu/news/docview/149821398/1413ECCB4884 63BF934/4?accountid=12299

Sources for the Glossary

An Illustrated Glossary of Early southern Architecture and Landscape by Carl R. Lounsbury

A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester www.calbungalow.com www.worldhouseinfo.com homeinnovation.wordpress.com architecture.about.com architecture.about.com http://bonzblogz.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html http://global.wonderware.com/DK/Pages/WonderwareFacilitiesManagementIndustrialOperations.aspx www.premierconstructionva.com

University of Mary Washington. (n.d.) University of mary washington seal. [image]. Retrieved from http://www.umw.edu/

38 GLOSSARY

Architectural styles

Craftsman/Bungalow: Architectural style most popular between 1905 and 1930. Distinctive features include low pitched roofs, extended eaves, exposed roof rafters, porches with tapered square columns, and mixed building materials.

Cape Cod: Architectural style most popular between 1930 and 1950. A typical Cape Cods has a side gable form with a steep pitched roof over 1 ½ stories. The Façade has three bays ( two windows and a door) under two gabled dormers.

Ranch: Architectural style most popular between 1935 and 1975. The ranch style is composed of elongated, single story massings with low pitched roofs. The buildings employ the gable or hipped form and often have garages. Other distinctive features include large picture windows and small amounts of traditional detailing such as decorative porch supports or shutters.

Minimal Traditional: Architectural styles most popular between 1935 and 1950. This architectural style has a low pitched gable form and has very few decorative details. They often have short eaves, a large chimney and a front facing gable.

39 Neo Colonial: architecture style most popular from 1880 to 1955. This architecture style imitates styles from the Colonial Period. Distinctive features include symmetrically balanced facades, accented front doors with fanlights, and entryways featuring columns and pediments.

Split level: architectural styles most popular between 1955 and 1975. The split level is a multi-story modification of the Ranch style. Distinctive characteristics include low-pitched roofs, elongated massing, garages and overhanging eaves. The style usually consists of 3 floors, one of which sits half way between the top and bottom floor creating a “split”. The separate floors serve to create a division of living space.

Commercial: non-residential structures built for the functional purposes of businesses. Commercial structures often have concrete walls, metal roofs and large window, but can take different forms depending on the commercial industry a building is being used for.

Industrial: functional structures designed for the manufacturing of materials or the housing of equipment. Industrial areas are often spacious and use metal and concrete as primary building materials.

40 Condition: Excellent (E): The structure displays no physical deterioration and retains all of its original materials. These buildings have no observable threats and retain all of their historic integrity. Good (G): The structure is in good physical condition but may have some features altered or replaced. These structures still retain most of their historic integrity. Fair (F): The structure has physical deterioration. Observable threats to the building are noticeable. Poor (P): The structure has severe aesthetic and structural damage that requires repair or demolition.

Eligibility: Contributing (C): The structure contributes to the historical context of the neighborhood. The building’s use and architectural style is homogenous with its surroundings and reflects the neigh- borhoods’ period of significance. Non-Contributing: The structure does not contribute to the historical context of the neighborhood. This includes building uses and architectural styles inconsistent with the areas period of significance.

Roof Types

General House Terms

Addition: portion of a building that was added to the original structure at a later date. Alteration: a physical change to a building’s materials Aluminum siding: exterior metal siding used to weatherproof a structure. Asphalt shingles: roofing material consisting of paper coated with asphalt.Asphalt shingles are relatively cheap and need replacement every 15-20 years. Bays: the openings (doors or windows) on the vertical plane of a building’s façade that divide the building into discreet units. For example a façade with a central door and one window on each side would have 3 bays. 41 Bay Window: a multi-unit window that projects from the façade of a building. Common Bond: the system of joining brick elements together that uses only stretchers. This brick pattern is only one course thick and requires framing elements for additional support. Chimney: A vertical masonry structure designed for the ventilation of smoke and gases out of a structure. They can be located on the interior or exterior of a building. Concrete block: A building material developed by mixing Portland cement and an aggregate into a hallow block form. The early 20th century saw concrete block’s use as a building material increase due to automated production, easy installation, low maintenance and fireproof nature. Column: a vertical support structure designed to support other architectural features. Cornice: decorative element that covers the space where a building’s wall meets the roof. Dormer window: a window unit that protrudes from the slope of a roof. The protruding window contains its own roofing element perpendicular to the building’s main roof. Eve: an extension of the roof that protrudes past a building’s walls Façade: The principal front or face of a building. Fanlight: a decorative semi-circular window above a door. Foundation: The base of a building that separates it from the ground and on which the rest of the structure is built. Garage: A structure to house an automobile. They can be attached or un-attached from the main building. Masonry: architectural construction using stone or brick. Modillion: repeating decorative element of a cornice made up of horizontal brackets. Multi-family home: a residential structure supporting more than one family. Panel: A raised or sunk surface enclosed by a border for decorative purposes. Usually found on doors, walls and ceilings. Pediment: a low triangular gable with cornice that sits on top of a portico, colonnade, wall, or aperture. Period of Significance: the time period that is most important to the areas historical makup. Pitch: the angle of a roof

42 Porch: an exterior structure attached to the main building that is not fully enclosed but forms a sheltered covering. Single-family home: a residential structure supporting one family unit. Shutter: Exterior hinged window covers that provide functional protection and decoration. Portico: an exterior cover to an entrance of a building supported by columns. Veneer: a thin decorative surface material glued to a structural base. Can be made up of wood, plastics, or stone. Vinyl siding: exterior wall cladding material manufactured from polyvinyl chloride used to weatherproof a structure.

43