WHAT IS OCALA BLOCK?
By
MAANVI CHAWLA
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Maanvi Chawla
To my parents, Neeta and Anil Chawla, and to the quirky, enchanting State of Florida.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the people of Florida for being so warm, receptive and enthusiastic as I made my way through the research for this thesis. I specially want to thank my Chair and Advisor, Marty Hylton, for introducing me to this topic as and when I expressed a desire to research on building materials. I would like to thank my
Committee’s Special Member, Dr. Matthew Smith, for always being supportive, answering all my queries and for opening the doors of the Department of Geological
Sciences at the University of Florida for me to conduct research. Special thanks to Dr.
Norman Weiss, who gladly offered his expertise and valuable support especially through the tough initial phases of this thesis. I am thankful to Integrated Conservation
Resources, Inc. for their generosity in letting me access their facilities for my research.
Lastly, I would like to thank the helpful experts from the fields of architecture, history and materials conservation for their support and the innumerable resource people who came forward to engage on trivia and conversation surrounding Ocala block in Florida.
I would like to acknowledge the immense amount of support and love given to me by my parents, Neeta and Anil Chawla, and by my sister, Meetali Bedi and her family. A special thank you to Vaibhav Vishen for always being at the receiving end of my ramble about Ocala block.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4
LIST OF TABLES ...... 7
LIST OF FIGURES ...... 8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 13
ABSTRACT ...... 14
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 16
Research Question: What is Ocala block? ...... 16 Scope...... 19 Methodology ...... 21
2 CONTEXTUAL INVESTIGATION ...... 24
Ocala, Marion County ...... 24 Ocala, The City ...... 24 Mining History ...... 29 Brick City Heritage ...... 36 Concrete Block in the United States ...... 37 Concrete Block of the 20th Century ...... 39 Frank Lloyd Wright and the Concrete Block ...... 44 The Concept Of ‘Self-Building’ ...... 50 Concrete Block in Florida ...... 51 Coquina Concrete Block of St. Augustine in the 1920s ...... 57 Concrete Block Among Architects in Florida ...... 59 Frank Lloyd Wright in Florida ...... 61 Florida Southern College, Lakeland ...... 62 Spring House, Tallahassee ...... 69 The Sarasota School of Architecture ...... 71 Ralph Twitchell’s Early Life and Coming to Sarasota ...... 74 Associated Builders, Inc.: 1936-WWII ...... 77 Paul Rudolph: Early Years in Florida ...... 83 Ocala Block by Twitchell & Rudolph: ...... 86 Ocala Block in Florida ...... 92 Ocala Block Among Block Manufacturers ...... 100 Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Company ...... 103 Cummer Lumber and Company ...... 103 The Launch of Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Company ...... 108
5
Cumroc Masonry Units ...... 112 Ocala Block Among Floridian Diaspora ...... 116
3 TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ...... 123
Geology of Florida ...... 123 Ocala Limestone ...... 126 Texture and Color ...... 129 The Cross-Florida Barge Canal ...... 132 Mineral Resources of Florida ...... 134 Stone ...... 135 Sands ...... 139 Cements ...... 143 Material Analysis of Ocala block samples ...... 147 Sample Methodology and List ...... 147 Microscopic Observations ...... 157 Gravimetric Analysis ...... 158 Thin Section Petrography ...... 175
4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ...... 186
Timeline of Events Affecting Ocala block ...... 187 Conclusions ...... 187 Origin ...... 187 Inspiration ...... 189 Location ...... 189 Size ...... 189 Color ...... 191 Nomenclature ...... 193 Ocala Block: A Case of Lack of Patenting? ...... 194 Ocala Block: A Case of the Ocala block fad e.g. ‘Italian Marble’?...... 195 Ocala block: A Case of Rebranding by the Architects? ...... 196 Composition ...... 197 Summary of What is Ocala block? ...... 198 The End: 1960s-70s ...... 199 Historic Conservation ...... 199 Future Directions ...... 201
LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 203
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 218
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
3-1 Availability of limestone sourced from Cummer Lumber Company pit...... 106
3-2 Analysis of limestone from Cummer Lumber Company pit (Sample D-6) ...... 106
3-3 Analysis of Ocala limestone sourced from Cummer Lumber Company pit...... 174
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1 Ocala block, Gainesville, 2017...... 18
1-2 Ocala block, Cedar Key, 2017 ...... 20
1-3 Initial literature research...... 21
1-4 Research Design Frame ...... 22
2-1 Location map of Ocala city...... 24
2-2 The Timucuan Indians ...... 25
2-3 Steamboat ferrying people to Silver Springs ...... 28
2-4 Phosphate mine in Dunnellon, FL in 1890s ...... 30
2-5 Ocala limestone exposed at pit of Florida Lime Company, Ocala, FL ...... 32
2-6 Adding limerock to road base ...... 35
2-7 Magnolia Avenue in February 2018, Ocala...... 36
2-8 Tabby brick from Rayfield plantation, Georgia from 19th century ...... 39
2-9 Advertisement for a block machine in a journal, 1921 ...... 42
2-10 Advertisement for Straub blocks, 1921 ...... 44
2-11 Ennis house in Los Angeles, California ...... 45
2-12 NATCO Tex-tile construction system...... 47
2-13 Construction site of the Usnonian Automatic Tonkens House, 1964 ...... 49
2-14 Horace Walker House in St. Augustine...... 52
2-15 Advertisement by Kissam Building Stone Co...... 54
2-16 Concrete Block Stucco phrase in advertisements ...... 56
2-17 House on 24 Cincinnati Avenue, St. Augustine ...... 58
2-18 Entrance to the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, Lakeland...... 62
2-19 Construction site of the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, Lakeland ...... 66
8
2-20 Spring house, Tallahassee ...... 70
2-21 Spring house masonry details from the drawings ...... 71
2-22 Portrait of Ralph Twitchell ...... 75
2-23 Advertisement of Twitchell’s firm ...... 78
2-24 Showboat house, Sarasota, 1937 ...... 80
2-25 Second residence for Lu Andrews, 1941...... 81
2-26 Portrait of Paul Rudolph ...... 83
2-27 Rudolph’s visit to the Florida Southern College, 1941 ...... 85
2-28 Leavengood residence, 1951 ...... 86
2-29 Ocala block system in Siegrist residence, 1948 ...... 88
2-30 Rendering of Milam house, Ponte Vedra Beach...... 91
2-31 Advertisement for 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg ...... 94
2-32 Feature article on home of Conchita Benito ...... 97
2-33 New building of Venice Art School ...... 99
2-34 Advertisement of the Cumpur and Cumroc products ...... 110
2-35 Cumroc limestone units brochure, 1967 ...... 114
2-36 Cumroc Limestone Units brochure, 1967 ...... 115
2-37 G.I Larkin at home ...... 117
2-38 Feature wall showing the colors of Ocala block ...... 119
2-39 Real estate advertisement...... 120
2-40 Article on Florida’s limestone’s future ...... 122
3-1 View of Floridian Plateau ...... 124
3-2 Elevational map showing the Ocala platform ...... 125
3-3 Fossils found in Ocala limestone ...... 130
3-4 Ocala limestone showing the water table mark...... 132
9
3-5 A newspaper graphic explains the ‘Ocala limestone dome’...... 133
3-6 Map of the mineral resources of Florida, 1924 ...... 141
3-7 Sands found in Florida, 1914 ...... 142
3-8 Mineral map showing lime plants in Florida, 1914 ...... 145
3-9 Chipping sample from block CO-B1...... 148
3-10 Documented samples before ‘thick section’ mounting...... 148
3-11 Sample GR-C1...... 150
3-12 Sample LS-E1...... 150
3-13 Sample CO-B1...... 151
3-14 Sample CO-B2...... 152
3-15 Sample CO-B3...... 152
3-16 Sample JG-A2...... 153
3-17 Sample JG-A3...... 153
3-18 Sample MH-D1 ...... 154
3-19 Sample MH-D2 ...... 154
3-20 Sample OL-1...... 155
3-21 Preparation for ‘thick section’ mounts ...... 156
3-22 Thick section mounts of samples ...... 156
3-23 Hand sample before ‘thick section’ mount ...... 157
3-24 Preparation of Spot acid testing of samples ...... 158
3-25 Preparation for acid digestion of samples...... 159
3-26 Vigorous reaction of the samples...... 160
3-27 Digested samples after 24 hours ...... 161
3-28 Floccular brown residue in sample GR-C1 ...... 162
3-29 Sample GR-C1 in the ultrasonic cleaner...... 163
10
3-30 Fines and sands from sample GR-C1...... 163
3-31 Floccular grey-white residue in sample LS-E1...... 164
3-32 Fines and sands from sample LS-E1 ...... 164
3-33 Floccular dull, dark yellow residue in sample CO-B1...... 165
3-34 Fines and sands from sample CO-B1...... 166
3-35 Floccular dark yellow residue in sample CO-B2 ...... 167
3-36 Fines and sands from sample CO-B2 ...... 168
3-37 Fines and sands from sample CO-B3 ...... 169
3-38 Floccular dark yellow residue in sample CO-B3 ...... 169
3-39 Residue in sample MH-D1 ...... 170
3-40 Fines and sands from sample MH-D1 ...... 171
3-41 Fines and sands from sample MH-D2 ...... 172
3-42 Residue in sample MH-D2 ...... 172
3-43 Sand samples with their fines ...... 175
3-44 PPL photomicrograph of GR-C1 ...... 177
3-45 XPL photomicrograph of GR-C1 ...... 177
3-46 PPL photomicrograph of LS-E1 ...... 178
3-47 XPL photomicrograph of LS-E1 ...... 178
3-48 PPL photomicrograph of CO-B1 ...... 179
3-49 XPL photomicrograph of CO-B1 ...... 179
3-50 PPL photomicrograph of CO-B2 ...... 180
3-51 XPL photomicrograph of CO-B2 ...... 181
3-52 PPL photomicrograph of CO-B3 ...... 181
3-53 XPL photomicrograph of CO-B3 ...... 182
3-54 PPL photomicrograph of MH-D1 ...... 183
11
3-55 XPL photomicrograph of MH-D1 ...... 183
3-56 PPL photomicrograph of MH-D2...... 184
3-57 XPL photomicrograph of MH-D2...... 184
4-1 The exaggerated brick size seen in the feature article of a self-built home ...... 190
4-2 Varying colors in the ribbed Ocala blocks in a building, Gainesville, 2017 ...... 193
4-3 Biological growth on LS-E1...... 200
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASTM American Standard for Testing and Materials.
CMU Concrete Masonry Unit
FLW Frank Lloyd Wright
HCl Hydrochloric Acid
WWI World War I
WWII World War II
PPL Plain Polarized Light
XPL Cross Polarized Light
13
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Historic Preservation
WHAT IS OCALA BLOCK?
By
Maanvi Chawla
May 2018
Chair: Morris Hylton III Major: Historic Preservation
Ocala block is a very commonly used name for a type of concrete masonry unit in Florida. Popular as a building material in the North Central and Southwest regions of the state, Ocala block reached its peak usage during the mid-20th century and eventually faded from the manufacturing and construction market by the end of the mid- century era (1970s-1980s).
Despite its ubiquitous presence in the built fabric of Florida, including in both high-style structures and vernacular buildings, Ocala block has no recorded history or any written literature that speaks of its origin, wide public appeal, and composition and materiality.
The author’s master’s thesis deals with this primary investigation of 'Ocala block', exploring the material’s origin, composition, standardization, and widespread popularity and application.
The thesis is largely divided into a two-part investigation on 'What is Ocala block': first being the ‘contextual investigation' exploring the historicity of Ocala town, its mining and manufacturing history is analyzed along with the architectural context of mid-20th century Florida; second being the 'technical investigation' examining details mineral
14
resources concerning concrete blocks from early to mid-20th century, especially in
Florida, have been assessed along with the geologic understanding of 'Ocala limestone', followed by a primary materials analyses of samples of Ocala block in order to understand the block’s make-up broadly. Both investigations were coupled to form conclusions along with several ‘anecdotal’ pieces of information and investigation that informed the future directions of the research.
15
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Research Question: What is Ocala block?
Years ago, you could buy something called Ocala block that manufacturers around the state made in varying sizes, colors and shapes.
—Dan Ruck South Florida Business Journal1
The thesis deals with the investigation of the 'Ocala block', which is a warm colored concrete masonry unit that was popular as a regional modern building material during the midcentury modern period in Florida.
Word of mouth suggests that the composition of the Ocala block includes the special, local limestone of Central and West Florida known as 'Ocala limestone', which itself gets the name from the place it was first observed at by geologists - the town of
Ocala, Florida. With a color palette ranging from cream to light ochre, Ocala block came in varying sizes of hollow and solid form as compared to the standardized traditional concrete masonry units.
In this first body of literature on this regionally significant historic material, an attempt is being made at delineating the birth, heyday and disappearance of Ocala block; in hope of identifying a tell-tale mechanism which will tell us what it takes for a block to be an Ocala block in Florida.
The surge in the use of Ocala block can be observed, with the help of historical newspapers and architectural journals and magazines, starting from 1930s till the time the term started to wean down as a written reference 1970s onwards. This period, popularly known as the mid-century modern era in the history of United States and more
1 Epitaph sourced from ‘Concrete blocks: They don't make 'em like they used to’ (Ruck, 2001)
16
so in the Sunshine State, was a time when the country was constantly heading towards a change and Florida was the quintessence of that change occurring.
The timeline through which Ocala block evolved was ridden with exciting events if and when not saddening: World War I, the Florida Boom, the Great Depression, World
War II, the Postwar Boom. Ocala block came to light at a time, the 1940s, when entrepreneurship was peaking among manufacturers, inventors and makers of novelties. Making and selling objects of use in small or large establishments, without any standardization and regularization was commonplace, especially in a bourgeoning state of Florida which was in the ebb tide of the Florida Boom and then the Depression and wars. In such an occupying time, it is not unlikely that the story of Ocala went unrecorded as Floridians moved on to newer avenues.
Ocala block as a building material garnered public attention and appeal, in the work of Florida’s architects, especially the Sarasota School of Architecture. Ocala block, in many ways, technical and aesthetic, adds significance to the mid-century architecture, which is largely the architectural identity of Florida. The specialty of Ocala block lies in its omnipresence: present in architect’s tasteful modern house and as well as in the purpose-built structures like car sheds of the Floridian diaspora. Ocala block is one of those unique historic building materials that is known to be present in both high- style architecture and as well as vernacular buildings, hinting at its universal appeal among the classes and the masses of the mid-century era.
Even as it escaped the architecture and construction market in the 1970s, Ocala block was never forgotten. It’s chic beige color and soft, highly porous texture are the two traits property owners are most aware of as of today.
17
High porosity and ageing of the material in Florida’s tropical climate has resulted in stability issues in its masonry, which often causes concern, sometimes resulting in doing away with the material resource or replacement with a synthetically colored concrete masonry unit.
Figure 1-1. Ocala block, Gainesville, 2017 (Photo courtesy of author).
18
What is Ocala block: is a broad question but the only one relevant as no information or research exists pertaining to it. Under the umbrella of this broad investigation, the following questions have been attempted to be addressed:
• What is the origin of Ocala block? When and Where was it first used?
• By whom was it fabricated or invented first and how?
• What is its composition?
• Why is it named Ocala block?
• How does one identify Ocala block? – in comparison of any buff colored building unit?
• When and why did it stop being available in the market? What led to its end from the manufacturing industry?
Scope
Ocala Block, its nomenclature and a distinct appearance make it exclusive to
Florida, which asks for development of literature for its tangible and intangible values.
Absent in the market now, but existing extensively in the building stock of the mid-20th century, a discourse needs to begin on its materiality for future preservation.
The conservation issues that the existing building stock of Ocala block faces today are hard to address in the absence of any literature and research to go by. As the first body of research on the material, this thesis attempts to begin taking that step towards preserving the region-specific mid-century heritage of Florida.
As of the beginning of this research, merely a few digitally produced blogs and write-ups define Ocala block: as a mid-century masonry unit which is not available in the market anymore. A few architecture literature resources mention Ocala block in passing phrases and a precise definition is hard to source. With the risk of only half-baked
19
information existing out there, there is a possibility that the narrative may get murkier with time if the research is not taken up sooner.
It is also interesting to mention the confusion that exists in the terminology of the material where multiple literature sources, mostly books on Florida’s modern architecture, use the term Ocala block interchangeably with similar sounding terms or visually resembling entities: like Ocala block termed as ‘Ocala lime block’ to being named as the ‘buff-colored brick’. A clarity on terminology or at least a grasp on the broadness of nomenclature is required to further develop a more precise narrative on the material.
Figure 1-2. Ocala block, Cedar Key, 2017 (Photo courtesy of author).
20
Methodology
With most of the research being primary, the first step was to dissect the term and begin looking for information on 'Ocala' and 'Block' separately and then process an overlap for answers or conjecture. Ocala being the proper noun in the moniker suggests the idea of researching all leads that could possibly connect to the idea of a concrete block to: Ocala the city, Ocala the limestone, Ocala's industry. On the other hand, studies on concrete block were done, nationally, regionally and then in particular for works that speak or mention 'Ocala block'. After which, correlations were drawn and who, where and how of the Ocala block was conjectured, with directions for further research.
Figure 1-3. Initial literature research (Photo courtesy of author).
After the first or initial literature research, there were different directions that needed to be pursued to find the broad yet collected answer of what Ocala block is. The crucial resultant here were the directions which the author decided were important to be taken further to find more conclusive doctrinaire answers to the questions.
Based in the findings of the initial digital and literature research, a research design frame was constructed where each component of the required research could be carried out individually to join the dots at the end. Initially, the design frame was a
21
tripartite division between contextual, scientific and anecdotal components of the research.
Figure 1-4. Research Design Frame (Photo courtesy of author).
The contextual included looked at the city of Ocala, Marion county: its background, mining industry history, and its cultural pride as the ‘brick city’.
Another section of the contextual study involved looking at the broad concrete block history of the country, the concrete block industry developments in the State of
Florida and eventually the presence of what most people call ‘Ocala block’ in the built fabric of the state. From the architectural aspect, the histories of the celebrity architect
Frank Lloyd Wright’s presence in Florida and the regionally significant, the Sarasota
School of Architecture were studied.
The technical investigation pertained the compositional query on Ocala block as a material. The history of the geological studies in Florida, the evolution of the State’s
22
mineral resources were the common themes of this research component. Additionally, the Ocala limestone and its stratigraphy and structure were studied. A random sampling of Ocala blocks was sought from property owners of Gainesville and Sarasota which were studied as hand samples and were then thick sectioned for microscopic observations. In the materials conservation library, spot testing, gravimetric analysis as per the Cliver process were conducted on crushed Ocala block samples to understand the make-up of the blocks. Finally, thin sections were prepared for petrographic observations of the components of the blocks.
The anecdotal accompaniments included elements of research that were or could have been significant to the outcomes and conclusions but could not be included within the parameters of this thesis. Anecdotal research included attempts of sourcing oral histories from the senior block manufacturers; mapping efforts to mark the buildings that are known to have Ocala block on Florida’s map, through the travels of the author; sourcing of historic block brochures and other data that could inform the research better at a later stage than the initial. As the research progressed, the anecdotal component was considered more relevant to be absorbed as ‘future directions’ of this thesis.
23
CHAPTER 2 CONTEXTUAL INVESTIGATION
Ocala, Marion County
Beginning with the proper noun in the moniker that is ‘Ocala block’, the first in the line of thought is the city of Ocala. Its background followed by select narratives of its history that could possibly be connected to Ocala block make the first step of contextual investigation.
Ocala, The City
Ocala city is the county seat and the largest city of Marion county located in
North-Central Florida. Ocala is centrally placed in a county that itself is centrally marked in the peninsular of Florida. Since the beginning of its establishment as a city in 19th century, Ocala has served as an important location in terms of the connection Florida has had with the rest of the United States.
Figure 2-1. Location map of Ocala city (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004).
24
Ocala and surrounding regions were originally inhabited by the Timucua tribe of
Native Americans; biological remains of the tribe have been found in the Ocala National
Forest and in the bed of Ocklawaha river that date back between 500 B.C. and 1565
A.D. (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004). Like most first interactions between the Native
Indians and the Settlers, the Timucua population decreased significantly due to the genocide and the European diseases the settlers brought along with them.
Figure 2-2. The Timucuan Indians (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004).
Ocala, as a settlement, finds its mention in historical records way before it was settled on its present location. Hernando De Soto, the Spanish traveler from early 16th century, who first arrived in North America near Tampa, Florida is known to have trekked through the swamps of Florida into mainland United States. In his book on Ocala,
J.O.D. Clarke writes, "When De Soto landed on the shores of Tampa Bay in 1539, there
25
lay before him a region unexplored and unknown to Europeans. Florida had been discovered some years before by Ponce de Leon, and later De Narvaez made an ill- starred expedition to the new country; but it remained for De Soto to penetrate the peninsula and give to the world an account of the region and its inhabitants. De Soto mentions the following provinces encountered in his march between his landing-place
(Tampa Bay) and Apalache (Tallahassee): 1. Hirriga or Hirrihigua, 2. Mucoco, 3.
Urribaracuxi or Hurripacu.xi, 4. Ocuera, 5. Ocaly..." (Clarke, 1891). This mention of
'Ocaly' in his records was of the erstwhile Timucuan village of ‘Ocale’: which allows
Ocala city to take pride today in its connection to the Native American legacy.
Even after the ensnarement of the Timucua, the swampy, warm and mostly uninhabited Central Florida was a difficult place for settlers to establish. In the 18th century, the Native American tribes from the Southeastern states also known as the
Creek people, migrated to the North Central Florida and formed what came to be known as the Seminole tribe, which included fugitive African American slaves and other indigenous people of the surrounds, who were against the United States Army. The settlers and the United States Army were pushing their way into Central and West
Florida and in1827, Fort King, a military fort to protect white settlers from the Seminoles was constructed near what became Ocala city a few years later. It was at Fort King where the incident involving Osceola, the famous leader of the Seminole Indians, and the murder of a federal officer took place, leading straight to the Second Seminole War
(McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004). Fort King does not exist today but the 37 acres of land that contained the site lies within the city limits of Ocala Metropolitan area and is the
26
only National Historic Landmark in Marion county (Fort King National Historic Landmark
, n.d.).
Marion county was established in 1844, after many settlers had moved into the area post the Second Seminole war and the Armed Occupation Act in 1842. The county is named after General Francis Marion, a hero of the American Revolutionary War from
South Carolina. The current city of Ocala was established in 1846. Ocala takes its name from an Indian word that means 'water's edge' or 'fair land', possibly referring to an ancient settlement nearby the Ocklawaha river (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004). However, several theories about this Native American name/reference have surfaced over centuries - one being that the a Timucuan chief named 'Ocala' is buried under the downtown of Ocala (Marion County Chamber of Commerce, 1929).
Ocala occupies a unique position in the Florida peninsula, midway between
Jacksonville and Tampa and practically between the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts provides it sufficient insulation from hurricanes with easy access to both coasts. The average altitude of Ocala is 104 ft. above the sea level which lets it experience the change of weather yet escape the extremities of the southern or northern climate. The rolling terrain, allowed by the soft yet thick geology of Central Florida, allows good drainage of water making for ideal health conditions for people to live in. This natural topography due to its geology allows Central Florida to have natural freshwater springs and lakes across the region. Since the 19th century, Ocala has attracted several visitors to the close by Silver Springs, which prior to 1881 was the only proper way into Ocala until the railroad arrived: people would get on a boat or steamer through the St. John’s River to arrive at Silver Springs and then take a steam-tram to Ocala town (Clarke, 1891).
27
Figure 2-3. Steamboat ferrying people to Silver Springs (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004)
Since its establishment, the city of Ocala has been a popular destination for tourists travelling through the Ocklawaha River from Jacksonville via the St. Johns
River. Even before the day of rail road, Ocala was a thriving town serving as a tourist destination for people from the North. "Boats would ply from the St. John's and
Ocklawaha rivers, docking at the head of Silver springs, horse drawn vehicles would bring passengers to the Ocala House hotel, famous for many years as the southernmost tourist hotel in the country. One of the objects of the boat trip was to revel in the beauty of the winding and romantic Ocklawaha and lovely silver river. Many of the world's celebrities, including presidents, scientists, geologists as well as business and professional leaders in all walks of life have taken this trip for study and observation."
(Marion County Chamber of Commerce, 1929). The hotel industry of Ocala speaks of its importance as a tourist and economic destination: the Ocala House hotel, the
28
Montezuma (later renamed Harington Hall), the Colonial Hotel were popular destinations in the late 19th and early-mid 20th century (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004).
Several events of the mid-20th century: especially the two boom periods of construction, the opening of Interstate highway I-75 in 1964 (Clark, 2014) and the change of perspective towards Florida as a tropical paradise, caused the decline in the importance of Ocala as a city. The 1960s also saw the decline of hotel businesses in downtown Ocala; like the Ocala house hotel, built in 1846, was demolished for a parking lot after the city took ownership of the building (Ocala Star Banner, 2007).
With roots in the Native American legacy, rich natural resources and an established name for being the threshold for Florida and the South, Ocala’s history speaks for its significance as a city of yesteryear Florida (early to mid-20th century). The
Ocala city limits has 13 properties that are on the National Register including 1 National
Historic landmark of Fort King.
Mining History
In J.O.D. Clarke's account of Ocala, he says, "Marion is aptly termed the
"banner'' county of Florida. It is also one of the richest in deposits of phosphate, kaolin, ochre, lime, brick-clay, etc., and the operations in phosphate and lime to-day exceed those of all other counties combined.” (Clarke, 1891, p. 15)
One of the most important events in the history of Florida took place in 1889: high quality hard rock phosphate was discovered for commercial mining for the first time in the United States near Ocala city.
Although it is believed that the phosphate was originally chanced upon in Florida in 1880, when Dr. C. A. Simmons sent a sample from his rock quarry in Alachua county to scientists for testing, who had confirmed his hunch back then (Florida Industrial and
29
Phosphate Research Institute, n.d.). Many such individual investigations later, however, what led to the boom of phosphate mining in the state was the discovery and repeated testing done in 1889 by Albert Vogt (Clarke, 1891). He had found a ‘stratum of chalky substance’ in Dunnellon while digging a well on his property which was proven by chemists, local and national, that his site in Central Florida had hard rock phosphate.
This led to the formation of the well-known Marion Phosphate company, followed by the
Dunnellon Phosphate company. While the river pebble phosphate had also been discovered in Polk County, the hard rock phosphate production took the limelight for its mineral value. Several phosphate plants came up in and around the Dunnellon-Ocala region, so much that the mining operations had to be consolidated in the 1900 to reduce the over-capitalization that had taken place in the 1890s (Florida Industrial and
Phosphate Research Institute, n.d.).
Figure 2-4. Phosphate mine in Dunnellon, FL in 1890s (Florida Memory., 189-).
30
Before the phosphate boom of Florida, the mineral resource was imported from for its use as a fertilizer. For the first time in history, the United States was able to export high quality phosphate from Florida to Europe, which continued till the early 20th century. Even as the demand of hard rock phosphate dipped due to WWI then, the river pebble phosphate, found in other parts of Florida continued to supply to the export market.
The proximity of Ocala to the nearby phosphate mining sites of Dunnellon led
Ocalans to try and position their city as the most central, important city of the state.
Ocala is also known to have been called the ‘Chicago of Florida’ around the time of the phosphate boom (Clarke, 1891). The city was also competing with Tallahassee to be the state capital during this time but was never successful (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004).
Around the turn of the century, phosphate mining and citrus trade were the prime industries in Ocala.
In the years following the phosphate mining, the research on understanding and establishing the stratigraphy for Florida’s geology was pursued by geologists and mineralogists as well. The limestone, which was understood to be much of what
Florida’s geology could be, its types and their position in the stratification was under discussion for most of the late 19th to mid-20th century. It is key to mention that most of the research and contributions by geologists came from study areas located in and around Ocala.
The pervious limestone shelf that underlies most of Florida is significantly characteristic of Central Florida with its network of several artesian springs and lakes, the largest of its kind in the world with over 1000 springs documented (Florida Springs
31
Institute, 2018). The limestone found underneath this lacy pattern of springs and lakes is a porous, highly pure calcium carbonate sedimentary rock that is relatively young and soft compared to limestones found in the Northern parts of the country. This soft limestone, of Central Florida though not limited to Marion county (explained in detail in later chapters) was of interests to visitors, travelers and geologists. Around the turn of the century, experts named this strikingly soft, white/creamy colored limestone as
‘Ocala limestone’, for it was best observed by them in Ocala. The first use of the term
‘Ocala limestone’ was done by geologists, Dall and Harris, in their research paper in
1892 which also mentioned a quarry in Ocala where the limestone was observed till the depth of 20 ft., a depth till which the rock had already been quarried as a country rock
(White & Cooke, 1915).
Figure 2-5. Ocala limestone exposed at pit of Florida Lime Company, Ocala, FL (Sellards E. H., 1909).
32
The research and use of this nomenclature was done at a time when phosphate boom had been peaking. There was rapid sale of land parcels in Marion County and surrounds, given already that there were rock quarries operating from where this research was conducted.
It is plausible to assume that there was ongoing limestone extraction taking place in Florida through the 19th century which had an added impact of the phosphate boom towards the end of the century. Keeping the use of limestone to making lime was a common act for all thriving communities of the time, as there were quarries and lime kilns already established and running in Ocala by early 20th century like the Meffert Lime
Kiln in Ocala observed by geologists in the year 1908 (Sellards E. H., First Annual
Report, 1908) or the Florida Lime Company in Ocala (Sellards, Gunter, & Cox, 1911).
Limestone which was purposed beyond manufacture of lime is key to the leading arguments of this research.
Development on the mining resources, expansion of settlement and migration to the state of Florida led to more road development. Construction for roads required materials and by the turn of the century many materials, local and imported, were used
(name in descending order in connection to amounts used): marl or crushed stone; pine straw, shell, gravel, brick, asphalt, cement, but the majority of roads were surfaced with sand-clay (Sellards, Gunter, & Cox, 1911).
Carl Rose was an Indiana road builder and businessman who moved to Daytona
Beach in Florida in 1916 to monitor road building operations. He prepared the first roads of Daytona before moving to Marion County in 1917 as a partner in the sand dredging business at Lake Weir. After experiencing the underperformance of crushed shell
33
compared to limerock or country rock (limestone), Rose went to great lengths to make limerock a standardized road base material for federal roads in Florida and the rest of the country (The Orlando Sentinel, 1963). In 1919, the U.S. Bureau of Public roads approved limerock as a road base for roads in Florida which proved to be very economical for the State, credit for which is often given to Carl Rose. Rose went on to establish Ocala Lime Rock Corp. which was a prime producer of the road-base material; he also established a road building company (the famous Marion Construction and Co.), an insurance company and a motor company (Ferguson, Carl Rose dies at 70, 1963).
Another reason that made Rose a significant Ocalan was his establishment of another economically beneficial industry for the county – the thoroughbred farms. Whilst working with limerock so closely, he realized the potential the region of Central Florida had to host good pasture for horses, which later went on to make Ocala famous nationally and globally. Named the Rosemere farm, it was developed in 1937-1939 and proved successful for breeding horses in this rich limestone setting of Central Florida, as Rose had estimated. This set off many thoroughbreds in the region, with many still existing today.
The Florida Limerock Association was formed in 1925, when the freight or railroad embargo1 following the Florida Boom affected the businesses of the area. The freight embargo had led to the closing of all quarries as no production could be sent out for road-building. The industry felt the need to organize considering the crisis and the
‘Florida Limerock Association’ was formed by the prime limerock companies of Central
1 In October 1925, three big railroad companies of Florida Seaboard Air Line Railway, the Florida East Coast Railway, and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad declared an embargo because of the rail traffic gridlock (Florida land boom of the 1920s, 2018).
34
Florida. The elected board included Ocalan Whit Palmer of Dixie Lime and Stone Co. as
President, E. F. Fitch of Jacksonville and the head of Ocala lime and Co. as President,
Charles H. Lloyd as Vice President, Carl Rose, the road building and thorough bred king as Treasurer, and Virgil H. Lanier as Secretary. Several other companies including the
Cummer Lumber Company were also present during the formation of the association
(The Tampa Tribune, 1925).
Figure 2-6. Adding limerock to road base (Florida Memory, 19-?) (McCarthy & Jernigan, 2004)
Starting the 20th century, development of newer industries and the changing economy and lifestyle, all seemed to favor the need and more production of lime and lime products in Florida, especially the valuable limestone deposits of Central Florida.
The hard rock phosphate mining operations, that had brought Central Florida and in particular, the Ocala region a lot of fame, were shut down in 1965 as the production
35
and demand had been dwindling since early 20th century (Florida Industrial and
Phosphate Research Institute, n.d.).
Brick City Heritage
Built mostly out of timber, the city of Ocala was burnt to a crisp on a rather unfortunate Thanksgiving Day in 1883. After the horrifying incident that engulfed all of downtown, the city of Ocala pledged to build the entire town with fire resistant materials: stone, steel and bricks. Baked red brick was not easy to source at that time and was a material that only the grand buildings used to be built with. Rebuilt entirely of brick and for having been so aesthetically different from other 19th century towns in Florida, Ocala earned the name 'brick city'.
Figure 2-7. Magnolia Avenue in February 2018, Ocala (Photo courtesy of author).
36
The source of the bricks used to rebuild Ocala remains largely unknown. For buildings in St. Augustine from late 19th century, red bricks were imported from Havana and later from Charleston and Savanah. However, red brick was little used in buildings of St. Augustine: at the turn of the century, bricks were commonly used for paving streets. Between 1890s and 1920s, a yellow brown brick was used in St. Augustine for public buildings and in the 1920s, a coquina brick was also produced by the St.
Augustine Stone Works (Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, & Weaver, 1980).
In the 20th century, however, Florida was producing common bricks: as per the
Annual Administration Report by the State Geological Survey, Florida’s clays were ideal for brick making and occurred throughout the state (Sellards E. H., 1910).
In the year 1913, companies in Florida reported production of 42,450.000 bricks with most of them based in North Florida (Sellards E. , 1914). This yield was aside from the large production of light colored sand-lime bricks, of which Florida was a leading producer. As the boom years approached, common brick production increased in
Florida (Gunter H. , Fifteenth Annual Report, 1924).
For Ocala, the legacy of the moniker still lives as many local businesses today use the phrase 'Brick city' in their company names: indicating the respect the city had received for rebuilding itself in 19th century Florida with a material like brick.
Concrete Block in the United States
While the concrete masonry unit we know of today is a modern phenomenon, concrete block (an artificial stone primarily) dates to the Middle Ages as Viollet-le-Duc notes in his Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle
(Prudon, 1989).
37
Looking through the lens of the Western civilization (primarily Europe) at the 18th and 19th centuries’ history, there had been several spotty attempts at making and patenting concrete blocks or concrete masonry units (CMUs). These attempts were accompanied by the development of Portland cement, of course. One among such attempts was the block fabrication done in Brighton, England in the year 1832 where
Mr. Ranger, a local builder, applied for a patent for his molded lime and aggregate blocks. There are buildings existing in London that were made with these ‘Ranger blocks’ or ‘Ranger Artificial Stone’ (The American Architect, 1906). Patents and products like these were isolated instances of block production which remained quite random and were unable to become a mainstream building material (Simpson P. H.,
1999).
The advent of commercial and organized production of CMUs in the United
States is deeply linked to the development of concrete and thereby the Portland cement industry in the country. The first Portland cement plant in the United States opened in
Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania in 1871 and by the turn of the century, most of the Portland cement used in the country was being produced domestically. Concrete blocks or initially also referred to as ‘cast stone’ or ‘artificial stone’, triggered by the advent of
Portland cement, were created for the ease of handling building components for construction. This was welcomed in many states as a modus operandi of construction as development took place in the country in the post-Civil War era.
Alongside technological advancement of one of the prime ingredients that would go into the concrete block, the professional grouping and organization of the cement industry took place at the turn of the century. The establishment of the Portland Cement
38
Association in 1900 was a step further into the development of cement related products
(Simpson P. H., 1999).
However, this is the approach to the history of block making from a nationalized lens which focuses on the Western Civilization; and it must be kept in mind that CMUs may have and had developed sans Portland cement in parts of United States at a small scale/local level, like tabby bricks and tabby blocks in the Southeast (Sickels-Taves &
Sheehan, 1999).
Figure 2-8. Tabby brick from Rayfield plantation, Georgia from 19th century (Selections from the Cornell Anthropology Collections, 2012).
Concrete Block of the 20th Century
Until the beginning of the 20th century, concrete block production in consumable quantities for masses was hindered not only by the disorganization of the industry but due to the poor quality of molds and randomness in recipes of the concrete mixtures,
39
which sometimes resulted in the collapse of structures. Produced ad-hoc for commercial purposes for a few buildings, the destiny of concrete block began to change when
Harmon Palmer developed his patent for the cast iron block making machine in 1900.
The block the machine was hand operated and had a removable core and adjustable sides, which resulted in one lighter, hollow CMU at a time. Harmon Palmer began his block machine company in 1902 called the Hollow Building Block Company and within two years had a skyrocketing business, even as imitators were selling similar machines in the market. The reason for the great pickup of the block making business was the ease with which a business could be established in any place with just a purchase of one block making machine. “Move the machine, not the blocks” was the motto advertised by The Petty John Company of Indiana egging its customers to either make a home themselves or start a block factory (The LaFayette Sun, 1907). There was also awe among the consumers for this material which was not only cheaper than wood and brick but could withstand the menace of fires and was ageless in terms of maintenance.
In absence of standardization of recipe, the color and appearance of the concrete block was played around with as well. In the first two decades of the 20th century, the rockface concrete block, cast in a way to imitate natural quarried stone, was most popular compared to the simple concrete block which was rejected for its banal character.
Interestingly, the concept of hollow blocks picked up alongside the solid blocks from the very beginning. The idea of how the weight got subtracted and that insulation could be added in a hollow block, seemed to evolve alongside the existence of concrete block.
40
By 1910, over a thousand companies were manufacturing concrete blocks; several block-making machines kept flooding the market at more inexpensive rates like the well-known Sears & Roebuck block machine price tagged at $42.50. By 1927, the same company was marketing their machine with claims like “no experience was necessary” and that “anyone could do it”: implying that one could either make their own blocks at home in “spare time” or on a “rainy day” or sell for profit (Simpson P. H., 1999, p. 14). This led to the idea of concrete blocks being homegrown entities for owners who need to build their own shelter at minimal costs – a phenomenon which was referred to as ‘backyard’ concrete block production or a ‘backyard plant’ at the time.
In addition to homeowners, several brick manufacturers and quarry owners in the country quickly warmed up to the idea and began contributing to their community and town by introducing structures made of their concrete blocks. While as profitable, easy to set up and adventurous2 (no standard the recipe, sizes and colors) the business of block making was, lack of quality and often wrongly mixed units were being distributed in the market. Considered ‘cheap and quick’ by the public, concrete block was unable to gain respect as a building material.
To address the negative market trends, several national bodies were formed concerning cement, concrete: The Concrete Block Manufacturers Association was formed in 1919. It was in the year 1924, when the industry organized to standardize the size of the concrete block to 8 in. x 8 in. x 16 in. (Simpson, Hunderman, & Slaton, 1995)
During this decade the durability, weight and strength of the concrete block was also
2 A newspaper article reporting for Madison, Florida mentioned an idea of using magnetite ore as an aggregate and magnetic sand of ilmenite as a sand for more sturdy, heavier concrete blocks (The New Enterprise, 1902)
41
addressed like the introduction of lightweight aggregates. In 1919, the first cinder block plant was established in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Simpson, Hunderman, & Slaton,
1995). The Cast Stone Institute and the American Concrete Institute also adopted specifications and standards for reliable compressive strength in 1929 (Weaver &
Jones, 1998). With such industry progress, the rockface concrete block coming out of the handy Sears & Roebuck machine not only could guarantee stability but also looked impressive despite being inexpensive.
Figure 2-9. Advertisement for a block machine in a journal, 1921. (Concrete Products, 1921).
42
Since the advent of the mass block production, the rockface concrete block was the block which had garnered significant public appeal and was commonly asked for by consumers. Buildings across the country were made of the block that imitated stone, the idea of which was not approved by the architects. Most known architects disapproved and rejected the ‘distasteful’ use of the concrete block as an imitation, including master builder and architect Frank Lloyd Wright, who thought “it was the cheapest (and ugliest) thing in the building world” and “lived mostly in the architectural gutter as an imitation of rock-faced stone” (Cilento, 2010). However, among the middle-class Americans, the rockface concrete block was extremely popular due to its promising durability, cost and ease to build with, all topped by a fancy appearance.
1920s was also an era of branding and aggressive patenting, as established by the textile block system of Wright and Nelson. Manufacturers using common machines and their own technique chose to give a name to their product like ‘Hyrdostone’
(Concrete Products, 1921) or ‘Straub Blocks’ with disclaimers like “The right to manufacture Straub Blocks in a given territory is controlled by special license granted by
Mr. Straub.” (Concrete Products, 1921).
In 1930s, the manufacturing industry became large scale with the dawn of automation in the manufacturing processes. With years passing, each manual step of the process got replaced by a mechanized, timesaving method e.g. the tamping got replaced by automatic vibrators in 1930s and so did curing by steam (Simpson,
Hunderman, & Slaton, 1995). There were thousands of manufactures in the United
States by the 1930s, not only because of the reasons stated earlier but to cater to
43
demands locally in towns as it wasn’t ideal to ship blocks long distance. Blocks plants were conveniently established beside sandpits, quarries and close to highways to serve local markets. By 1940, the entire process, mixing till curing, had been mechanized.
Figure 2-10. Advertisement for Straub blocks, 1921 (Concrete Products, 1921).
Frank Lloyd Wright and the Concrete Block
The real breakthrough for concrete block appreciation for its true aesthetic or originality came when architect Frank Lloyd Wright built a few luxurious residences in
California with his specially crafted 'textile block'. As per the book ‘Frank Lloyd Wright:
In the Realm of Ideas’ by Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer and Gerald Nordland, Wright is known to have said: “What about the concrete block? It was the cheapest (and ugliest) thing in the building world. It lived mostly in the architectural gutter as an imitation of rock-faced
44
stone. Why not see what could be done with that gutter rat? Steel rods cast inside the joints of the blocks themselves and the whole brought into some broad, practical scheme of general treatment, why would it not be fit for a new phase of our modern architecture? It might be permanent, noble beautiful” (Cilento, 2010).
Wright’s textile block system was used in California in the 1920s for four residences: first being the Millard House built in Pasadena in 1923, the Storer House and the Freeman House in Los Angeles in 1923, then the Ennis House in Los Angeles in 1924.
Figure 2-11. Ennis house in Los Angeles, California (Soqui, 2017).
Like most modernists’ bend towards economical, simple and easy to build with materials, Wright set on the same pursuit but to ideate on his own, this time by borrowing the ‘backyard plant’ concrete block and making his own version. With the ideals of bringing in the grid, the ‘mono-material’ quality without losing the organicity of the material, Wright formulated a block system where “concrete block slabs about 2 or 3
45
inches thick of unit sizes, laid on end with interlocking grooves, reinforced horizontally and vertically by means of steel rods. Concrete was poured into the holes through which the rods extend, forming a complete, weatherproof, structural bond of spidery steel reinforcement between the various units. The pattern or design of the face and the size of the blocks may be varied to suit any plan condition or exterior treatment (Chusid,
2013, p. 72).
In 1927, three years after the construction system was built, is when he named the technique as ‘textile block’ system. In the construction specifications of the Ennis house, Wright referred to the blocks as "reinforced concrete construction," "cement blocks," "cement tiles," and "pre-cast slabs or block” (Chusid, 2013, p. 72).
Interestingly, the term ‘Tex-tile’ was originally used for a construction system developed by National Tile Company also known as NATCO, where terracotta tiles were used with steel reinforcement in a similar way as Wright did; the ‘NATCO Tex-tile’ was already out in the market, as seen in a construction manual from 1919, five years prior to Wright’s use of the concrete blocks for the houses in California.
Adding to the cloud of doubt around the ownership of ‘textile block’ as nomenclature: Wright had tried seeking a patent for his construction system but had failed. In March 1920, a gentleman name William Nelson from Fort Worth, Texas patented the block machine he had invented to make concrete blocks with grooves on the edges for reinforcement bars. This concrete block system that involved installation of steel reinforcement with poured slurry was named the ‘Nel-stone Precast Monolithic
System’ after the World War I. Nelson’s manufacturing company was based in San
Antonio, Texas with a franchise in Los Angeles and a manufacturing plant in Carthage,
46
Missouri (Rosin Preservation, 2015). It is believed that Wright had failed in acquiring a patent as it resembled the already existing ‘Nel-Stone’ concrete block construction, facing the risk of being sued by William Nelson standing (Chusid, 2013).
Figure 2-12. NATCO Tex-tile construction system (The Architectural Forum, 1928).
47
From the famous California textile block houses onwards, synced with his ideals of organic architecture, Wright pushed the idea of concrete blocks in his architectural language - and even among his cohorts. So much that he used them in one his largest projects, the Florida Southern College in Lakeland, Florida in 1939.
As the use of concrete blocks was brought into the tasteful, architectural forum of the country, another ideology around the concrete block and its thriftiness as a material was developed by Wright. After the Depression, the architect evolved a solution to residential architecture with his Usonian houses: which were to be built with economical, low impact means (local materials and simple expression). The Usonian are a specific range of houses that Wright developed as his interpretation of ‘housing of the 20th century’. ‘Usonia’ is believed to be a term Wright came across while on a trip to Europe in 1910 where the United States was referred to as U-S-O-N-A instead of USA to avoid confusion with the Union of South Africa (Sergeant, 1976). Wright made the word
‘Usonia’ his own by trying to instill in his design ethos a modest American way of living.
Although Wright has been mostly known for his organic yet opulent residences, the concept behind the Usonian home was for it to be a low-cost individual dwelling that opposed the idea of magnificence and had a ‘nature of home’ with centralized spaces.
With the focal idea such, Wright developed a variety of Usonian homes that ranged in planning forms from hexagonal to circular and hemicycle, that married standard Wright aesthetics of horizontality and site suitability.
Even as the Usonian homes were low-cost houses invented after the
Depression, these houses became expensive and out of reach for the middle-class
American as they got popular. Wright developed the Usonian houses in the 1940s in the
48
war-ridden background, resultant of which was that only rich clients could afford the
Usonian house and the need to lower costs even further became more urgent to suit the architect’s theory. Cheaper methods of construction were Wright’s focus during and after the war and by 1950s he revived his textile block system of the 1920s which he had used in California.
Figure 2-13. Construction site of the Usnonian Automatic Tonkens House, 1964 (Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Archives (The Museum of Modern Art | Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, New York), 2017).
Unlike in the 1920s, when only the aesthetic and novelty of concrete blocks were explored by Wright, this revival of the block system for the Usonian houses also beckoned on the concept of ‘self-building’, a socio-cultural change that took place after the WWII when the returning, demobilized G.I.s began constructing their houses with their own hands as a response to shortage of housing and the then increasing building
49
costs. The Usonian Automatic, as Wright called this range of Usonian homes, were concrete block houses where a metal mold was used to make the hollow blocks; the blocks has grooves around the edges to include reinforcing steel bars to provide the skeletal support the concrete block wall masonry. In 1951, eight self-built Usonian
Automatic houses were built near Kalamazoo, Michigan followed by more in Ohio and
Arizona. Once during 1954, when asked about what did he have to give to financially weaker clients aspiring to have Wright build for them, Wright had said, “I have given it to him and he doesn’t know it…in what I call the Usonian Automatic, where the union has been eliminated; where masonry at $29.00 a day is out; where there are no plasterers at the same rate; where there are no carpenters at all. It is a block house. I did it for the
G.I.’s. The G.I. can go in his back road…he’s got sand there…get himself some steel rods and cement, make the blocks, and put the blocks together….I have done that thing…you can build your own house!” (Sergeant, 1976, p. 144).
The Concept Of ‘Self-Building’
The 1929 depression rendered a lot of youth unemployed and there was an added supply of physical labor in the market that was looking for jobs or willing to start any business. This also meant the easy availability of skilled craftsman who would construct homes until the mobilization for the WWII took place.
After the war demobilization, a similar situation developed as there was an influx of man power, labor and shortage of housing. What came along with this was the post- war economic boom resulting in a high construction pace but with regulations and increased buildings costs. Even as the idea of suburbia developed in the Northeast in the late 1940s, the economic climate added by the nationalistic, masculine energy of the returning G.I.s led to the concept of ‘self-building’ in other parts of the country. Self-
50
building, or owners of the land building their own house with their hands, was a momentary revolution in lifestyle that affected not only the vernacular, roadside homes but also clients of architects, even the master himself, Frank Lloyd Wright. His clients’ willingness to build their own homes affected the development of his Usonian concept, which can be seen in post war variations of the Usonian homes. Self-building in some cases also resulted in homeowners and clients “quarrying their own materials” let alone sourcing them on their own to build with (Sergeant, 1976).
Concrete Block in Florida
As understood, the concrete block production operations were sporadic in the late 19th century: Florida was one of the places for such attempts with the earliest recorded efforts been in the city of St. Augustine, having taken the forefront with block production as the oldest settled city of post-Columbian era. Presence of significant building activity, by nationally important architects and local practitioners, in the city could perhaps be credited for this early use of concrete block in Florida in the early
1880’s. The first use of concrete block is believed to have been in the foundation of the
Villa Zordaya, the Moorish revival structure opposite of Flagler College made by
Franklin Smith in 1883 (Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, & Weaver, 1980).
However, the first, apparently unapologetic use of concrete blocks as a building material in St. Augustine and perhaps in all of Florida, was done in the Horace Walker
House in 1888 (Marder, Mattick, & Waber, 2009). Located on 33 Old Mission Avenue, the house displays its use of exposed concrete block referred to as ‘Cast Stone’ or
‘Artificial Stone’ made from custom molds. The Walker house was constructed with concrete block material (with iron rod reinforcement) at a time when the concrete block industry was developing in the United States, making it a significant structure, at least
51
within the Floridian context of 1880’s. In terms of broad use, early concrete blocks
(1880s and 1890s) produced in St. Augustine were known to have been patterned with the design of the City Gate impressed on them, these were primarily used as foundations and a few small blocks were used in the walls for ornamental purposes.
Later, a thinner concrete block, plain or patterned, was used as a facing on wood frame buildings, which can be observed today at 28 St. Francis Street in the city’s historic area.
Figure 2-14. Horace Walker House in St. Augustine (Google, Inc., 2018).
It should be borne in mind that the use of blocks was not limited to St. Augustine in the late 19th century, like in the Pensacola harbor, blocks were being used to protect the shoreline (The Pensacola News, 1889).
52
By the turn of the century, as the industry began to organize, St. Augustine block manufacture joined the league of the famous rock face concrete block produced with the Sears and Roebuck machine (Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, & Weaver,
1980). The use of this rock face was initiated by B.E. Pacetti, a local mason and contractor in St. Augustine popular for development in the North City area, in a few residences on Old Mission Avenue (Marder, Mattick, & Waber, 2009).
By the first decade of the 20th century, concrete blocks or artificial stone were taken to be easy and cheap building materials in Florida with each city having at least one firm running the manufacturing (Sellards E. H., 1909). The Eureka Stone Co. in St.
Petersburg advertised themselves as the manufacturers of hollow concrete blocks along with the existing sand-cement bricks as early as 1904 (Tampa Bay Times, 1904). In the same year, the South Florida Supply Co. was making hollow rockface concrete blocks for a building and several residences in Lakeland (The Tampa Morning Tribune, 1904).
The use of concrete blocks had little to do with the proximity to mainland or
Northern United States, as buildings of concrete blocks had been coming up as far as
Key West (The Miami News, 1906) and as well as in Daytona (The Daytona Daily
News, 1906). In other parts of South Florida, St. Lucie County was the first to try concrete blocks for public roads in 1907 (The St. Lucie County Tribune, 1907).
By the first decade of the 20th century, large scale plants had established in
Okeechobee and Jacksonville (Concrete Products, 1919). It is well established that concrete blocks at that time were better known for the machine they were made from than the recipe or the manufacturer e.g. the Southern Concrete & Construction Co. in
St. Petersburg publicized for their blocks by placing the popular Miracle Block Machine
53
on their advertisement (Tampa Bay Times, 1910). It is also important to note that block machine makers from different parts of the country had been travelling to states like
Florida to convince people to take up block manufacture business (Zimmerman, 2018).
Affirmations of the cheapest cost, fire-safety and waterproofness – appear to have been the selling points in the advertisements by the block companies in the second decade of the 20th century: like in the case of the Miami Cast Stone Company from 1919 (The
Miami News, 1919) or the Southern Concrete & Construction Co. (Tampa Bay Times,
1910) or the Kissam Building Stone Co. (The Orlando Sentinel, 1921).
Figure 2-15. Advertisement by Kissam Building Stone Co. (The Orlando Sentinel, 1921).
Not only in production and consumption, Florida was also pioneering as an inspiration to businessmen from other states for its block designs like it did for Mayor
54
Abran O. Johnson of Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, who declared his plans for a new concrete block plant “patterned after those he saw on a recent trip through Florida” in
1921 (Concrete Products, 1921).
Concrete block usage saw a surge during the Florida Boom: with high development in the Miami region and the Southwest coast, construction doubled as several new cities were founded in the State as well. The Tampa Bay Times had reported on the spending on ‘building a home’ in Florida instead of just ‘owning a home’, which had led to the rapid use of concrete blocks with over 250 residences built in the year 1924, just in Miami (Royle, 1925).
A significant element of the concrete block construction in Florida of the 1920s and 1930s was the added coating or stucco over the block masonry. Seen throughout advertisements of concrete block homes, especially in South Florida, stucco or cement paint seemed to have been indispensable when it came to use of concrete block (The
Miami News, 1924). This trend was also observed by the national periodical, Concrete
Products, in 1921, which said, “Now that the manufacture of concrete block, brick and tile has passed beyond the experimental stage, quality is merely a matter of care in following well defined, correct methods of manufacture. It has been said that the future of concrete block depends upon its surface and it has been proven that natural gray concrete block of either the plain or rock-face variety is not entirely successful in producing desirable architectural effects. The surface must either be covered with stucco of pleasing texture or color or the block must be tooled to reveal the natural beauty of the aggregate or a special facing material must be used. It is becoming better understood by contractors,” (Concrete Products, 1921, p. 53).
55
Figure 2-16. Concrete Block Stucco phrase in advertisements (The Miami News, 1921).
Keeping in mind the architectural trends of the 1920s Florida with the stylistic revivals ushering in with the Art Deco, there seemed to have been an aesthetic need to hide the real face of concrete blocks without making it an imitation of a natural material
(The Miami News, 1925). The term ‘concrete block stucco’ or ‘cement block stucco’
(The Miami News, 1934) had been the quick definition of construction type of most buildings in South Florida that had block (The Miami News, 1928). The term had also been used by realtors and contractors to type a house or home until the WWII time (The
Miami News, 1940).
Having moved on from the rock face concrete block onto the concrete block stucco, and with credits to the architectural styles of the Florida Boom time, Floridian diaspora showed acceptance to the plain texture of the block if not the color just then.
Following the slowing down of the war years, the concrete block had resurfaced in the late 1940s as a surplus war material with newspapers flooded not only with calls for sales but calls for concrete block laying jobs as well (Tampa Bay Times, 1949). Post- war era also came with the fully automatic machine for producing blocks that had no manual job requirement like in the case of Cement Products and Supply Co., Inc. in
56
Lakeland, who had been manufacturers of burial vaults and had moved into the block manufacture after buying their hydraulic Columbia machine in 1947 (Schottelkotte).
The mid-century era in Florida saw the peak of concrete block production and use in Florida (Zimmerman, 2018). The modern architectural movement, rapid changed in tastes and styles, changing economy all factored in to elevate concrete block’s status as the ‘natural building stone’ of Florida (discussed later in this thesis).
At one point in the block manufacturing industry, seemingly the 1960s, consolidation of block manufacturing companies had begun with the larger companies buying out the operations from the small fish e.g. the Rinker group of South Florida was bought by Cemex in the 1960s to become a vertically integrated construction materials company in Florida. Small manufacturers who had and have refused to consolidate, called ‘Independent’ manufacturers or the ‘mom-n-pop’ operations, somehow managed to keep the originality of products and their personalized, small yet quality service to the construction fraternity, till the time they could or can (Zimmerman, 2018).
Coquina Concrete Block of St. Augustine in the 1920s
The presence the 19th century phenomenon of ‘backyard plants’ that produced concrete blocks of local flavor can still be seen today in buildings of St. Augustine city, the oldest European settlement in the United States. Ever so important among nationally significant architects of the 19th century like James Renwick and the firm
Carrere and Hastings, St. Augustine saw the sprouting of local ‘practitioners’ who were not strictly architects but builders and civil engineers from the late 19th century. As civil engineers and builders, these practitioners borrowed their design skills from the significant and unique architecture of St. Augustine that had been developing since the
17th century. At the same time, with an influx of architects to America’s oldest city
57
already substantial, these practitioners used local materials to make their own architectural statement – use of palmetto tree posts, and coquina concrete block. One such architect and civil engineer was Goold T. Butler, who used concrete blocks made with local coquina aggregate as foundation in the Alf B. Day house located on the Old
Quarry road in 1917 (Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, & Weaver, 1980). The use of coquina concrete block is a 20th century phenomenon in St. Augustine when the use of native materials and ease of production were prime concerns for the active building industry. In 1919, coquina was tested and approved by Bureau of Standards as a rather satisfactory aggregate for concrete blocks in Florida but inferior in comparison to say, the Potomac river sand (Concrete Products, 1919).
Figure 2-17. House on 24 Cincinnati Avenue, St. Augustine (Google, Inc., 2018).
The use of concrete blocks within the city of St. Augustine is significant in the
North City area, a National Register Historic District with a period of significance 1879-
1935. The area is historically known to have the highest concentration of the concrete
58
block buildings and one of the earliest use of concrete blocks not just in Florida but also
United States (Marder, Mattick, & Waber, 2009). The architect and builder of the North
City area at that time, John A. Reyes, is often credited for the coquina concrete block: which he prepared using a dry mix of crushed coquina stone aggregate and Portland cement, that was set in molds, and assuming at that point in time, hand tamped
(Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, & Weaver, 1980). The coquina concrete blocks had decorative patterns as well but the plain face with a rectangular boundary impression appears to have been the most common in the city. John Reyes’ own operation, North City Stoneworks produced these coquina concrete blocks including many other manufactures in the city. Although these coquina concrete blocks were commonly used in the foundations, they eventually made their way to fences, walls and chimneys of buildings of the city; 24 Cincinnati Avenue is understood to be the ideal example of this block’s usage in terms of aesthetic and importance. Through the 1920s and 1930s, this block’s popularity and similarity in appearance to coquina reduced the pressure on the procurement of the quarried stone. During the Florida Boom time of
1920s, coquina concrete blocks had become favorable as an exterior material until newer materials were brought into the city (Adams, Steinbach, Scardaville, Nolan, &
Weaver, 1980).
Concrete Block Among Architects in Florida
Starting 1939, Wright made an eventful impact in Florida with his project at the
Florida Southern College in Lakeland, especially on the Floridian architects whom he mentored, directly and indirectly. These architects, with work spread throughout Florida, professed at institutions about the Wrightian style to students of architecture who would later join the brigade of the mid-century modernism in Florida.
59
1940s onwards and especially after the WWII, architects bred in Florida or those who settled in Florida understood what the sun-rain-sun climate cycle did to wood and to materials that were being used in other states to create "architecture". Budgetary limitations and the need to create something that will not only have its own language but also suit the climatology had these architects in a fix about the material to build with. For obvious reasons, masonry was always the first choice but in the new age, post-
Depression time, for young Florida architects the idea of bringing stone from one coast to the other wasn't admirable. Perhaps this standpoint and Wright's influence of concrete block from the Florida Southern College led Florida's architects into the mid- century with a material of their creation for their artistic, high style designs - a concrete block made from local materials. South Florida architect from the 1960s, Donald Singer said, "It was as if South Florida, in its rush to stay ahead of its own inevitable growth, had adopted its own natural stone. Here was no need to at all to carry stone from some other shore and pretend to capture someone else's history. It could be made right at home in a marvelous variety of color and shape. The block was a wonderful, modular tool and what I quickly discovered was that the masonry became its own design- motivating force. In a sense, at a point, design would flow from the very idea of the material. The block transcended status. It could work equally well in the most modest structure and in the most elegant" (Singer, 1999).
It was one thing to use concrete block as regular masonry units, but architects in
Florida brought in more character of their blocks by vertically stacking them, a common modern aesthetic seen around the world in architecture from 20th century. While
International style of architecture became the beacon of Modernism in other parts of the
60
United States, Florida was carving its own niche of what later become its pioneering regional modernism. The Architectural forum in the year 1941, while addressing its section on houses of the South said, “Modern houses are almost non-existent except in
Florida resort centers” (Architectural Forum, 1941).
In Florida, the 'stacked block' style is assumed to have come from the Sarasota
School, who's founding father architect Ralph Twitchell has been credited for introducing exposed, stacked concrete block building in Florida (Howey, 1995). Several visual references of the Florida's recorded architectural history show that the concrete block was used primarily in his buildings as early as 1939-40. Mostly in residences, the use of concrete block in his buildings and in the works of other Sarasota School architects appears as a ‘mid-century modern’ aesthetic. Understanding the popularity of the Sarasota school, concrete block seems to appear ubiquitously in works of most of
Florida's architects from the mid-20th century.
Frank Lloyd Wright in Florida
Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture arrived in Florida when the architect was in the later yet an adventurous phase of his career. Although many projects are known to have been attempted by the celebrity architect’s office in Mid-west, only two were realized.
The first being the large-scale campus planning and design project, the Florida
Southern College in Lakeland and the second being a residence in Tallahassee, the
Spring house. While the Florida Southern College forms seemingly important narrative regarding the development of concrete block systems in Florida by Wright, the Spring house may have an unexplored connection of Wright to Ocala block.
61
Florida Southern College, Lakeland
Florida Southern College campus, also known as the Florida Southern
Architectural District, is one of the most significant architectural treasures of the
Sunshine State. Constructed over a period of 1937 to 1958, the college campus consists of nine buildings originally designed and constructed by the Frank Lloyd
Wright, and three other buildings by Wright’s protégé and Florida architect Nils
Schweizer. The design of the buildings along with the circulation was envisioned on a master plan by Wright in which he originally intended to put 18 buildings, only 12 of which were realized on the 100-acre site (Little, 1979). Both in terms of scale and typology, this 20-year long, unique project of Wright’s career began after he took the first commission of building a chapel on the college’s grounds, the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel.
Figure 2-18. Entrance to the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, Lakeland (Photo courtesy of author).
62
The Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, the first building by Wright in the state which was preceded by his eventful visit to the citrus heartland of Florida, speaks the most for his
‘organic architecture’ ideals. The chapel is also a testament of the story on how Frank
Lloyd Wright motivated the nascent architectural identity of Florida then, during the pre-
WWII years (1937-1941).
It is well known that Frank Lloyd Wright saw the peak of his successful career in the later years of his life, which started in the late 1930s: with the Depression having weaned off, Fallingwater had just been completed in 1937 and he had made to the cover of the Time Magazine in January 1938 for his work (Siry, 2004). It was right around this time that he was brought on board by Mr. Ludd Spivey, president of Florida
Southern College in Lakeland, to design their campus on a site with orange groves abutting Lake Hollingsworth.
Before bringing Wright on board, Spivey had spent more than a decade raising funds to free the college of debt. During this time, as president, Spivey also sought to form the ideological and religious foundation of the Florida Southern: with modern pragmatism as the ethos, Spivey believed that students should not be mere spectators to knowledge being distributed in classrooms but should learn through experience. This ideal was later put in action by making students earn their tuition in exchange of doing construction work for the Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings on campus - which also brought down costs of construction of the institution.
Modern pragmatism also distanced Spivey from the ‘Collegiate Gothic’ architecture that was common on academic campuses in the United States at that point of time. Spivey’s modernistic outlook at religion, like minded religious speakers who
63
came to the college eventually led to him to reach out to Frank Lloyd Wright for the design of the first building on campus; a chapel, which could express the futuristic ideals the college had developed/was developing (Siry, 2004). Among Floridians, especially architects, it was difficult to accept the Southern Methodists at the Florida Southern
College would support Wright’s radical design for a religious building (Howey, 1995).
After contacting Wright in April 1938, Spivey visited him in Taliesin explaining his need for an ‘education temple’ in Lakeland. True to his form, Wright first visited Florida to conduct his research and to gauge the site before taking the project commission. His site visit lasted 3 days in May that year which Spivey describes: “he walked slowly about the college campus, from time to time letting the Florida sand trickle through his delicate fingers." (Siry, 2004, p. 502). Spivey also remembered that Wright had him drive him all over the country to see various parts of Lakeland and the county like the tower at the
Bok Tower Gardens (with coquina stone facing) located north of Lake Wales. Wright, who usually stayed away from academic projects, took the project commission at the end of the site visit expressing the uniqueness of client’s aspirations and the site’s beauty.
To raise more funds for the project, Spivey hosted a dinner in Wright’s honor where the project was publicly announced and where Wright gave a speech, which was attended by 300 Floridians from all across the state (The Tampa Tribune, 1938). During the speech, Wright had said, “this is a great opportunity here because you have a beautiful piece of ground. I shall be very proud indeed to give the Foundation fresh form, a Florida form. No real Florida form has yet been produced. Most of you here have simply built as you built back home. We do not need a French chateau for a
64
firehouse nor a Greek temple for a bank. I believe we are now ready for a culture of our own, something indigenous to America. We have the fifty-seven varieties in architecture. All my life I have longed for something we in America could call our own."
(Siry, 2004, p. 503).
Wright’s speech about the Floridian identity in architecture, which was also broadcasted on radio, resonated strongly as the chapel took shape into reality: the tall, angular religious structure received mixed reviews with many lauding its architectural uniqueness and others calling it a monstrosity. Either way, his opinion that “Florida, with vast architectural possibilities, had no indigenous architecture, but had always borrowed, notably from Spain” (Sims H. G., 1941, p. SM15) had already begun to motivate many professionals in the state to formulate the independent Floridian expression.
The structure was the first religious commission Wright had taken in 30 years ever since Unity Chapel in Oak Park, Illinois (Siry, 2004). A lot of changes and evolution had taken place in his architectural style in those 30 years: key mentioning here would be his newly acquired taste for the concrete blocks seen in the ‘textile block’ residences in California, constructed in the late 1920s.
At the Florida Southern College, the construction for the foundation of the chapel began in November 1938. This was followed by Wright’s visit to the site in December
1938 when he began to test the ideas he had envisioned for the wall construction – the use of local sand from the site with cement. Over the winter holidays of 1938, he tested the local sand available in the orange grove on the building site but declared it unfit as it had too much fertilizer content. By January 1939, he had decided to work out the recipe
65
through trials (different mixes and colors) using sacks of local sand he had requested
Spivey to be sent to Taliesin, where sample blocks of his satisfaction were finalized by
April 1939. The sample blocks were sent to Florida to test their conditions and durability in the local climate (Siry, 2004). At this point in time, a local newspaper reporting the construction progress at the Florida Southern College referred to the sample blocks coming from Taliesin as ‘clay blocks’ (Tampa Bay Times, 1939).
Using local materials was the objective of Wright’s design of these blocks for the chapel. Eventually he chose the local ‘coquina sand’ (from St. Augustine) as the aggregate for the blocks, which consisted of shells and according to Wright, showed the indigenous character of the building. The use of coquina is referred to as a ‘sand’ and also an ‘aggregate’ as different literature sources claim one or the other (Siry, 2004;
Groer, 1995).
Figure 2-19. Construction site of the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, Lakeland (Siry, 2004).
66
The color of the blocks is believed to have been light buff (Sims H. G., 1941).
The Architectural Forum from 1948 mentioned the “color of the buildings inside, as out, is a warm tan--lighter on the plain surfaces” (Little, 1979, p. 16). A newspaper article from 1995 called them ‘pale’ (Groer, 1995). In the image showing student constructing the blocks on site, a lighter color of blocks can be observed compared to the patinated dull grey/brown color we see today at Florida Southern College.
As mentioned above, in lieu of the tuition waiver, students at the Florida
Southern College were the labor that built the chapel and many other structures in the years following. Three days a week and when not in classes, students would be on the construction site mixing the concrete of the blocks (Little, 1979), pouring them into wooden relief molds to yield blocks that were 9 in. high and 36 in. long. The walls were two block thick and “were laid dry, their edges grooved to hold steel reinforcing rods and grouting, like Wright's earlier textile blocks.” (Siry, 2004, p. 515). Forty-six different designs of the blocks were made with each design having its own mold made on site.
There was no use of mortar or sealant to stack the block (Groer, 1995) but reinforcement bars adjusted in the grooves between blocks gave skeletal strength to the wall. Students produced 14,000 “coquina blocks” for the construction of the Anne
Pfeiffer Chapel (Siry, 2004).
Like the Anne Pfeiffer Chapel, other Wright buildings on campuses were constructed the same way, with in-situ concrete blocks prepared by student labor; although the recipe and the design of the blocks varied among other buildings. During the construction, several people, local and out of state, would flock to the site to observe
67
the famous architect’s design go up as his first in the State of Florida (The Tampa
Times, 1940).
The National Register nomination form of the Florida Southern Architectural
District emphasizes the unique block construction, crediting it for introducing the entire
South to “something new in construction” (Little, 1979, p. 15).
The building was inaugurated in May 1941 and attracted a lot of attention including national media. While some wrote of the blocks as ‘concrete blocks’ (The
Tampa Tribune, 1940), most of the references from that era called them ‘coquina blocks’, with one New York times article which even believed the blocks to be quarried
‘coquina stones’ that had been cured to get the right texture and hardness (Sims H. G.,
1941).
"They will be standing a thousand years into the future," Wright had said about the blocks (Little, 1979, p. 13), however, journalist and Floridian, Anne Groer, once reflected on the status of the blocks in the 1990s that how Wright had not anticipated what the tropical monsoon would do the porous sand of the blocks, which were suffering damage by the end of the 20th century (Groer, 1995).
Recently in 2013, a large-scale preservation project was completed at the Florida
Southern College where in addition to preservation, took place the construction of one of the unbuilt structures Wright had designed and drawn for the campus: the Usonian
House. FLW had planned this residential building for the campus which could not be realized at the time of its design. True to the name, the structure is much like Wright’s design series of the early Usonian residences seen across the country except for the
68
block system, which matches to the coquina blocks of the buildings of the Florida
Southern Campus.
Spring House, Tallahassee
Well known landmark in the state but often missed by the far-off Wright purists is a residence designed by Wright in Tallahassee, Florida. Originally known as the Lewis house, the Spring house was designed by Wright for the Lewis family in 1952. Located near a spring that flows into the Lake Jackson, the construction of the house was finished in 1954 and was overlooked by Wright’s protégé and a Taliesin fellow, architect
Nils Schweizer, who was also designing buildings for the Florida Southern College campus with Wright (Tallahassee Democrat, 1962).
The owners of the house, George Lewis II was a real estate broker and his partner, Clifton Lewis was an environmental associate in Tallahassee, FL (Tallahassee
Democrat, 1984). The Lewis’s knew of Wright’s work and in 1950 (Crews, 2014) had the chance of interacting with the architect in Lakeland, during one of his visits to the Florida
Southern College. Wright had agreed to Mrs. Lewis’s request of designing a residence for them and had also asked for the topographical map of their site. By 1952, Wright had finished the design drawings (Little, 1979).
Their home is the only residence Wright designed in Florida and last of his hemicycle series of the Usonian residences he designed (Little, 1979). Like Wright’s hemicycle houses, the plan is like segments of intersecting circles that result in an elliptical form making the building resemble a boat in its frontal appearance. The house stands on a concrete slab over which masonry walls of the first floor and wood frame construction on the floor above stand, also qualifying as one the Raised Usonians he had designed. The materials used in the building are red tidewater cypress wood, glass,
69
concrete and the ‘Ocala limerock block’, which was laid vertical to manipulate the masonry work for the curvilinear plan (Tallahassee Democrat, 1962).
The masonry walls of the Spring house have vertically laid Ocala block with deeply raked joints that play well with the arcs of the building. Spring house is the only specimen of construction that links Wright to the use of Ocala block. However, considering that FLW never visited the site and that the construction was executed by
Schweizer directs the use of Ocala block to have been beyond Wright’s design intent of organic architecture and more due to local construction industry developments. As per
Rodney Little, who interviewed the Jack Culpepper (the contractor), Schweizer and
Lewis’s, “Ocala block is a concrete block made in Florida with certain sands that give the finished material a light tan color”. (Little, 1979).
Figure 2-20. Spring house, Tallahassee (Robin, 2015).
70
Drawings and documents sourced from Nils Schweizer’s son and architect, Kevin
Schweizer, also display how the masonry of the Spring House was never intended to be
Ocala block by Wright but of ‘local stone’. The stone masonry for project was specified to be rock faced or quarried ‘local stone’ and the use of Ocala block is understood to have been an ‘off the shelf’ purchase, presumably chosen due to lower costs and feasibility in comparison to ‘local stone’ or textile block. (Kevin Schweizer Architects,
2018).
Even so as Ocala block and Wright appear disconnected, the idea of Ocala block as an element of a Wrigtian building is embedded in public memory. It is likely that the popularity of Ocala block as a material in the state was catalyzed by the construction of the Spring house, which finished in 1954. An evidence of Ocala block being considered as a relic of Wright’s design can be seen in the Spring house’s effort of selling samples of Ocala block from the house as souvenirs to visitors. (Robin, 2015).
Figure 2-21. Spring house masonry details from the drawings (Kevin Schweizer Architects, 2018).
The Sarasota School of Architecture
For architects, Frank Lloyd Wright’s onset with the Florida Southern College was the most impactful event for the profession in the state (Howey, 1995). However, there
71
was high building activity in Florida prior to Wright’s visit. Mainly credited to the Florida
Boom time, this building activity was already providing an environment for architects of the North to realize opulent stylistic revival architecture, which Wright was critical of. At this time of the 1920s and 1930s, there were also architects and young minds, imprinted by the events taking place, who were forming their own independent architectural identity in certain areas of Florida.
The Florida Land Boom of the mid-1920s triggered building activity in different parts of Florida, and along the South West coast, the town of Sarasota was the epicenter. Sarasota was a small artist’s community until the winter visitors saw the potential of a tropical paradise in this coastal community. The Florida Boom time saw high building activity in all scales: the small, vernacular houses and the high style architecture as well. As the alternative vacation spot for visitors who could not visit
Europe due to WWI, a lot Mediterranean revival architecture came to Sarasota to recreate the European vacation ambiance, with some being lavish revival buildings designed by famous architects of New England.
Following the fall of boom, multiple hurricanes, the Great Depression and a notorious citrus fly ruining the agricultural prosperity of Florida, the state was in a limbo of economic weakness and socio-cultural emptiness. As the state recovered from this period of vacuum, coupled with a recovering national economy, the building industry resumed in Florida – this time influenced by the International Style architectural movement which was driven by the need to develop Florida’s own identity.
72
During the late 1930s and 1940s, in years leading to the war and then more strongly with the post-war boom, Sarasota emerged as a tropical paradise a second time with Florida specific modern architecture instead of a borrowed stylistic revival.
This independent movement of Sarasota’s own modern architecture is termed as the Sarasota School of Architecture. Marked from years 1941 to 1966, the movement was formulated was several architects of different age groups who practiced in Sarasota but eventually went on to establish most of architecture in Florida and some of even the
United States’. The architects known to have been part of the Sarasota School of
Architecture are: Ralph Twitchell, Paul Rudolph, Bert Brosmith, William Rupp, Philip
Hiss, Victor Lundy, Tim Seibert, Jack West, Gene Leedy, Carl Abbott and Mark
Hampton.
The connection of this movement to the development of exposed concrete block as a tasteful material in Florida are linked tightly. The presence of exposed concrete block in Florida’s modern architecture is considered a signature of many architects of the Sarasota School. Infact, the earliest known written reference of the use of exposed
Ocala limestone concrete block by an architect in a modern building in Florida was by architect Ralph Twitchell – for a residence in 1939 (Howey, 1995). Twitchell, the eldest of the group, is understood to be the founding father of the Sarasota School of
Architecture.
Years 1936 to 1941 or till the time the approaching WWII affected the normal functioning, form the first five years of Ralph Twitchell’s practice in Florida. These first few years of his practice are key to the beginning of concrete block and Ocala block’s
73
use in architect’s buildings in Florida, if not so much to the whole body of work the
Sarasota School produced over two decades during the mid-century.
Writers, researchers and experts on Twitchell’s architecture use the terms ‘crème colored Ocala block’, ‘Ocala limestone block’ and ‘Ocala sand block’ along with giving
Twitchell credit, directly or indirectly, to have been the first architect to use the light- colored exposed limestone block. (Howey, 1995; Weaving, 2006; Stockbridge, 1992).
Interestingly, the same material is referred to as ‘lime block’ in works that Twitchell and architect Paul Rudolph did together as partners in their practice. Rudolph, a protégé of
Twitchell and a Sarasota School architect as well, went on to becoming a nationally significant architect of the era. Rudolph used ‘lime block’ in his designs in Florida that span late 1940s till the time he moved away from his practice in Florida (early 1960s).
Ralph Twitchell’s Early Life and Coming to Sarasota
Ralph Twitchell was an architect practicing for the New York firm, Dwight James
Baum, when he first visited Sarasota – for one of the projects the firm had in Florida, the
Ca’d’zan. A Mediterranean revival mansion that was being built in Sarasota for John
Ringling of the famous Ringling Brothers; construction of the Ca’d’zan lasted till the end of Boom time. Even as Twitchell had left the state after the completion of the assignment, being in Sarasota left him mesmerized with the natural, stimulating beauty of coastal Florida. After establishing a career in the Northeast, he returned to Sarasota in 1936 to start his own architectural practice in the town (Howey, 1995).
Ralph Twitchell was born on July 27, 1890, in Mansfield, Ohio, to a well-to-do, progressive family. The Twitchell’s lived a comfortable life: Ralph Twitchell, later in life, reminisced a childhood memory of the glass conservatory in his parents' home, which was the largest house in Mansfield of its time. He would often paint a picture of looking
74
out of the glass conservatory - out to the lawns and gardens, in admiration the nature’s colors, and the beauty of the landscape. He often spoke of the Quaker values as well, given to him by his grandmother and which he followed all his life (King & Domin, 2002).
Twitchell's father died early and his mother then moved the family to Winter Park,
Florida, where he attended Rollins college as a youngster. He initially went on to study architecture at McGill University, Montreal, for a few years but then moved to Columbia
University in New York. Twitchell received both his bachelors and masters from
Columbia University in 1920 and 1921, respectively (J. & McQuade, 2011).
Figure 2-22. Portrait of Ralph Twitchell (Howey, 1995).
Twitchell served in the WWI as a pilot in France. In July 1918, after valiantly offering to be the test pilot for a flight, his plane crashed causing serious injury to his skull and spine that had left him unconscious for weeks in the hospital.
For some time after graduating, Twitchell worked in New York City with the beaux arts firm, Carrere and Hastings. The firm was responsible for almost every building for Henry Flagler on the east coast of Florida, most famous being the Ponce de
75
Leon hotel in St. Augustine (now Flagler College) which was made in 1887 of concrete with coquina and shell as aggregate. Experts on Sarasota School often consider the firm's work portfolio as the reason why Twitchell may have wanted to work with them - his childhood connection to Florida. The firm’s Florida connection is also considered to be an influence on Twitchell as he may have picked his trademark genius of using local materials in new ways from the Ponce de Leon building in St. Augustine (King & Domin,
2002).
After having worked in New York City for a while, Twitchell moved to France where met his first wife, Lucienne Glorieux. It was during his stay in Europe that the architecture firm, Dwight James Baum called on Twitchell to work on the Ringling mansion in Sarasota, the Ca’d’Zan (Stockbridge, 1992).
The Ca'd'zan, the name of the Ringling mansion, was an opulent Spanish revival project whose construction of which was to be overlooked by Twitchell. Twitchell arrived in Florida in 1925 at the peak of the Florida Boom. The project went on smoothly for some time until fall of the Boom hit the state, with the arrival of natural disasters: two hurricanes and a citrus fruit fly, all of which pushed Florida into an earlier depression than to the rest of the country. With railroads shut down and most constructions halted,
Twitchell exercised his organizational skills and resourcefulness by arranging building materials from California in a time-bound manner that met the deadline of the project.
This impressive completion of tasks also meant development of a friendship between
Twitchell and the Ringling’s, and the association with the crème de la crème gentry of
Sarasota that would follow. In 1926 Twitchell got his license to practice architecture in
76
Florida but the slump in Florida’s economy did not allow him to establish a practice then
(Howey, 1995; King & Domin, 2002).
Twitchell returned to New England in 1926 to start his own practice. He settled himself and his family in Connecticut and for the following eight years designed residences in neo-classical styles for his clients, albeit all in local materials. By 1934, for his work in Connecticut, he had earned a respectable repute of rendering decent architectural services of design, execution, interiors and even landscaping, all at a flat percentage cost of the construction.
All this time, he also maintained a connection with Florida: for the eight years in
Connecticut, he spent all the eight winters in Sarasota, a place he had made his winter retreat but not a work base as of then.
Understanding the personality he maintained and the reputations he had of an articulate impressive gentleman, it is plausible to say that Twitchell was a smart, active and ambitious architect who wanted success with satisfaction. His agility to cater to client’s needs and the handiness to take on board civil engineering tasks that may seem overwhelming to other architects speak for traits he had, especially as a builder.
Associated Builders, Inc.: 1936-WWII
In the year 1936, Ralph Twitchell finally opened his own practice in Sarasota, while his family stayed in New England. He had well understood that the seasonal life of
Sarasota would not sustain him financially or land him too many projects, hence kept
New England as home base while travelling back and forth to Florida.
However, Twitchell was completely focused on establishing himself in Sarasota.
He lived in his office for the time he was visiting Florida and had also hired a bookkeeper, a draftsman to help keep the office running. Understanding that the market
77
was still recuperating from the Depression and a new architect’s firm would take time secure projects, Twitchell had known that he would have to find way to increase the income coming from his projects to provide for the running office. To suffice that need, he began providing services of both the architect and the contractor to clients through his office. Being a designer along with a builder not only brought him more fees but also gave him more control over his creative output. As ‘Ralph Twitchell, Architect.’ practiced design, Twitchell set up 'Associated Builders' Inc' to provided construction solutions and facilities to realize his designs. The team of Associated Builders, Inc. included foreman
Ed Root and Twitchell’s nephews, Larry and Jack (John Howey Archive, 2010).
Figure 2-23. Advertisement of Twitchell’s firm (John Howey Archive, 2010).
Twitchell’s existing friendships in Sarasota from previous stay/visits and with the charming personality that he was known to have had, he took little time to mingle with the artist community of Sarasota: which got him his first design and construction project
- the residence for McKinley Kantor. For this home of a Pulitzer Prize winner, Twitchell used the local cypress as a building material. This was followed by another commission
Twitchell acquired: the design and construction of the Showboat house, which was a residence that he designed to stand over water (Howey, 1995).
78
It is believed that Twitchell was disapproving of the Mediterranean revival and later in his career had said that the “the Mediterranean building was not suitable for
Florida. The thick walls, small openings, enclosed courts and roofs with no overhang failed to compliment Florida’s weather” (Stockbridge, 1992). However, if one were to look at the designs of these first few structures by him, there are evident art deco features and forms that have been worked around to experiment with space planning and materiality. The Showboat house had a curve in plan and openings of art deco style with a daring construction over pilotis in water. A similar arrangement could also be seen in the erstwhile Lido Beach Casino from the year 1938, where Twitchell used poured concrete walls with glass blocks to construct a space of an art deco aesthetic with its diamond shaped openings; two massive 'sea horse' sculptures adorned the entrance of the casino as well. In his later years, Twitchell had admitted that introducing modern and new ideas to Sarasota was a battle as convincing people to change tastes was hard (Stockbridge, 1992) but he had never cared about how his buildings were perceived. However, it seems apparent in the early years of his practice that he was attempting to balance his creative enthusiasm of using newer construction materials with architectural language that would likely be accepted in Sarasota of 1938, a balance that would also help him establish his foothold in the town.
Aside from projects like above, work that truly allowed Twitchell to experiment with his ideas and construction trials were the buildings he made for people he knew personally, like his staff. For his secretary and bookkeeper in Sarasota, Lu Andrews,
Twitchell designed three residences over his career, each being a first experiment of some type of construction method Twitchell wanted to execute and comprehend.
79
Figure 2-24. Showboat house, Sarasota, 1937 (Howey, 1995).
The first residence he made for Lu Andrews was in 1939, where he collaborated with the monolithic construction giant, John Edward Lambie of Lambie Concrete House
Corp. of New York. With this project, Twitchell had broadened his experimentation with more unusual construction techniques through collaborations with engineers and material experts. Although ‘Lambolitic’ or ‘Lamouldette’ construction was popular in the
Northeast, this was John Lambie’s first experience of building in Florida (Weaving,
2006; John Howey Archive, 2010; Concrete Products, 1921).
The second residence he built for Lu Andrews was known to be his first use of stuccoed stacked concrete block, used till the window sill level. The house was built starting November 1940 and finished in March 1941 and was the most telling of
Twitchell’s architectural bent towards Wright’s Usonian home ethos (John Howey
Archive, 2010).
80
Figure 2-25. Second residence for Lu Andrews, 1941 (Howey, 1995).
In 1940, Twitchell is known to have used exposed concrete block in a group of functional, low-cost residences for ‘Newtown Heights’ in Sarasota, which were proposed under a loan contract with the United States Housing Authority and the Sarasota
Housing Society. The Newtown area in the city was then ‘a colored zone’, and this housing project was slum clearing project which involved construction of multi-family budget homes for African-American families (The Tampa Times, 1941; John Howey
Archive, 2010).
The Glorieux residence, built by Twitchell for his in-laws in Sarasota in 1940-41, is known to be his first exposed Ocala block residence (Howey, 1995), where he used cubistic block masonry which was vertically stacked. It is believed his apprentice, Paul
Rudolph, worked on this project during his summer stint at Twitchell’s office in 1941
(John Howey Archive, 2010). The construction of this project was managed by Ed Root, the foreman for the Associated Builders, Inc. (John Howey Archive, 2010). When observed sans scale, the Glorieux residence seems to have a striking resemblance to one of Wright’s textile block houses in California.
81
Twitchell made efforts to understand Sarasota’s natural setting like studying winds to best suit his buildings. Sarasotans would often call Twitchell “the local Frank
Lloyd Wright” for his understanding of materials and climatology of Sarasota (John
Howey Archive, June 2010).
It is believed that Twitchell never met Frank Lloyd Wright but news of his work at
Florida Southern College had reached him. There is considerable estimation that Wright influenced him, especially as Wright’s speech in May 1938 about Florida’s architectural identity was also a radio broadcast. There is little evidence about Twitchell admitting
Wright’s influence on him: however, his apprentice and later business partner, architect
Paul Rudolph was an out and about Wright admirer, but nothing seems to have been ever declared by Twitchell about having Wright as an inspiration. In the initial years, when Twitchell would live in his office over his visits from New England, his evening suppers often included discussions with his staff about upcoming and ongoing architectural events and trends. It is unlikely that the mention of Florida Southern
College, the coquina blocks and the ongoing construction of the chapel had not taken place in Twitchell’s office. Twitchell’s staff comprising of young Rudolph and bookkeeper Lu Andrews had also made a trip to Lakeland to see the Anne Pfeiffer
Chapel in the summer of 1941 (Howey, 1995; King & Domin, 2002; John Howey
Archive, 2010).
Looking at Twitchell's work in the 1930s, of what his local-material based, neo- classical style was in Connecticut, compared to what he did immediately after arriving in
Sarasota: the art deco inspired experimental construction of late 1930s and then the
1939-40s style of using even newer materials and techniques like exposed concrete
82
blocks in a modernist style, all show a very rapid trajectory of style change. What is consistent in all of this is his sense of experimentation with construction techniques, adoration for local materials and the connection he tried to establish between the landscape and the building.
Paul Rudolph: Early Years in Florida
Paul Rudolph was born in Elkton, Kentucky to a religious Methodist family.
Rudolph was a southern boy who spent a considerable time moving from one town to another to accompany his father, who was a minister. Rudolph was a talented young person with high artistic bends: as a child, he aced the piano, drew and painted well. He went on to study architecture at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute in the year 1935 and graduated in 1940 with a Bachelor’s in Architecture. The architecture program at the institute was influenced by local vernacular architecture of the humid south: a faculty member at the Institute, Prof. Walter Burkhardt, who had lead the HABS survey in
Alabama brought the knowledge to students of catching breeze in the southern buildings, besides the forms and local materials (King & Domin, 2002).
Figure 2-26. Portrait of Paul Rudolph (King & Domin, 2002).
83
In his final year of school, Rudolph got to have his first interaction with Frank
Lloyd Wright’s architecture through the Rosebaum residence, a popular Usonian house in Florence, Alabama was under construction then. This visit is known to have had a deep impact on Rudolph and his idolization of Wright’s ethos about horizontality, respect towards site and the natural local materials.
Rudolph’s classmate from the school recommended his own former office,
Associate Builders, Inc. as a place to work and begin Rudolph’s architectural career.
After hearing praises about architect Ralph Twitchell, Rudolph sought his apprenticeship in Sarasota; more so as an opportunity to see more of Wright’s work which was going on at the Florida Southern College in Lakeland.
Rudolph joined Twitchell’s firm in the summer of 1941 for five months (John
Howey Archive, 2010), from April to August and assisted with five residence designs
(John Howey Archive, 2010). In the fall of 1941, Rudolph, who had applied to top architecture schools of the country including Wright’s Taliesin (John Howey Archive,
2010), went to Harvard, where he began his education under architect Walter Gropius.
Upon graduating from Harvard and as the WWII ended, Rudolph returned to work with Twitchell to design and build in Florida. Twitchell gladly welcomed him knowing Rudolph’s talent for drawing and design abilities. Rudolph shone in Twitchell’s office yielding designs rendered with quality and by 1947 was made an associate with a financial interest in Twitchell’s firm. In 1948, Rudolph received a Harvard travelling fellowship to Europe and once he returned to Sarasota after his brief absence, Twitchell granted him full partnership renaming the firm Twitchell & Rudolph, Architects.
84
Figure 2-27. Rudolph’s visit to the Florida Southern College, 1941 (John Howey Archive, 2010).
Together as partners, Twitchell and Rudolph went on to create a phenomenal body of work of mid-century modern homes in Florida. Riled with high design thinking, crisp representation of ideas on drawings by Rudolph and the agility of execution and innovative building technologies by Twitchell, the Twitchell and Rudolph houses from
1947-1952 were tasteful, anew examples of architecture which paved way for the
Sarasota School of Architecture.
The Twitchell residence (1941), the Harkavy residence (1946), the Siegrist residence(1948), the Bennett residence (1949-51), the Leavengood residence(1950-51) are a few of many the duo designed and built in Southwest Florida (King & Domin,
2002). The design elements comprised of horizontality, clear glass membranes
85
enclosing spaces in an open interior plan: all of which reflected the International Style architecture Rudolph was trained in. The realization of these buildings in local materials and the experimental construction techniques reflected Twitchell’s engineering skills and acumen (Stockbridge, 1992).
Figure 2-28. Leavengood residence, 1951 (King & Domin, 2002).
Ocala Block by Twitchell & Rudolph:
What was common in Twitchell and Rudolph residences, aside from the synergized relationship of a high functioning creative and a thorough craftsman, was the finesse in the lines and planes and Floridian building materials. The local materials in the duo’s designed residences were natural like the red cypress and some almost natural like the Ocala block masonry unit.
Twitchell had first used Ocala block in the Glorieux residence in 1941 and then in his own residence in Siesta Key in 1941, both projects in which Rudolph is known to have assisted him. However, the post-war use of Ocala block, especially since the
86
beginning of their partnership, was done in a more architecturally sophisticated method, which has been termed as the ‘Ocala block system’ (King & Domin, 2002).
The Ocala block system, much like the ‘textile block system’ of Wright from the
California houses of 1920s or the coquina block system used at the Florida Southern
College in 1939, involved reinforcement bars that provided skeletal strength to the masonry ensemble of the blocks. The textural, plain faced blocks were laid in a stack bond with reinforcement bars (1/2 in.) placed vertically at corners of walls with grout filling. The horizontal reinforcement (1.4 in.) was placed in every third course (King &
Domin, 2002; John Howey Archive, 2010). Aside from the timing of Twitchell and Wright being in Florida at the same as architects of the similar age, Rudolph was heavily influenced by Wright, evident in the Ocala block system.
However, the Ocala block wall system was more personalized to suit the climate of coastal Florida keeping in mind the inherent quality of the block which is known to have been soft and highly porous. The Ocala block system walls were ventilated to prevent moisture penetration and formations of mildew, which was a common phenomenon in Florida. Twitchell and Rudolph addressed this issue by keeping the central web sections of the masonry free from mortar in the interior and letting the hollow cavities of the block breathe. A special tweak was the venting holes that were made at the bottom and top of the masonry walls, creating a more breathing environ for the single wythe thick wall of Ocala block. (John Howey Archive, 2010; King & Domin,
2002). On the exterior, the reinforced stacked Ocala block was sealed with a layer of clear silane coating called “Hydrozo” to act as a vapor barrier for the humid conditions outside (Twitchell & Rudolph, 1950).
87
Figure 2-29. Ocala block system in Siegrist residence, 1948 (King J. , 2018).
While the idea of placing bars in the hollow Ocala block was not novel, the treatment of the wall system with tweaks like vents and silane coatings were specific and could be postulated as Twitchell’s thoughtfulness. His understanding of the materials’ technicality was ahead of many, a quality Rudolph himself credited Twitchell for. Rudolph is known to have commented that it was Twitchell who, “had thought it out very carefully” on how to avoid mildew on the Ocala block system. In a 1990 interview given to architect John Howey, Rudolph had said about Twitchell that “he had a real sense of materials, like how to join two pieces of wood or stacked block” and had also
88
mentioned Twitchell’s earlier practice, the Associated Builders, Inc. with regard to this conversation (John Howey Archive, 2010).
There is little evidence to say if and whether the Ocala block wall system was used in the pre-war residences Twitchell designed, be it the Glorieux residence in
Sarasota or the Twitchell residence in Siesta Key. It is plausible that the war years allowed time for the Ocala block in these early residences to perform in Florida’s climate; which in turn may have aided Twitchell to reflect on Ocala block’s materiality later when he was designing with Rudolph as a partner – a reflection that could have led to regional sophistication of the Ocala block system.
The suppliers of Ocala blocks in Twitchell and Rudolph’s buildings have been varying with more than one block manufacturer having provided them with blocks. For the 1948 Siegrist residence in Venice, Florida, which was also widely published, the
‘lime blocks’ which were exposed inside and out, were supplied by Cummer Lime and
Manufacturing Co. based in Ocala (John Howey Archive, 2010). For the 1950 Watson residence in Gainesville, Florida, the ‘lime blocks’ were sourced from the Ocala lime and manufacturing Co. in Ocala (Twitchell and Rudolph, 1950).
One also notices a change in the aesthetic language of Ocala block’s usage in the twilight years of WWII by Twitchell and in the post war houses by Twitchell and
Rudolph. Prior to the war, Ocala block had been used as stack bond masonry that was heavily massed and played around with as a solid form, like the Glorieux residence resembling the ‘textile block houses’ of California (mentioned earlier). In the post war years of the architects’ partnership, the mass of Ocala block masonry appeared to have
89
been reduced in the building form and replaced by glazing or jalousie windows of the residences
Even as it is apparent and as the researchers and experts understand the ‘lime block’ in Twitchell’s and Rudolph’s buildings to be Ocala block, there is barely any evidence where the architects’ themselves used the term ‘Ocala block’ during the years the material was being used. The light buff colored stacked block used their buildings, after the WWII, was referred to as ‘lime block’ is most of their published work and in their drawings (John Howey Archive, 2010; Twitchell & Rudolph, 1949-51; King &
Domin, 2002). In all their publications, following 1948, in journals like Architectural
Forum, Arts and Architecture, the Ocala block has been labelled as ‘lime block’. An article in the ‘Art and Architecture’ journal from 1948 described the ‘lime block’ as
“similar in construction to the usual concrete block ,except that there is considerably more lime and Ocala rock in the mixture, producing a much more dense and infinitely better concrete block” (John Howey Archive, 2010). Interestingly, the same material (to say the least Ocala block) used pre-war by Twitchell in his residence in Siesta Key has been referred to as concrete block in his drawings (Ralph S. Twitchell, Architect., 1941).
Twitchell’s and Rudolph’s partnership, primarily due to a clash of ideologies and age difference, ended in 1952. Rudolph set his ambitious self to lead the architecture world at a global scale, after having practiced in Florida till 1958-60. During his independent practice in Florida, Rudolph’s crisp modernist aesthetic continued in his own commissions through the 1950s, but in the last few years of his work in Florida the
‘lime block’ made multiple appearances in his designs especially with heavy, massier building forms (King & Domin, 2002).
90
In these later buildings of Rudolph in Florida, ‘lime block’ appeared as a lighter, smooth, evenly colored masonry unit. Several publications reporting the Milam House in
Ponte Vedra Beach, call the block ‘sand colored concrete block’ or a ‘beige concrete block’ (John Howey Archive, 2010). The National Concrete Masonry Association termed the concrete masonry work of Paul Rudolph’s practice as ‘natural colored blocks’ (John
Howey Archive, 2010).
Figure 2-30. Rendering of Milam house, Ponte Vedra Beach (John Howey Archive, 2010).
Twitchell, who’s independent practice after Rudolph’s departure did not thrive like before, slowed down as he entered his retirement. With Rudolph’s ambitious drive taking him all over the country, Twitchell remained anchored to Florida till the very end.
Twitchell could not hold back his affinity for tropical climate; the beaches, the calming colors of blue and green inspired him in ways that affected his design thinking. It is believed that his office in downtown Sarasota was all white except the greens and blues
91
he had used deliberately – in order to replicate the natural color palette of Florida. He went to paint several ceilings in his designs in a shade of blue to mimic the Florida sky, a shade that came to be known as Twitchell blue (Weaving, 2006; Howey, 1995; King &
Domin, 2002).
Twitchell’s adoration of Florida’s nature combined with his skill and keen interest in exploring building material and technology hint at him having been the trend-setter of the Ocala block masonry. Several claims from well-wishers and family credit him for having introduced Ocala bock in Florida (Stockbridge, 1992; John Howey Archive,
2010). However, keeping in mind the story of Wright and the ‘textile block system’ of his and understanding that Twitchell was a smooth, crafty conversationalist who established himself in Sarasota making smart, calculated moves, it is likely that Ocala block, as a product, came to him from elsewhere. Twitchell was collaborative and it can be theorized that the use of Ocala block in his buildings was a result of an understanding between him and a builder or a manufacturer.
However, looking at the Ocala block wall system as a technology, Twitchell’s and
Rudolph’s partnership appears to have been the synergy behind its localized adaptation. The protection of exterior surface and ventilation of the interior surface of the blocks as a system can be considered as a derivative of Twitchell’s genius of experimentation in Rudolph’s modernistic design canvas.
Ocala Block in Florida
Outside of the architectural elite, Ocala block occupied a large place among the
Floridian diaspora as a building material of the mid-century. As Twitchell and Rudolph advanced with Ocala block system in their highly regarded residences in Southwest
Florida, Ocala block gained simultaneous public appreciation as a native building
92
material of Florida. However, the appeal of Ocala block is not necessarily only derived from the value architects placed on it. Ocala block seems to have had found its place as a building material at the same time, if not before, the architects had begun using it.
Case of Snell Isle House. The first public mention of a masonry unit in connection with the Ocala block was in a newspaper from February 1940, in an advertisement for a newly built, ‘Ranch Monterey’3 house at 1344 Bridgewaters
Boulevard in the Snell Isle neighborhood of St. Petersburg, Florida. The advertisement, for the sale of a residence, called out the building construction to be of “Ocala certified block”. It also mentioned that the block had been “furred inside and waterproofed outside walls insulated” (Tampa Bay Times, 1940). From the picture in this advertisement, it can’t be guaranteed if the mentioned waterproofing had been a transparent coating or a plastered covering, as the masonry joints cannot be seen in the picture. For a four bedroom and three-bathroom house, it had been priced at $15,750 in the year 1940.
Another reference to the same house at 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard, is from
May 1939 in another newspaper of Florida. Advertised as the “house of today”, it said to have been built by Maynard, (Welch), Inc. and architect and engineer WM. O. Sparkin.
The wall masonry was mentioned to be of “Cumrock”. (Tampa Bay TImes, 1939).
At the onset of war in 1941, the same house had made it to the newspapers again in a sale advertisement by the owner (an army officer who could not own the house) through his agent, Perry G. Snell. The walls of this house were said to be
“Cumrock stucco block walls” furred inside with plaster board. The price of the house
3 The Ranch-Monterey style house would mean a mix of two house styles, the Anglo Monterey house and California Ranch that were popular in California in the 1930s (Gebhard, 1987).
93
had also reduced to $11,750 from the $15,750 from the last advertisement (Tampa Bay
Times, 1941).
Figure 2-31. Advertisement for 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg (Tampa Bay Times, 1940).
94
Yet another advertisement for the same house in Snell Isle had reappeared 3 years later, in 1943, with a similar description of the house but the wall masonry described to be of “Cumrock Ocala concrete block” (Tampa Bay Times, 1943). The mention of “Cumrock Ocala concrete block” in 1943 for the same house from 1940 of
“Ocala certified block” and in 1939, of “Cumrock” leads the author to the ‘Cumroc’ masonry units, which were a brand of concrete masonry units launched by the limestone quarrying company established in Ocala, Florida, the Cummer Lime and
Manufacturing Co.
Between the prewar, overlapping mentions of Cummer block/Cumrock or Ocala concrete block and postwar boom and wide success of Ocala block, the first recorded public use of the two words together “Ocala” and “block” were in an newspaper advertisement selling spare 20,000 masonry units left from the war time (The Tampa
Tribune, 1946). The use of the term “Ocala block”, without the mention of Cummer or concrete or limestone, as a moniker could be seen 1946 onwards; after the first known reference of the spare blocks from the war, the second mention was for the new city hall construction that had taken place in Tampa which called itself “a new city building made with Ocala block” (Mase, 1947). By 1948, several public and private buildings were coming up in Ocala blocks e.g. the Astatula Post Office building made with Ocala lime blocks (The Tampa Tribune, 1948), the office-apartment building in St. Petersburg claiming firs use of ‘Ocala lime block’, (Tampa Bay Times, 1950), perhaps unaware of the pre-war use of Ocala concrete blocks or Cumroc masonry units at 1344
Bridgewaters Boulevard at Snell Isle house in St. Petersburg.
95
Just as Wright had influenced them, Twitchell and Rudolph were influencing other architects of Florida, particularly of Central and Southwest Florida, the Pinellas
County Information Center designed by William B. Harvard on modern lines of glass block and concrete also boasted of local materials of Florida like cypress and Ocala limestone block (Tampa Bay Times, 1952). A similar case was the church in Zephyrhills where architect Jefferson D. Powell designed the church edifice of 79 ft. x 38 ft. to be made with Ocala block (The Tampa Tribune, 1953).
The use of Ocala block among other architects was not necessarily like the
Ocala block system by Twitchell and Rudolph but was as in different degrees of applications: e.g. the First Church of God in Lakeland, designed by architect Donovan
Dean only claimed to have been ‘faced with Ocala blocks’ (The Tampa Tribune, 1955).
Another sway by the other architects was of the size: a standard Ocala block in
Twitchell and Rudolph’s buildings was either 8 in. x 8 in. x 16 in. or 8 in. x 8 in. x 8 in., but the size of Ocala block was different in the new design of the Gulf Cities Gas Corp.
Building by designers Graham and Sandler, Inc. The building used Ocala block as a facia wall that showed the smaller, brick size height of the Ocala blocks (Tampa Bay
Times, 1955).
By 1953, the building boom was peaking in Florida with sprawl beginning to occur around towns all throughout the state. Among the residences and infrastructure like schools that were coming up, many were being built in Ocala block construction
(The Orlando Sentinel, 1953).
By end of 1950s, Ocala block had acquired a status of being a beautiful and decorative material that added to the visual appeal of the building. Adjectives like
96
“beautiful”, “chic” and “exquisite” were prefixed to the mention of Ocala block as a building material (Knight, 1962). Used as a structural material and as feature walls as well, Ocala block found its mention in every public piece of information regarding the building it was used in or the organization that owned that building. Whether advertisements by realtors, publicity articles by corporations or features of homeowners,
Ocala block used in construction was considered as the “last word in masonry construction” (The Tampa Times, 1958).
Figure 2-32. Feature article on home of Conchita Benito (Knight, 1962).
Further, Wright’s connection to the Ocala block established by the Spring House in Tallahassee was sufficient to create a desire for the material in the middle-class homes. The Kerns family for instance, sought all Usonian elements in their house from
Wright’s out of state work but the Spring House was their inspiration for the wall masonry – made of ‘Ocala limerock block’ or also ‘buff block’ (Miller, 1974).
In 1958, during the construction of Busch Gardens in Tampa, the erstwhile
Budweiser beer plant or brewery was also being built. The peaking public appeal of
97
Ocala block of that time is defined by the 280 ft. long and two stories high Ocala block wall the brewery boasted of having built. The building also spoke of using different shapes and sizes of Ocala block as an interior feature, which also suggests the variety of sizes and shapes it was available then under one moniker – Ocala block (Knight,
1958). The massive Ocala block building was demolished in 1995 (BGT History, 2017).
As mentioned earlier, in the late 1950s, Twitchell and Rudolph residences swayed towards visually lighter materials for their buildings skin and reducing Ocala block masonry to more of an interior feature wall, the same trend was seen in residences of middle-income Floridians aspiring for the same taste in their home designs. In many of the feature articles in newspapers and magazines of the late 1950s, mention of Ocala block as a partition wall or a planter to “add interest” in residences was common, whether designed by the owners themselves or their architects/designers
(Carroll, 1958). Architect Richard Mixon, an employee with architect I. M. Pei, used vertically stacked Ocala block for the fireplace as a partition feature while designing his parents’ home in Florida (Knight, Good Things In Small Packages, 1959).
Twitchell’s and Rudolph’s stacked Ocala block system as an architectural trend, saw its reflection in several vertically stacked Ocala block walls in middle-income
Floridians’ homes and public structures like seen in the Venice Art School in St.
Petersburg (Tampa Bay Times, 1957).
With architectural movements defining the trends and in the context of newly defined “Florida living” of interior-exterior spaces within a home, Ocala block sat well both in exterior masonry material and in the interior wall feature with added aesthetic strength of its colors and texture.
98
Figure 2-33. New building of Venice Art School (Tampa Bay Times, 1957).
By the early 1960s, ‘Ocala block structure’ or even ‘Ocala block ranch’ (The
Orlando Sentinel, 1961) and “Ocala block modern” (Tallahassee Democrat, 1966) were terms used to introduce properties in advertisements to potential buyers. It can also be theorized that Ocala block had become a character defining trait of building that would be liked and preferred. Having a building built with Ocala block could very well may have meant a mark of status. The Lightfoot Recreation Center at Temple Terrace described its new addition as the ‘sparkling Ocala block building’ that they expected to be a trendsetter for other civic buildings of the area (Harvill, 1965).
The late 1960s saw a decrease in the usage of Ocala block compared to the frenzy of the 1950s. Getting limited to decorative uses or as an interior wall panel, Ocala block’s use as an external feature seems to have had gotten limited by the late 1960s.
In the 1960’s home of Conchita Benito, Ocala block was used only on the front elevation of her home while the rest of the exterior was made in concrete block which was painted buff to match the Ocala block (Knight, 1962).
The 1970s and the 1980s, in terms of newspaper presence of Ocala block lack the fervor of the previous decades in terms of the using Ocala block as a selling point.
99
Instead Ocala block finds its mention in public awareness features about renovation of buildings where aged Ocala block was either retained or replaced with newer building additions (Reef, 1985; Szymanski, 1986).
Ocala Block Among Block Manufacturers
As explained earlier, the block manufacturing industry in Florida was at par with the national developments of the industry, if not ahead. Until the 1930s, most were using manually operated or semi-automatic machines to make blocks of their choice.
In the years leading up to the WWII, block industry was marching ahead but the real pick up happened after the WWII when housing demands increased, and the fully- automatic machine arrived that had electric relays, hydraulic power and mechanical vibration. Like in the case of Cement Products and Supply Co. of Lakeland, a third- generation concrete product manufacturing company that got into block manufacture in
1947 after purchasing the hydraulic block cutting machine the replaced the hand-crafted methods (Schottelkotte). As per the current president of Cement Products and Supply
Co., Barry Zimmerman, Florida was the hot bed of block construction after the WWII, due to the construction boom, the suitability of the block to the climate than other materials, and that the manufacturers had easier access to sands and gravel in the state (Zimmerman, 2018).
In early-mid 20th century, there also seemed to have been a trend of Lumber yard companies turning into block manufacturing businesses, based on the reasoning that builders were not preferring to build with timber due to its short life compared to concrete block (Zimmerman, 2018). This also explains why the establishment of concrete block as a building material was fought by the Lumber companies, as also
100
noted by architect Ralph Twitchell during his early years in Sarasota (Stockbridge,
1992).
Among the manufacturing industry of concrete blocks in Florida, a significantly organized and established forum for its professionals today, many say that the was no such product named Ocala block that anyone was manufacturing.
According to senior block manufactures who have been long in the business, there was no such term as ‘Ocala block’ but what they referred to as ‘Cummer block’, the cream-colored masonry unit sourced from the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. in Ocala (Zimmerman, 2018; Painter, 2018). With high demand for Ocala block from the people in the mid-century, several manufacturers began producing a similar material called ‘buff block’, when the supply Cummer blocks could not be sourced. Buff block was the substitute given to homeowners who were seeking Ocala block. Perhaps in the absence of any well-known patent (Hardwood, 2018), copying the Cummer block was also a lucrative business opportunity for block makers as Ocala block had gotten immensely popular. With the appearance of the two being same to a layman’s eye, the consumer always returned happy with his newly acquired ‘buff block’ which he/she considered to be the chic ‘Ocala block’ as per himself/herself (Zimmerman, 2018).
The Cummer block had the aggregate, the limestone from Ocala used along with
Portland cement as binder, together resulting in its natural color while the buff block had added pigments and colorants. The natural color of the limestone aggregate from
Ocala’s limerock quarries is believed to have given the color Cummer blocks, and later, as the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. changed ownerships through mergers and acquisition, Cummer blocks were enhanced with added natural ochre color pigment
101
(which also may have been available on quarrying sites as Florida has reserves of ochre). The buff block, the copy of the Cummer block, was believed to have been achieved using sand, gravel, screenings or limerock as aggregate along with white cement and synthetic colorants (Hardwood, 2018). Interestingly, the is also speculation that the Cummer block did not use any standardization for the aggregate added. The
Cummer blocks were made as a supplement in an already existing, large operation of limestone products at the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co., the Cummer block was a concrete masonry unit made with aggregate that was left behind form other processes on their mines and lime plant (Painter, 2018).
This verbal segregation of Cummer block from buff block, among the manufacturers, turns cloudy when one attempts to define these two blocks separately.
At what point did the Cummer blocks start adding natural ochre, or if the addition of ochre or synthetic colorant was done only in the buff block, when was the method brought about are some of many questions that come up when one wishes to differentiate between a Cummer block and a buff block.
An example of the cloudiness on the difference between Cummer block and buff block would the historical narrative of the Weil Cassissi house in Gainesville. Designed by architect Harry Merritt, the residence is believed have used Ocala block in its masonry. The historical literature on the building suggests “Cummer, Inc” (the new name for Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. after it changed ownerships through mergers and acquisitions) in Ocala as the supplier of its Ocala blocks. The Ocala block used in the Cassissi house is defined as “a block in the 1950s and 1960s, that had local aggregate and white cement that gave it a creamy, yellow color. Competitors began
102
making a creamy/yellowish colored block that was commonly referred to as “Ocala
Block.”” (Murray, Shiver, & Jones, 2015).
Amongst the younger block manufacturers in Florida today, Ocala block’s history and composition are little known. However, they do speak of their dilemma of the lack of research when having to make buff blocks for clients who have come asking for Ocala block (Gorenflo, 2018). One block manufacture professional who has been in the industry for decades also believes that Ocala block came from a manufacturer called
Ocala block company (Clements, 2018).
Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Company
The Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. surfaces as a prominent block manufacturer in connection to Ocala block. As mentioned earlier, Cumroc masonry units were the trademark product of this organization and the Cummer blocks were also sourced from the same company by block manufacturers and dealers in the state.
Aside from several direct and indirect newspaper references (in the case of the
1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard at Snell Isle mentioned earlier), a few of the queries put forth to the senior block manufacturers and masonry experts in North and West Florida, like the ones from Gainesville (Painter, 2018; Hardwood, 2018) and Lakeland
(Zimmerman, 2018), the mention of Ocala block is returned with the mention of
‘Cummer block’. While Cumroc masonry units or the Cummer blocks have been discussed later in this section, it is important to understand the history of the Cummer enterprise beforehand – the company that gave birth to the Cummer block.
Cummer Lumber and Company
Cummer, is a family name that rose to great prominence and respect in North
Florida in the early 20th century. Considered as the next most important family in Florida
103
after the Flagler’s, the Cummers had a large lumber empire based in Jacksonville under the banner company ‘Cummer Lumber and Co.’
The patriarch of the Cummer family in Florida, Wellington William Cummer, was originally a Canadian who began his lumber career in Michigan, first with his father and then later with several business partners. In 1892, aided by partnerships, he moved his area of lumber interest to the Southern pine in the Southern states of Virginia, Louisiana and Florida. In 1896, he and his partners setting up a lumber mill near Jacksonville, right by St. John’s river. By the beginning of the 20th century, W. W. Cummer exchanged his partners’ Florida holdings with his holdings in other states, establishing himself as a prime leader of the lumber business in the South. The lumber mill turned out to be an operation that shaped Jacksonville (Foley, 1996).
W. W. Cummer had two sons and daughter, namely Arthur G. Cummer and
Waldo E. Cummer and Mrs. John L. Roe, respectively. Even as the Cummer operations in the lumber business suffered troubles of fires and employee deaths, W.W. Cummer was always quick to rebuild his business and rise again with the responsibility of proving jobs and support to this Jacksonville community (The Weekly Tribune, 1899; The Ocala
Evening Star, 1901).
By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, primary output of the lumber business had been the fruit crate supply and the Cummer Lumber and Co. had become a multi business group invested in phosphate mining, export and as well as in agriculture and fruit orchard business near Alachua (The Ocala Evening Star, 1902; The
Tampa Tribune, 1902). In 1903, the Cummers had also entered the turpentine business,
104
that had added one more feather to hat of W. W. Cummer, and also a portable asphalt plant that laid road on contracts (Florida Memory, 192-?; The Gainesville Star, 1903).
W. W. Cummer, who legally became the resident of Jacksonville in 1902, had been providing employment to two thousand employees at that given time. He had become the largest lumber and phosphate magnate by late 1900s. In Dec 1909, W.W.
Cummer died leaving behind a legacy (The Tampa Tribune, 1909).
In 1897, Cummer had begun investing in phosphate mines along with the prospect of exporting it from Jacksonville’s waterfront, a large section of which he already owned with his established lumber business. The Cummer Phosphate Works were well established by the 1910 with over twenty phosphate plants in Florida
(Gainesville Daily Sun, 1908; The Tampa Tribune, 1902). After the death of their father,
W. W. Cummer, the Lumber business was handled by his elder son, Arthur G., which had already begun to slow down as the market demands had dropped. The second son, Waldo E. on the other hand, established himself in the phosphate business of the family. At this point, Florida was the largest producer of phosphate in the United States.
Cummer Phosphate Works, which had been listed as phosphate suppliers until the 1911 by the State Geological Survey (Sellards E. H., Third Annual Report, 1910), in one of multiple phosphate mines, had an exposure of Ocala limestone. It is established that the Cummer Lumber and Co. was already in the asphalt road laying business then.
With the advent of limerock to be used as a road base for all kinds of roads and highways, the limestone operations started to pick up by the late 1910s in and around
Ocala, many of them by Cummer Lumber Co. By 1924, the Cummer Lumber & Co. had
105
full operating lime pit at Zuber (Florida Memory, 1924), an existing lime plant in Kendrick soon to be joined by a new plant (The Tampa Tribune, 1924).
The Cummer Lumber Co. were reporters of the massive surge in limestone production to the state in 1923. Interestingly, the Cummer was also one of the few companies who had been reporting production of flint or miscellaneous stone production in 1923. The Annual Report by the state in 1925 also mentions the sale of limestone from the Cummer pit as road building material and a concrete aggregate material as well, unlike the other pits of the region that were producing rail road ballast, road building base only (Gunter H. , 1925).
Following is an availability information of limestone and its composition from the
Cummer Lumber Company pit, five miles north of Ocala, near Kendrick (Gunter H. ,
Sixteenth Annual Report, 1925):
Table 3-1. Availability of limestone sourced from Cummer Lumber Company pit.
Section Depth
Gray sandy loam 3 ft. 6 in. Hard-cemented partly silicified limestone 5 ft. Ocala limestone 41 ft.
Table 3-2. Analysis of limestone from Cummer Lumber Company pit (Sample D-6)
Item %age
Silica (SiO2) 0.68 Iron and Alumina (Fe + Al) 0.32 Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) 98.16 Magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) Trace Undetermined 0.84
106
Having established itself as a prime producer of limerock and limestone products already, the Cummer was the only company providing rail road ballast and rip rap along with the road metal and concrete in 1932 (Gunter H. , 1931).
After the death of their mother in 1931, Ada Cummer, Arthur and Waldo sold their parent’s property on Jacksonville riverfront and divided the lots (Patton, Cummer’s restored Olmsted Garden will open April 11, 2013).
Meanwhile, Cummer Lumber Co. which had been changing course was also observed to have been disposing off its lands and assets (The Tampa Tribune, 1931) and picking up tenders and supply contracts for road building with lime rock (The
Tampa Tribune, 1932), showing the drift from the lumber business towards mineral mining operations.
John L. Roe, husband of Mabel Cummer Roe and brother-in-law to Arthur and
Waldo, was also involved in the businesses of the Cummer family and included in key decisions. John Roe was from New York and had moved to Florida a few years after his marriage to Mabel. “Arthur, Waldo and brother-in-law John Roe, husband of Cummer sister Mabel, expanded the company into other mills, a railroad, a shipping company, crate and container factories, lime and phosphate mining, a chemical plant.” (Foley,
1996).
The Cummer brother handling the phosphate and lime business in Ocala, Waldo
E. Cummer died in 1936, leaving behind his widow Clara and a daughter, Mrs. Barbara
C. Paul and a son, Wellington Cummer, and two grandchildren (The Tampa Tribune,
1936). After Waldo’s death, John’s son, Edward Cummer Roe, was brought in as in
107
charge of Waldo’s duties in the limerock and phosphate mining operations of the
Cummer business (Foley, 1996).
The Launch of Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Company
In 1939, a few years after Waldo’s death and under the management of Edward
Cummer Roe, the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. was established as an addition to the 40 year old enterprise of Cummer Lumber and Co.: with Arthur Cummer as the
President, John L. Roe as the Treasurer and Edward C. Roe as the Vice-President and
General Manager (The Tampa Times, 1939). The “ultra-modern”, $150,000 lime plant was installed by the Cummer Lime and Co. at Kendrick, 5 miles north of Ocala. The company launched itself as a manufacturer of two lime trademark products: “Cumpur” and “Cumroc”; former being the brand name for types of powdered lime and the latter being a ‘special type of masonry unit’ (The Palm beach Post, 1939).
Several publicity articles wrote definitions of Cumroc masonry units, one reference suggested that “Cumroc Masonry units combine beauty, lightness, architectural adaptability and economy. They are everlasting, impervious to water, high insulating value, and strong…20% light than sand concrete blocks yet guaranteed to meet all U. S. Government, Underwriter’s Laboratories and ASTM Specifications “ (The
Tampa Tribune, 1939). Another description of the units was “a new masonry limestone building unit that possesses exceptional characteristics from a building standpoint, according to the officials of the company. The Cummer name is incorporated in the brands borne by the company’s new products which will be marketed under the brand name: “Cumroc” for the masonry units” (The Palm beach Post, 1939).
The lime plant was advertised as the most modern installation to advance
Florida’s mineral industrial front and provide jobs. The plant was constructed of welded
108
steel construction and spoke of exceptional quality of lime products for which raw material was to be supplied by the Cummer’s limestone deposits in the multiple mines and quarries in the area. The plant also boasted of scientific research and the presence of a chemist to overlook the quality of the lime products that were being produced (The
Orlando Sentinel, 1939).
In the Third Biennial Report published in December 1938, the State Geological
Survey also announced the preparation of the new lime plant saying “the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Company completed a modern plant at Kendrick, Marion County, to produce a complete line of lime products. These include quick lime, hydrated lime for both chemical and masonry purposes, and a new masonry limestone building unit that it is said possesses unusual characteristics as a building material. Agricultural limestone is also produced as has been done for years, as well as road material.” (Dowling &
Gunter, 1938).
In the Fourth Biennial Report by the State Geologlical Survey, an observation was made regarding the use of limesotne in making of building blocks using crushed lime with cement. It also mentioned that some of these blocks had no sand but promised to be durable as the natural cut stone. (Dowling & Gunter, 1941). However, there is no indication of where these blocks were being made; yet understanding the hype and novelty that was built around Cumroc masonry units, it can be conjectured that the mentioned blocks in the Fourth Biennial Report could have been Cumroc masonry units. Interestingly, by 1946, Cummer Lime and Co. became a producer of structural sand (Gunter H. , 1949). It is worthwhile to mention here that the Cummer block (Cummer masonry unit) was being made from the extra aggregate that resulted
109
from other limestone operations at the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. (Painter,
2018; Hardwood, 2018).
Figure 2-34. Advertisement of the Cumpur and Cumroc products (The Palm beach Post, 1939).
Arthur Cummer died in 1946, leaving behind his widow, Ninah Cummer and no heir behind (Patton, 2011). Ninah Cummer, who would later donate his estate and her
110
gardens to what would become the Cummer museum, spent her last years alone until her death in 1958.
After Arthur Cummer’s death, the Cummer operations was taken over by John L.
Roe who died a few years later in 1951 at the age of 76. (New York Times, 1951)
Roe’s son, Edward C. Roe, who had been the head of the Cummer Lime and
Manufacturing Co. for most of the mid-century, became the president of the Cummer enterprises. Edward, a Princeton graduate who had moved back to Florida in 1936, remained at the helm of the Cummer businesses "through changing times and a devolving industry.” He was a director of the Seaboard Air Line Railway and its successor, the Seaboard Coast Line, post WWII. As the director, the also owned the publishing company, Florida Publishing Co., heading the Florida Times-Union and later the Jacksonville Journal. (Foley, 1996)
Fulfilling Ninah Cummer’s last wish, the Cummer museum opened in 1961 with the efforts of Edward Roe, which was also his “parting gift to Jacksonville” as the
Cummer empire had begun to wrap up operations by the 1960s (Patton, 2013). Edward
Roe is known to have “remained in this position until the Companies operations were shut- down and the lands leased” (Foley, 1996).
The Cummer family went through several personal losses at a time when the post war building boom had created an exciting market atmosphere for businessmen, especially for limestone industrialists.
In 1965, Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co sold its “lime products plant” and along with its land leases in Ocala to Dixie Lime and Co., a famous native Ocala limestone enterprise (Marion Sentinel, 1965). In the following few months, Dixie Lime
111
and Stone Co. also announced its consolidation by a New York firm, diluting the legacy of independent manufactures of limestone products in Ocala (Ferguson, New Programs
Shown in Dixie Lime Meeting, 1965). However, it is believed that the Cumroc masonry units were still being produced under the new parent company name, Cummer, Inc., by several manufacturers who has acquired the Cummer interests (Herschel Shepard
Collection, 1967; Hardwood, 2018).
Edward Roe, “the last of the descendants of the Cummer to have run their legacy as a family of enterprising businessmen, moved to Santa Fe, NM with his family in
1974” (Foley, 1996). Edward was a well-known sportsman and loved nature; he died in
1996 at the age of eighty-two and was survived by his wife in Santa Fe, Lily Byrd Roe and two daughters: Mrs. Richey Smith of Akron, Ohio, and Mrs. Kirby Alexander of
Jacksonville, Florida, and four grandchildren.
Cumroc Masonry Units
As established, the 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard is perhaps the earliest overlapping case between Cummer block or Cumroc masonry unit and Ocala block.
The Cummer blocks were also used in other pre-war housing developments like the
‘Modern Home’ which had been the first of its kind in Tampa to have been built using the “Cummer lime concrete blocks” made by Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. (The
Tampa Tribune, 1939) . A similar advertisement about the ‘Modern Davis Islands home’ where a property on the corner of Erie and Blanca streets (now avenues) was known to have been the first residence built on Davis Islands with “Cummer lime concrete blocks”
(The Tampa Tribune, 1939).
It can be supposed that the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. may have entered into collaboration with builders, contractors, other material suppliers to promote
112
their Cumroc masonry units and perhaps such a collaboration could have been the
Ocala block system developed by architect Ralph Twitchell and Paul Rudolph for their residences.
After the initial mentions of Cumroc in the year 1939 and a few after, there is no public mention of Cumroc in the newspapers except for a building in 1956 for the Ocala
Truck and Contractor Co. (The Orlando Sentinel, 1956). However, the Cumroc masonry had a fan following and were being sourced to make attractive buildings in the 1950s and 1960s (Ferguson, Tossed Salad, 1966). The aesthetic appeal seemed to have lied in the color (crème yellow) and in being an Ocalan product, which was noted in the case of Wyomina Park Elementary School and Oakcrest Elementary School in Ocala. The schools spoke of its construction in “Cum-rock”, from Cummer Lime and Manufacturing
Co. which was considered a “home product of Marion county”. The units were described as “local bricks made with lime from five miles north of Ocala and a touch of yellow and blue in it” (The Orlando Sentinel, 1966).
The 1967 Cumroc masonry unit brochure, two years after Dixie Lime and Co., purchased their plant, advertised the sizes and prices of a variety of Cumroc masonry units by the consolidated parent company of “Cummer, Inc.”, with no mention of the
Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. for obvious reasons – suggesting that Dixie Lime and Co., and then the New York firm that acquired Dixie Lime and Co. later, kept the brand name of Cummer, perhaps hinting at the popularity if the Cummer blocks or the
Cumroc masonry units.
113
Figure 2-35. Cumroc limestone units brochure, 1967 (Herschel Shepard Collection, 1967).
114
Figure 2-36. Cumroc Limestone Units brochure, 1967 (Herschel Shepard Collection, 1967).
115
Ocala Block Among Floridian Diaspora
Following WWII, the national concept of self-building resonated strongly in
Florida, a state where aside from returning veterans, the deployed also chose to stay back to either study or find work due to its comfortable climate. Like everywhere else at that time, there was shortage of housing, especially in a place like the University town of
Gainesville, where G. I. Larkin could not find home as he became a student. Larkin, like most veteran those days, chose to build his own house, even as he knew nothing about it. Built on a budget of $1251, the house he made was out of limestone blocks brought from Ocala, which were cheaper than usual concrete blocks. For a 20 x 30 ft. house,
Larkin spent $240 on his Ocala blocks (The Tampa Tribune, 1947) which would be an equivalent of be $2,479.58 as of year 2018 (US Inflation Calculator, 2018). From that point onwards, Ocala block homes also appear to have had become an emblem of low- cost, small and quick housing (The Tampa Times, 1950). In another case in 1958, the family of the registrar of Florida Christian College assisted him to build their own home using Ocala blocks as a masonry in the walls; the blocks they used were buff-colored and were not the standard size of a typical concrete block (8 in. x 8 in. x 16 in.) (Bayle,
1958).
Understanding this movement of post-war Ocala block about being inexpensive, quick and easy to build with could have also gotten the material it popularity, simultaneously with the desirable Ocala block system Twitchell was developing alongside, even it latter’s use was contrasting with the former in terms of architectural value. In the postwar years, several new block-making companies based in Ocala had started to come up as well, e.g. the Lime Crete Product Company, which got chartered in 1946 by the State (The Tampa Tribune, 1946).
116
Figure 2-37. G.I Larkin at home (The Tampa Tribune, 1947).
The wide appeal of the native Ocala block can also be credited to the color of the composite unit, which was the same as the natural limestone seen all around in Florida only if the top soil was removed. The mention of Ocala block as ‘natural’ also finds its
117
mention in homes that were self-built by the men of the families (Osgood, 1957). A light buff or tan added a lot of quality to the building as a monotone canvas which could be contrasted with bold colors and embellishments like architect Orus Eash did for the First
Brethren Church in Sarasota in 1957, using primary colors for doors and roof overhangs in contrast of the Ocala block masonry (The Tampa Tribune, 1957). A similar concept was also played out in the Christ Episcopal Church in Cedar Key with bold colors used in doors with the Ocala block walls, on lines of the modern aesthetic of the time.
Even if the structure was being built in Ocala block construction as a load bearing system, the use of Ocala block as a decorative interior element was imperative to its use. Almost as though it had to visually satiate the visitor in the building with its appearance, especially when used in contrast with other materials like in the case of the
1959 Armenia Baptist Church in Tampa (The Tampa Times, 1959). Playing with contrast was a freedom that a material like exposed Ocala block could give easily to the designer or architect building in Florida.
In addition to the play of materials with Ocala block’s natural color, there is evidence to suggest that the Ocala block was available in a variety of sizes and shapes.
The Budweiser beer plant that spoke of its textured Ocala block wall using different sizes, the blocks used in self-built homes and by architects in other buildings which were not the standard block size but an exaggerated brick size and then Twitchell’s and
Rudolph’s 8 in. x 8 in. x 8 in. cube block: all describe that the size range of what people called Ocala block was variant. Interestingly, this also led to the freestyling of expression by homeowners and builders outside of what architects were promoting.
118
Figure 2-38. Feature wall showing the colors of Ocala block (Alexander, 1958).
Ocala block was also considered to be a material that required minimum or no upkeep (Osgood, 1957), something which was re-iterated by the realtors and home- sellers all along the 1950s to attract buyers. With the idea of using no paint to cover the natural, exposed finish of the material sufficed the initial years but if not maintained at all, the porous nature of the material would show the weakness in the sun-rain-sun cycle of Florida. This shortcoming that affected the longevity of the Ocala block was addressed by architect Ralph Twitchell in his Ocala block system with the layer of clear silane applied outside, a detail that the self-built homes and vernacular structures in
Florida may have missed out on.
The beauty of Ocala block’s natural color promoted by the idea of it being a ‘no maintainenece material’ could also be considered as a reason of its surge in popularity.
Its suitability to Florida’s climate (compared to wood), local flavor along with the benefits of being a concrete block were reasons behind it having been an important part of
‘Florida living’ experience of the midcentury.
119
As mentioned earlier, the likeability towards Ocala block as a favored material is shown in the advertisements of homes by real estate agents which spoke of the popularity and appeal it had gotten by 1950s. The usual house advertisements would begin with the description of spaces number of rooms, baths etc. unless it was an Ocala block home: in which case the “Ocala block construction’ or “beautiful Ocala block home” would be the beginning of these advertisements. This becomes a telling factor that people at that time were seeking Ocala block homes and kept it at a high regard
(Tallahassee Democrat, 1968).
Figure 2-39. Real estate advertisement (Tallahassee Democrat, 1968).
This is further emphasized by the presence of Ocala block in contractor-built homes and even as a selling point for restaurants advertisements inviting people to
120
come (Tampa Bay Times, 1953; The Tampa Tribune, 1955). What speaks most of
Ocala block’s appeal among the public is the use its name as a selling point, not only by real estate agents but by land owners whose lots sitting on limerock, a significant natural resource of the 1920s-1940s, was better understood or sold when spoken in reference to Ocala limestone and the Ocala concrete block (The Tampa Tribune, 1953).
Florida was busy doing the war years,1941-1945, as the training ground for several thousands of men and women of the armed forces. This also increased the demand of limestone for wartime construction at naval and army air bases. With the coming of peace, the demand for limestone had been expected to decrease and that had been a pressing concern with the counties producing limestone in large quantities.
But with the new uses of limestone that had developed leading up to the war were unknown to the diaspora of Florida – one of them being the use of limestone block masonry units which had started before the war, and postwar “the Florida landscape had been becoming dotted with limestone block buildings” (The Ocala Star Banner,
1945).
By the end of the war, limestone resource of Florida was center stage with the state and the public openly recognizing its natural wealth and prospects it held for
Florida’s future. There are many reasons that contributed to this new perspective about the value of Florida’s limestone. The studies on Florida’s geology were confident and complete by the year 1945 by the noted USGS geologist Wythe Cooke, who worked extensively in Florida and Southeast coasts (Cooke, 1945). Geologists had declared the limestone of Florida a large asset with the special Ocala limestone lying in the central highlands, as a thick mound and of a large expanse of the natural resource.
121
All this buzz on the importance and the future of limestone reserves put Marion county, as a significant stakeholder being one of the largest limestone producing counties in the state and the heart of Ocala limestone deposits and mining activity. The post-war significance that was awarded to limestone, particularly Ocala limestone, in
Florida (discussed later in the thesis) could very well have been the driving force that made Ocala block as household name for Florida’s building block.
Figure 2-40. Article on Florida’s limestone’s future (The Ocala Star Banner, 1945).
122
CHAPTER 3 TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Geology of Florida
The Floridian peninsula is the great projection of the continent of North America that separates the deep water of the Atlantic Ocean from deep water of the Gulf of
Mexico. It includes the State of Florida and on its western side an equally great or greater area that lies submerged beneath water less than 50 fathoms deep, together constituting the Floridian plateau. The plateau ends at Florida Keys where it slopes steeply into the straits of Florida. It also underlies all of Florida Bay as well as a significant section of the Gulf of Mexico. The median axis of this plateau runs through
Keys, Bradenton, Sarasota, Cedar Key, and Madison, therefore all of peninsula of
Florida lies east of the median axis of the Floridian Plateau (Cooke, 1945).
If one were to look at the topography of peninsular Florida, the west side of North
Central Florida, has a higher gradient. Closing into this arch that bends along the Gulf and to the median axis of the plateau, one observes the gradient of 100+ feet forms a significant part of what are called the 'Central Highlands' of Florida.
The 'Central Highlands' extend along the peninsula from the Georgia state line between St. Mary's and Withlacoochee Rivers southward nearly to Glades county. This large area is highly diversified in terms of landscape. It includes high swampy plains, the highest hills in the state, and over a thousand lakes. As mentioned before, the lakes of the Central Highlands indicate the occurrence of soluble limestone not too far from the surface.
Looking at the stratigraphy of Florida: the inner core beneath Florida is of metamorphic rocks like quartzite and black shale, most of which has not been reached
123
or penetrated except at a few places for research. Over the inner core, lie several series of shallow marine deposits, dominantly limestone, that have taken place over several million years.
Figure 3-1. View of Floridian Plateau (Cooke, 1945).
Limestone, a sedimentary rock consisting of different forms of calcium carbonate, is a formation of marine or fresh water deposits. Limestone is a fossilized collection of calcified remnants of creatures that accumulates over millions of years at the sea bed or at the water's edge. Limestone in Florida is composed of deposits from the shallow warm seas and in age, is very young compared to limestone found in the Northern parts of the country Only 50-60 million years old, Florida limestone is very soft, pure, and is highly fossiliferous. Most of the limestone found in Florida are high-calcium or pure
124
calcium carbonate with very few inclusions of dolomites; which is true for Ocala limestone as well.
In the arch of substantial elevation in the Central Highlands of Florida lies a tall section of formation of one such type of fossiliferous Florida limestone called the ‘Ocala limestone’. In this arch, noted geologist Wythe Cooke writes about the presence of
Ocala limestone: “from Jefferson County the surface of the Ocala limestone rises some
350 feet in about 140 miles, at the average rate of about 2.5 feet to the mile, to the crest of the arch in Marion county. The average slope from central Marion County to Monroe
County, where the top of the Ocala lies about 1200 feet below sea level, appears to be about 5 feet to the mile. The slope across the arch seems to be intermediate between these two rates. The Ocala limestone formation attains a height of 115 feet or more above sea level in Marion County" (Cooke, 1945).
Figure 3-2. Elevational map showing the Ocala platform (Cooke, 1945).
125
Ocala Limestone
The most extensive limestone formation in Florida is the Ocala. This formation over a large area in west-central peninsular Florida and in northwest Florida in the Jackson County region. So far as shown by well samples it underlies the entire State. It is a soft, light colored, highly fossiliferous limestone of exceptional purity and is admirably suited for road base material. The high chemical purity of this stone makes it useful also for the manufacture of chemical and agricultural limes. The fine system of State Highways has been constructed largely with this material as a base and its availability for this purpose has greatly facilitated the industrial and recreational development of the State.
—R. L Dowling; Herman Gunter Third Biennial Report1
The Ocala limestone is an Eocene age, high-calcium rock present largely in
Central Florida and occurring in very pure form even as outcrops or near the surface
(Bowles, 1939).
Ocala limestone is the largest and oldest limestone formation in the State of
Florida today. However, this status was not effectively attributed to Ocala limestone until the mid-20th century, as the experts were researching on the geology of Florida till then.
The earliest research on understanding the geology of Florida’s peninsula appears to have been published in the year 1842, when J. H. Allen explained the limestone outcropping Tampa. Following this, T.A. Conrad published papers giving the description of the fossils and shells found in the limestone. Starting 1852, another point of view was declared by Louis Agassiz and Joseph LeConte suggesting that the entire peninsula of Florida was of coral formation like the Keys – a fact that was believed in for an entire generation (Sellards E. H., 1908). However, this was negated by the research
1 Epitaph sourced from the Third Biennial Report by the Geological Division of the Florida State Board of Conservation (Dowling & Gunter, Third Biennial Report, 1938)
126
of Eugene A. Smith, the state geologist of Alabama then, who in 1881 declared the peninsula of Florida was underlain with “limestone which he correlated with the
Vicksburg limestone of Mississippi and Alabama and designated the term Vicksburg limestone” (White & Cooke, 1915, p. 107). He declared that the limestone underlying
Florida is young, mentioning the localities of observations as Marianna, Jackson County and Ocala, Marion County. The following year, Hellprin, described the characteristic fossils in this limestone he saw in Hernando county, a species of “Nummulites” equating it to a nummulitic limestone. The research on the nummulitic limestone and its relationship to larger generalization of the Vicksburg limestone declared by Smith were topped with the usage the term Ocala limestone by Dall in 1892 under the heading
“Nummulitic beds, Ocala limestone (Oligocene of Heilprin)." where he says, “Among the rocks which appear in Central Florida directly and conformably to overlie the latter, though no one has described their contact, is a yellowish friable rock containing many foraminifera, conspicuous among which are two species of Nummulites. This rock was first brought to notice by Mr. Joseph Willcox, and to Prof. Heilprin we owe a description of it which discriminates between it and the Vicksburg or Orbitoides rock. The rock was early recognized as Eocene, though not discriminated from the earlier beds. It is best displayed at Ocala, Fla., where it forms the country rock and has been quarried to a depth of 20 feet without coming to the bottom of the beds” (White & Cooke, 1915, p.
107).
Ocala limestone and its nomenclature for geological classification developed in the 1890s but for most of the early 20th century, the geological stratification of Florida was debated and researched upon. In the First Annual Report by the State Geological
127
Survey in 1908, there is barely any mention of Ocala limestone except in the context of the historical research by mentioned geologists above (Sellards E. H., 1909).
Phosphate took the limelight in the early 20th century and Ocala limestone, though discovered and named in late 19th century found its respect in the limestone industry much later.
Most of historical literature refers to Florida having a bed of the Vicksburg limestone formation of which Marianna, Peninsular, and Ocala limestones were conjectured to be a part of. With the advent more sophisticated research and once the noticeable profits from limerock mining were understood, the significance of Ocala limestone surfaced in the late 1910s. Ocala found its designation as the oldest limestone formation and the most significant by only1915 in the State’s annual report, where it was described to be an Eocene age formation (approximately 50 million years old) and consisting ‘largely of very pure and for the most part light colored limestones’
(Sellards E. H., 1915).
The 1924 study on limestone of Florida conducted by the State Geological
Survey (mentioned earlier) classified the limestones of Florida as: semi crystalline, fossiliferous, shell, chalky, oolitic, sandy, cherty/flint and marly; Ocala limestone falls in the fossiliferous category with some parts being shell and semi crystalline (Gunter H. ,
1925).
Ocala limestone also constitutes a large section of the Floridian aquifer. Beneath the surface, the fossiliferous porous Ocala limestone holds the water table making for a true Karst topography.
128
Texture and Color
In the early to mid-20th century, the Ocala limestone was described to be a very soft, pure, cream-white, granular, porous limestone that can be easily crumbled by hand. Ocala limestone is known for its chemical purity, possessing 98%-99% of pure calcium carbonate in most cases of outcrop (Gunter H. , 1925). While there may be small chemical differences depending on localities, Ocala limestone is remarkably uniform in lithology. Apart from the majority being calcium carbonate, only small percentages silica, iron and alumina and traces of magnesium carbonate are found to be in this limestone. (Gunter H. , 1925).
The texture of Ocala limestone is so porous that water can percolate freely through it. The free circulation of water through the Ocala limestone causes the solution of the rock resulting several dissolution lakes and sinkholes in the Central Florida area.
Due to its co-existence with the water table of Florida, Ocala limestone behaves differently depending when and where it has been extracted from as it appears harder at the surface than underneath the ground surface due to plenty of moisture it holds when it is underground. If sourced from deep within the ground, the texture is granular, soft and moist. If sourced closed from surface, the texture is granular but brittle, dry and harder.
The clasts found in this sedimentary rock of Ocala limestone are of fossilized matter and other small organisms. The presence of fossilized fauna or ‘biolclasts’ in
Ocala limestone is extremely abundant. The fauna typology that bridged work of several researchers in the early 20th century was the resemblance of it to ‘nummulites’.
Nummulites (from latin word 'nummulus', which means 'coin') are lenticular fossils that appear coiled one plane and are lens shaped if looked at sideways (Wikipedia, 2018).
129
Nummulites are original to the Mediterranean region and what connected this to Ocala limestone was the visual similarity of the fauna found in the limestone of Florida.
Research of more recent times and geological records suggest that the four types of fossilized fauna are typical to Ocala limestone which are: the foraminifers, echinoids, bryozoans and mollusks; the former two species visually resembling the ‘coin’ (Cooke,
1945).
Figure 3-3. Fossils found in Ocala limestone (Cooke, 1945).
130
The solution of the limestone by the water also affects the texture of the stone resulting in pseudomorphs replacing the fossils and carbonate clasts. These masses of semi-consolidated, hard, crystalline silica or material occur not very deep from the ground and sometimes take shape of fossils. These pseudomorphs or as called
“horsebacks” also represent the compact semi-crystalline masses noticed in otherwise porous, granular matrix of Ocala limestone. It should also be noted that not all semi- crystalline masses found in Ocala limestone is silica, some are even well newer, consolidated carbonate clasts.
Recent developments in the stratification of Ocala limestone have divided the thick limestone into two facies based on lithology. According to the U.S. Geological
Survey, "the lower facies member is composed of a white to cream-colored, fine to medium grained, poorly to moderately indurated, very fossiliferous limestone. The upper facies member is a white, poorly to well indurated, poorly sorted, very fossiliferous limestone " (U. S. Geological Survey, 2018).
Broadly, the Ocala limestone colors ranged from pure white, creamy-yellow to even gray. The range of colors is attributed to the level of impurities: in Ocala limestone’s case it would be oxides of iron and other impurities, which award the range of white to tan colors. The color of Ocala limestone is attributed to the contact of the porous stone with water, which is omnipresent in Florida above and below the ground.
The yellow color results from the oxidation of the iron impurities taking place above the water table, where the limestone is moist but no submerged. The gray can be explained as the reduction taking place due the submergence of limestone in the water table with the iron impurities.
131
Figure 3-4. Ocala limestone showing the water table mark (Photo courtesy of author).
By the 1920s, Marion Countv was the leading lime/limestone producing area of
Florida. The eastern part of the county, the Lake Region is underlain by the sands and clays of the Alum Bluff (another geological stratification in Florida above the limestone), and the western part is the arch or the Ocala platform, consisting Ocala limestone ranging from a depth of 110 feet to 300 feet (Cooke, 1945). The Ocala outcrops very close to the surface in Marion county and hence the industry is centered around the city.
The Cross-Florida Barge Canal
As the research on the significance of Ocala limestone was concretized by the
1930s-40s, a political event during that time brought much publicity to the important
Ocala limestone. The Cross-Florida Barge Canal2 project was initiated by the federal government in 1933 - as a means of resurrecting the economic status of Florida.
However, the idea of a man-made canal dissecting the state physically right through its
2 The Cross-Florida Barge canal was a federal civil engineering project started in the early 1930s which was intended to physically connect the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico through a man-made canal passing through Florida’s peninsula.
132
natural, pure carbonate geological formation gathered a lot of criticism from the experts and the people of Florida then.
The project garnered a lot of condemnation from Floridians considering the canal’s “big cut” through the “Ocala limestone dome” would damage the Floridian aquifer, their fresh water resources (The Orlando Sentinel, 1939). The buzz about the damage to natural resources brought in a lot of public awareness about the importance of Ocala limestone in particular; aided by the support of newspapers and media who used graphic to convey what geological asset Ocala limestone is.
Figure 3-5. A newspaper graphic explains the ‘Ocala limestone dome’ (The Tampa Tribune, 1946).
133
Through the 1930s and 1940s, Ocala limestone attained a status of a respected natural feature of the State of Florida. Not only through newspapers and other public awareness measures, but through the state governing bodies like the State Geological
Survey which, aside from establishing a new clay testing laboratory, moved a ground water legislation to protect Florida’s water resources which are contained by the Ocala limestone (Davis, 1936).
The canal project was aborted in 1943 (for a few decades) but it brought a lot of traction about the geology to Florida in the diaspora’s minds. Additionally, the high consumption of limestone due to war led to a public discourse on the importance of limestone in the state and its future in terms of economic advantage were openly discussed.
In terms of developments in its geological status, in 1953, Ocala limestone was elevated to a group status by Puri based on the identification of biozones its fossilized fauna or bioclasts. The limestone came to be known as the Ocala group. However, in
1991, the Ocala group was demoted to the status of formation by Scott as per the North
American Stratigraphic Code and is now known as the Ocala formation (U. S.
Geological Survey, 2018).
Mineral Resources of Florida
Although there had been recorded production and use of lime in the state in the
19th century but Florida’s mineral glory era began in 1889 when hard rock phosphate was first discovered in the United States in Dunnellon, Florida. The phosphate boom, discussed previously, saw a dip in the 1920s and a complete slow-down during the
World Wars, especially during WWII as Germany was the prime importer of phosphate from Florida. By this time, the developments on the state’s geological knowledge had
134
advanced coupled with extensive limerock mining. Florida’s limestone production, catering to multiple industries by the WWII, garnered a lot of importance in the 20th century due its high calcium carbonate content, purity and accessible abundance.
Aside from the above two celebrity mineral resources, Florida has been rich in a variety of clays: Fuller’s earth, Kaolin and minerals like Ochre as well. Florida was the largest producer of Fuller’s earth until the State of Georgia took over with their production in the 1930s (Davis, 1936).
Stone
It is well understood that there are no igneous rock formations in the state, considering the absence of geological scenarios that could have led to their formation in the Florida peninsula. Young carbonate and silicate sedimentary rocks, in some cases partially metamorphosed, form the fabric of the mineral resources of the state.
In the beginning of the 20th century, with phosphate production peaking and as the extensive, multipurpose use of limerock or limestone had not developed, limestone
(in addition to flint and chert (Sellards E. H., 1909)) as a stone per se was being mined on the grounds of it to be used directly as construction blocks for buildings. This approach towards the limestone in the state was likely borrowed from the commonplace use of coquina rock on the East coast as a building material and its extensive quarrying that had been taking place on Anastasia Island then.
Building Stone. The mined limestone that suited this expectation was Marianna
(earlier named Vicksburg) which is a fossiliferous, argillaceous but a relatively harder, whiter limestone stone that could be hewn into blocks and be used for buildings. Found in the Northwest and the Panhandle, this limestone was unlike the rest of the surrounding limerock of Florida which is soft, permeable and unconsolidated. At the
135
same time, another stone mined in Florida for building purposes was the Miami oolite, which is a consolidated oolitic limestone found in South Florida. Together the three: coquina, Marianna and Miami oolite were the flagbearers of the stone resources in the mineral industry and were extensively used to develop the buildings in their respective regions.
Aside from the three above, limestone that could not be quarried for its “building stone” quality was used as a filler or aggregate. This soft limerock, which was and has been way more abundant in Florida than hard limestone, found its use in the civil works and infrastructure development. In 1914, with the advent of Florida’s limerock to be used as a certified toad base material (Ferguson, 1963), unconsolidated limestone began to be extensively quarried and crushed to be used as a road base, road surfacing, rail road ballast, for concretes and for soil alkalization (Sellards E. H., 1918).
The primary in-state use of limestone or limerock was for road building, well before the Boom period. The method was to construct a flat base from soft, pure limestone by ramming and rolling over it till became a hard surface with no air gaps present, over this a hard base of bitumen, asphalt or other rock was applied. Although these bases required attention after a while, especially if they were improperly laid but it was the most feasible then and easily workable as a road base material for Florida
(Gunter H. , 1925).
The rapid interest in limerock mining can also be credited to depression of the
Phosphate business, which had been dipping largely due to the situation in Europe with the WWI (Gunter H. , 1924). Several mining companies, many that were previously into phosphate mining, began quarrying limestone aggregate and most them were in and
136
around Ocala, Florida to supply to the crushed aggregate industry for profit. In the second decade of the 20th century, limestone aggregate production increased yearly by huge fractions: e.g. production was calculated to be a net worth of $479,837 in 1916, and $634,602 in 1917 (Sellards E. H., 1918). Several new companies and manufacturers also began coming into the business, including the State department itself and the well-known Cummer Lumber Co., who by 1922 was already operating several limerock mines in Kendrick and Newberry (Gunter H. , 1924).
By the year 1923, the lime industry profits had increased 98% compared to the previous year, becoming a major contributor to Florida’s mining wealth and profits. This surge was also seen in sand, gravel and crushed flint rock suggesting the building activity of the State at that time, the Florida Boom period. The major uses of the limestone output were as a stone filler, railroad ballast, riprap, building stone, and agricultural lime.
Crushed limestone. As mentioned above, crushed limestone had already been in use as a concrete aggregate as early as 1908. As discussed earlier, with the small- scale concrete block, hollow block and artificial stone industry developing in various cities, crushed stone was also one of the aggregates used apart from sand and gravel to make these masonry units (Sellards E. H., 1908).
As the Boom time came with high consumption of crushed aggregate for building purposes, the crushed rock aggregate also had begun to get graded for viable usability as a construction material. The Sixteenth Annual Report by the State Geological Survey states that this grading process had been two-step, with the crushed aggregate being
137
first by passed through a 2½ in. mesh and then through ½ in., reducing it to the ideal aggregate size required (Gunter H. , 1925).
The limestone mineral industry kept a stable pace even after the sudden dip in production due to end of the Boom era.
In the year 1940, State Geological Department in their usual list of limestone outputs that were being produced in the state mentioned that crushed Ocala limestone in large quantities was being used with cement for the manufacture of structural blocks.
As per the report, these blocks made for an attractive and desirable building unit and no sand was being used in some of these blocks, said to be promising of being durable as the natural cut stone (Dowling & Gunter, 1941). This public reference in 1940, aside from the potential connection it could have to the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co.
(previously discussed), established the idea and possibility for all of Florida’s mineral industry that Ocala limestone could be used for manufacture of masonry units, with sand or without sand.
Mid-20th Century Limestone industry. On a broader scale, the state of limbo in
Florida that had arrived with several events like natural disasters, agricultural industry losses coupled with the state and national economies suffering, had a huge impact on the development and mineral industry advancement.
Many attempts were made to recuperate Florida in the 1930s and one such attempt was the construction of the Cross-Florida Barge canal, as mentioned earlier.
The criticism and activism against the project also brought a significant amount of public awareness regarding Florida’s geology.
138
With the advent of WWII, the use of limestone and its products were extensively diverted towards the war efforts and the mineral industry put all its energy to serve through that time. As a material for war infrastructure, such was the use of Florida’s limestone that industrialists and businessmen had gotten concerned about their market stability once the war ended. The State Chamber of Commerce at this point, publicly spoke of the future of Florida’s limestone as an asset of the State’s economy and a promising industry that had been catering to the state’s demands and the importers’.
The State Chamber of Commerce also brought to light the then projected demand of
Florida’s limestone for the post-war building boom which would follow and specially the use of Florida’s limestone in the manufacture of limestone blocks which had become popular over the war years. (The Ocala Star Banner, 1945).
Sands
As per the recorded mineral history of early 20th century, sands were and are known to have been available in abundance and a variety across Florida. With the promise of being pure quartz, mostly clear unless being beach sand, some of Florida’s sands have been found of have fit very well as an aggregate to be used for road building, sand-lime bricks, concrete blocks and other concrete work. Mostly angular in shape, a variety of sand grain sizes ranging from coarse to very fine grains are available throughout peninsular Florida: primary sources being the Lake Weir in Marion County,
Glendale, Suwanee River. Known as the Lake region, this area of North, Central and
West Florida is regarded to have the best type of sand that can be used for construction purposes. On the other hand, the sands that were found in South Florida were oolitic and either too fine or too rounded to be used for construction purposes; the sands found
139
in other parts of Florida were deemed unfit for construction for similar reasons (Dowling
& Gunter, 1938).
In early 20th century, the sands Florida had been observed to have were either gray or yellow color tones (Sellards E. , 1912). Sands that are well drained and near the surface appeared to bleach light or gray. Moist sands which would be deep within the earth retain the ochre yellow color. The color is known to have been caused by iron oxides because of sub-aerial decay of the iron bearing minerals present in the sand.
While there is no sharp dividing line between the gray and yellow colored sands, the yellow hue intensifies as one goes deeper into the strata. The discoloration of the surface sands is because of plant root action and leaching by rain. It had also been observed that yellow colored sands are finer than the gray sands (Sellards E. H., 1909).
Sand in Florida was not always necessary a specially sourced mineral resource, in many cases it was simultaneously produced with other minerals: like an excellent grade of sand was produced as a by-product of the washing of the Kaolin clay; sand was also washed out from the plants of crushed limestone which further added to the resources that could be used by the manufacturer/miner (Davis, 1936).
In the first two decades of the 20th century, sand was primarily used for building, paving and for railroad ballast. Most of the companies producing sands were in and around Ocala, Marion County (Sellards E. H., 1917). This could have been the direct effect of the proximity to the sources of usable construction sands, the Lake region, to
Marion County, given that sand was as it was a by-product obtained while sourcing other natural mineral resources in Florida, which was a preexisting industry in Marion
County.
140
Figure 3-6. Map of the mineral resources of Florida, 1924 (Gunter H. , 1925).
During the Boom time, high-quality sands for construction were tough to find in
South Florida, even as the construction pace there was higher than in North Florida. For most of construction work in the state, the sands used in mortar and concrete came mainly from localities through the Lake region of the Peninsula or from Western Florida
(Davis, 1936).
Sand in Concrete block. The sand that is often required for concrete blocks or concrete work is a well sorted mix of fine, medium and some coarse grains and is largely angular in shape. This is attempted for better bonding of the aggregate and the binder resulting in a more packed concrete composite. In early 20th century Florida, coarse sand was preferred for making blocks but often a mix of coarse and fine sands
141
was recommended for ideal results. The fine sand would fill the gaps which would otherwise be left as voids or be filled with extra cement. Both these qualities existed in sands from the Lake region of Florida among other places (Sellards E. H., 1910). In early 20th century, with a well-known concrete block industry already running in different cities in Florida, it is likely that the sands from the Lake region of Central Florida sufficed for them.
Figure 3-7. Sands found in Florida, 1914 (Sellards E. , 1914).
Sand lime bricks. As the name suggests, sand-lime bricks are bricks made from sand and quick lime under heat and pressure, and sometimes may include clays They are white, cream or off white in color and in terms of texture differ from the usual clay brick which is smoother and even. In the first decade of the 20th century, Michigan had
142
the highest production of the sand-lime bricks nationally followed by Florida as the second highest producer (Scientific American, 1909).
Most of the sand-lime brick production took place in Jacksonville, Lake Helen and Plant City (Sellards E. H., 1910). During the 1910s, the number of companies producing the brick decreased significantly (Sellards E. H., 1918) but the production was maintained well into the Boom era with Florida being the third largest producer of sand-lime bricks in the country (Gunter H. , Fifteenth Annual Report, 1924). Often referred to as ‘artificial bricks’, the use of sand-lime brick was successful in the state, as a substitute for the common brick which was costlier due to the lack of necessary clays in Florida (Gunter H. , 1924). The sand used in the manufacture of sand-lime brick had to be pure and with some variation in the size of the grains, making Florida’s sand the perfect fit (Sellards E. H., 1908).
By the 1930s, with the construction quality sand limited to the Lake region, the wide abundance of the material otherwise in the state became the focus of the sand industry for the glass-making market. Pure silica available at the beaches of Florida was used not only to make glassware but structural glass and plate glass as well (Dowling &
Gunter, 1938).
It should be noted that the presence of usable sands in the region where ongoing activity of limestone and block industry was taking place can be postulated as crucial to the Ocala block (Cummer block and/or buff block) production from the area that peaked in the 1940s,1950s and 1960s by several manufacturers.
Cements
Even as quality clays and limestone were abundant in Florida, no Portland cement is recorded to have been made in the state in the first decade of the 20th century
143
(Sellards E. H., 1909). For a brief time, however, a hydraulic cement was produced from a naturally occurring cement rock (the Chattahoochee limestone) near River Junction and was sold as “White Roman Hydraulic Cement of Florida” in the late 19th century
(Sellards E. H., 1908).
Lime was an omnipresent industry in Florida, with the earliest known industrial lime plants located in Ocala namely the Meffert Lime Kiln, Ocala Lime Rock Co. and the
Florida Lime Co. (Sellards E. H., 1908). The Florida Lime Co. of Ocala was a significant manufacturer of lime with three plants located in Marion County. Having begun operations in the 1890s, The Florida Lime Co.'s pit one on the southern edge of the town had been one of the oldest lime pits manufacturing building and agricultural lime
(Gunter H. , 1925). By the year 1909, they had installed machinery to grind natural limestone, primarily to be used as an agricultural alkaliser for soils (Sellards E. H.,
1910).
In the 1910s, much of the lime produced by the state was coming from four lime plants located in and around Ocala, Marion County. Several other companies had begun joining the lime production business in Ocala as the Boom era dawned upon
Florida.
By 1920, the government wanted to investigate more about the limestone deposits in the state and the possibility of using them to manufacture cement. A 1924 study conducted by the State Geological Survey emphasized on the carbonate purity of limestone of Florida, suggesting it to be an ideal ingredient for the manufacture of
Portland cement (Gunter H. , 1925).
144
Figure 3-8. Mineral map showing lime plants in Florida, 1914 (Sellards E. , 1914).
A first production of Portland cement in Florida began in Tampa in the fall of
1927, under the name Florida Portland Cement Company. The company had their quarries located in Hernando County (Gunter H. , 1931). In 1951, Lehigh Portland
Cement Company opened their cement mill in Bunnell, becoming the second Portland cement manufacturer in Florida (Gunter H. , 1953-1954). This advancement in cement production and the post-war industrial and building boom slowed the demand and value of lime (Vernon, 1957-58).
In previous sections of this thesis, it has been established that Portland cement was being used to produce concrete blocks in the State. The use of Portland cement to
145
make Ocala block is also affirmed by the block manufacturers, implying that the manufacturers (Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co.) of what can be the forefather of
Ocala block i.e. the Cummer block, may have sourced their cement from one of the companies mentioned above.
Concerning the mineral industries discussed above pertaining to concrete block production, Ocala the city and the surrounds seem to have been the hub of production activity. One could argue that the natural geological wealth Florida that was discovered and researched in Ocala, was the reason of behind it being the epicenter of limestone mining and business, like the Cummer Lumber and Manufacturing Co. had operations around Ocala but their headquarters were in Jacksonville. However, there were companies that had their base in Ocala, but the mine/plant was elsewhere e.g. the
Camp Concrete Rock Company in Ocala had its plant in Brooksville (Gunter H. , 1931).
Florida’s limestone industry activity was noticed at a national level to be focused in
Central Florida mining the state’s well known ‘Ocala limestone’ of in Marion, Levy,
Alachua, and Citrus Counties. Acknowledging the increasing demands of building construction in Florida, the surge in crushed stone plants and lime industry in and around Ocala was noticed by experts from other parts of the country (Bowles, 1939).
If one were to look singularly at limestone and limestone products, Ocala seems to have been the junction of the construction material wealth of Northern peninsular
Florida. The city’s location and rich history as a prominent town of Florida appears to have been augmented by the area’s geological abundance in the 20th century, or even vice-versa.
146
Material Analysis of Ocala block samples
Physical samples of Ocala block were collected from the cities of Gainesville and
Sarasota in Florida. Homeowners and experts of the industry that could give away a sample of their block were reached out to via social media platforms and email to assemble nine samples, which were researched and have informed this thesis in terms of a basic make-up of Ocala block:
Sample Methodology and List
For the purposes of this research, nine samples were collected from property owners in Florida. For seven of the nine samples, an arbitrary sampling was performed through crowdsourcing via social media and word of mouth, the property owners were requested to submit a piece of Ocala block from their homes in Gainesville, as per what they thought Ocala block was. The other two, were specially requested from known buildings, one from the 1941 Glorieux Residence, a house made by architect Ralph
Twitchell and his protégé Paul Rudolph in Sarasota. The second one was requested from Lakeshore Towers, a multifamily skyscraper designed by architect Harry Merritt in
Gainesville.
The samples were first documented for their size and wholeness as a block, which in some cases had to be postulated. The samples were then broken into manageable pieces for the ease of various analyses.
Each sample specimen was then taken to a materials conservation laboratory where they were mounted as ‘thick sections’ for microscopic analyses under a stereo- binocular microscope. Further the samples were subjected to a wet gravimetric analysis to study its constituents. The samples were also mounted into ‘thin sections’ for
147
petrographic observations under a petrographic microscope to verify the observations made in pervious analyses.
Figure 3-9. Chipping sample from block CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-10. Documented samples before ‘thick section’ mounting (Photo courtesy of author).
148
Samples’ list. Sample GR-C1. This piece of cube block (8 in. x 8 in.) is from the
1941 residence designed and built by architect Ralph Twitchell for the Glorieux’s, his in- laws. Considered as his first used of exposed Ocala block, the house is in McClellan
Park neighborhood of Sarasota, Florida. The sample was sourced in May 2017.
Sample LS-E1. This piece (16 in. x 4 in.) was taken from Lakeshore towers located on 13th Street in Gainesville, Florida. The multifamily apartment tower was designed by architect Harry Merritt, who usually referred to this material as ‘buff block’ in his drawings for other buildings he designed in Florida (Merritt, 1972). The sample was taken in May 2017.
Sample CO-B1. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. and Mrs.
Oliverio located along NW 31st Street in Ridgewood neighborhood of Gainesville,
Florida. The owners understand this solid block (16 in. x 8 in. x 3.5 in.) to be one of the three types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1960s. The sample was taken in
May 2017.
Sample CO-B2. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. and Mrs.
Oliverio located along NW 31st Street in Ridgewood neighborhood of Gainesville,
Florida. The owners understand this 3-cell hollow block (16 in. x 4 in. x 3.5 in.) to be one of the three types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1960s. The sample was taken in May 2017.
Sample CO-B3. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. and Mrs.
Oliverio located along NW 31st Street in Ridgewood neighborhood of Gainesville,
Florida. The owners understand this solid brick (8 in. x 4 in. x 2.5 in.) to be one of the
149
three types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1960s. The sample was taken in
May 2017.
Figure 3-11. Sample GR-C1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-12. Sample LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
150
Sample JG-A2. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. Goldberg in Gainesville, Florida. The owners understand this hollow brick (8 in. x 4 in. x 2.5 in.) to be one of the two types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1960s. The sample was taken in May 2017.
Sample JG-A3. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. Goldberg in Gainesville, Florida. The owners understand this solid brick (8 in. x 4 in. x 2.5 in.) to be one of the two types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1960s. The sample was taken in May 2017.
Sample MH-D1. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. Hylton at located along NW 10th Avenue in the Florida Park neighborhood in Gainesville, Florida.
The owners understand this hollow block to be one of the two types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1940s. The sample was taken in May 2017.
Figure 3-13. Sample CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
151
Figure 3-14. Sample CO-B2 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-15. Sample CO-B3 (Photo courtesy of author).
152
Figure 3-16. Sample JG-A2 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-17. Sample JG-A3 (Photo courtesy of author).
153
Figure 3-18. Sample MH-D1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-19. Sample MH-D2 (Photo courtesy of author).
154
Figure 3-20. Sample OL-1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Sample MH-D2. The sample was sourced from the residence of the Mr. Hylton at located along NW 10th Avenue in the Florida Park neighborhood in Gainesville, Florida.
The owners understand this hollow block to be one of the two types of Ocala block used in the house in the 1940s. The sample was taken in May 2017.
Sample OL-1. A sample of Ocala limestone was picked up from a road renovation on University Avenue in May 2017. It was later verified at the University of
Florida’s Department of Geological Sciences as a sample of Ocala limestone.
Through physical hand sample analysis, it was understood that samples JG-A2 and JG-A3 are baked bricks and not concrete block or concrete brick. Hence, they were not considered further for technical analysis. Likewise, OL-1 was not taken forward either as literature exists on the lithology and petrography of Ocala limestone.
However, samples JG-A2 and JG-A3 were included in the sampling keeping in mind that the stakeholder (sample donor and longtime Floridian) considers the material
155
to be Ocala block. From an ethnographic perspective, the samples were included in the research as Ocala blocks.
Figure 3-21. Preparation for ‘thick section’ mounts (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-22. Thick section mounts of samples (Photo courtesy of author).
156
Figure 3-23. Hand sample before ‘thick section’ mount (Photo courtesy of author).
Microscopic Observations
The thick sections of Ocala block samples were subjected to microscopic examinations under a stereo binocular microscope at varying magnification to understand the blocks’ makeup. With a prior understanding that the aggregate is the local crushed limestone found in the central highlands of Florida, the presence of certain fossils remnants was identified in the block samples.
A wet finger test was conducted which informed the research about the high porosity. During the same test, the non-uniform moisture absorption pattern informed about the presence of crushed stone aggregate in the block, unlike the uniform matrix of a cast stone which would absorb moisture evenly. This was followed by a spot acid test for all the samples which informed the high carbonate content in the blocks. It was established that the aggregate being a crushed carbonate increases the difficulty of spotting the binder (if Portland cement and/or lime) distinctly from the crushed aggregate.
157
Figure 3-24. Preparation of Spot acid testing of samples (Photo courtesy of author).
Sample GR-C1 stood out of the entire sample range for being the most compact and cohesive Ocala block showing less voids. Sample LS-E1 stood out for its large size of aggregate grains.
Gravimetric Analysis
Gravimetric analysis via means of a wet chemical treatment were performed on the samples of Ocala blocks based on the Cliver process3 of mortar analysis. In terms of quantitative results, the Cliver process applies to mortars that have aggregates and binder where the former is commonly sand, and the latter is lime, cement and/or clay. In the case of Ocala block, the aggregate is not only a crushed calcareous rock but a highly porous, soft and fossiliferous one. Together with the aggregate of Ocala limestone clasts which are also likely to be surrounded by clay, its own sand grains, iron
3 The Cliver process is a simplistic analysis technique applied to gauge the constituents of a cementitious mixture using simple laboratory equipment and basic knowledge of chemistry (Cliver, 1979).
158
oxides and other impurities have been mixed with a binder and sand aggregate (except in GR-C1).
Figure 3-25. Preparation for acid digestion of samples (Photo courtesy of author).
Given the case, it is unlikely to yield a telling result about the ratios of the aggregate and binder using this wet chemical process. While quantitative results have been included in this research, the value of gravimetric analyses in case of Ocala blocks lies in understanding the type of sand used, if any, and the make-up of the fines which may explain the presence of a pigment if used. The process of digesting this limestone composite also yields some observations that may be key for further research.
Each of the samples pieces were ground in a mortar and pestle to small bits for the ease of carrying out acid digestion. The samples, weighing to be within a range of 6 gm to 9.9 gm, were then subjected to acid digestion with 3M Hydrochloric acid (diluted from 12M Hydrochloric acid, reagent grade) of up to 80 mL for about 42 hours.
Reactions of each of the samples to the acid were noted and as well the formation of a certain, fluffy brown precipitate.
159
Upon completion of digestion, the solution was filtered through filter paper of grade Q5 set in a funnel-beaker setup while the insoluble, the sand particles and the flocculated precipitate remained out of the solution suspension.
The flocculated particles of a brown and whitish precipitate could be seen floating above the sand aggregate in the beaker but were not suspending in the solution to be filtered along with the other fines that were being collected in the filter paper. Once the soft texture, dissolvable texture of the flocculated precipitate was discovered with a glass rod, the leftover solutions were stirred in an ultrasonic cleaner to arrive a suspension which only contained settled sand particles. The suspensions created by the dissolution of the flocculated particles were passed through the respective filter paper setups into the filtrates, allowing the particles of the flocculated suspension to be collected with the other fines.
Figure 3-26. Vigorous reaction of the samples (Photo courtesy of author).
160
After complete filtration and noting the filtrate’s color, the insolubles or the sand particles were rinsed over 7 times and that water suspension was poured over the fines collected in the filter paper, thereby rinsing the fines as well off any remainder acid.
Upon drying of the fines in the filter and the insoluble (sands) in the beaker, both were weighed and then subjected to microscopic analysis for visual observations.
Following are the observations noted of each sample while going through the wet gravimetric process:
GR-C1. The sample was hard to grind in the mortar and pestle and yielded small bits which gave much resistance in crushing, however the resistance much less when compared to a Portland cement composite of a mortar or block.
Figure 3-27. Digested samples after 24 hours (Photo courtesy of author).
The reaction to the acid was very vigorous with violent bubbling that continued well for 30-40 minutes. The filtrate was a green, pale yellow and the suspension had floccular brown residue floating with the insolubles. After ultrasonic mixing, the
161
dissolved precipitate in the dark grey-brown suspension was filtered along with the fines. GR-C1 had very little amount of insloubles or sand grains left behind.
Sand analysis. In the very little amount of sand that was left post the acid digestion, most of the grains were angular, with some subrouded, of fine and very fine
sand. The grains are clear, clean quartz, barring a few coarse sub-angular grains. There are black colored bits postulated to be charcoal, red colored grains postulated brick or sand or iron oxides, but largely the sand was very fine, grey-white colored sand. There are pieces of undigested calcareous aggregate in yellow-orange color or there is a possibility of it being feldspar or oxides. No cloudy rounded grains of sand can be seen.
Fines analysis. In the matrix of white-grey clayey substance, no presence of pigment can be seen except a few peachy colored clayey particles. There are traces of black colored particles, but largely GR-C1 is the most uniform color of fines compared to other samples with no micas present.
Figure 3-28. Floccular brown residue in sample GR-C1 (Photo courtesy of author).
162
Figure 3-29. Sample GR-C1 in the ultrasonic cleaner (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-30. Fines and sands from sample GR-C1 (Photo courtesy of author).
LS-E1. The sample was hardest to grind in the mortar and pestle.
The reaction to acid was violent and vigorous with was relatively quicker to slow down compared to GR-C1 and to the rest of the following samples. The filtrate was a very light yellow. The flocculated particles formed in this solution were grey-white in
163
color unlike the rest where they were brown. A white colored suspension resulted after ultrasonic cleaning which was filtered through.
Figure 3-31. Floccular grey-white residue in sample LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-32. Fines and sands from sample LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Sand analysis. In comparison to GR-C1, a large amount of sand resulted from the acid digestion. The sand was white in color with a few well-rounded grains of pink, opaque white, red and brown grains of sands. There are several undigested pieces of
164
either calcareous aggregate of white crystalline calcite holding very fine sand grains together which fall apart easily when lightly tooled under the microscope.
The sand appears to be largely unsorted ranging from some very fine rounded grains to mostly medium and coarse angular grains.
Fines analysis. Pure white clayey particles dominate the fines of this sample with no presence of pigment. A few bits of micas and some black particles are present though. This is the only fines sample that has several filter-paper fibers that have come off from the filter paper while removal, implying that the fines were very well adhered to the surface of the filter paper.
CO-B1. This sample was relatively soft to grind in the mortar and pestle. The sample showed a vigorous reaction to the acid, but the violent bubbling did not last long.
The filtrate was a pale yellow and the suspension had flocculated particles of a dull, dark yellow. After ultrasonic cleaning, the suspension resulted in a muddy-grey color was passed through the filter paper to join the rest of the fines, leaving the insolubles/sands behind.
Figure 3-33. Floccular dull, dark yellow residue in sample CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
165
Figure 3-34. Fines and sands from sample CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Sand Analysis. The sand appears to be largely unsorted with coarse, medium, fine and very fine grains mixed, with a few very coarse grains as well. There smaller, fine and very fine grains are clean, clear quartz grains whereas the medium and coarse grains are cloudy grey in appearance. There are a few brown, well rounded sand grains and traces of bright yellow angular grains. The is sand appears grey-white in color.
Fines analysis. In the fines, there are yellow colored particles assumed to be either pigment or iron oxide, in the matrix of clay particles of light-peach and tan-peach color. The fines also have bits of mica, which appears to be muscovite.
CO-B2. The sample was harder to grind than CO-B1. It had a very vigorous reaction to acid and the violent bubbling kept going beyond 30 minutes. After GR-C1,
CO-B2 took the longest time to get digested. The filtrate was a pale yellow and the suspension had flocculated particles of a dark yellow color. After ultrasonic cleaning, the suspension resulted in a muddy-pale tan color was passed through the filter paper to join the rest of the fines, leaving the insolubles/sands behind.
166
Sand analysis. Largely unsorted sand with a spectrum of sizes but with more sub-rounded grains than angular would be the description of this sample. There are very few, fine rounded grains in black, pure white, brown sands. There a few pure white calcareous grains which break apart easily upon tooling, assumed to be either undigested remain of a fossil, disintegrated ooid sand grain or a feldspar. The sand color is whiter, and cleaner compared to the rest of the samples.
Fines analysis. While the fines overall, are lighter/whiter in color than CO-B1 and CO-B3, the particles have lighter peachy tones and appear to have more hue and less dull-grey tones than other samples when looked under a microscope. Though in limitation, small particles of dark yellow particles can be spotted in the fines under the microscope assumed to be either pigment or iron oxides. Like CO-B1, there are small bits of mica present.
Figure 3-35. Floccular dark yellow residue in sample CO-B2 (Photo courtesy of author).
167
Figure 3-36. Fines and sands from sample CO-B2 (Photo courtesy of author).
CO-B3. It was the softest to grind compared to CO-B1 and CO-B2 and gave a violent reaction upon reacting with acid. The filtrate color was a pale yellow. The suspension, like other ‘CO’ samples, included dark yellow flocculated particles which were dissolved in an ultrasonic cleaner. The resultant suspension was brown in color which was filtered with the rest of the fines.
Sand analysis. The sands here were like CO-B2 and CO-B3 with largely unsorted grains of sub-rounded and sub-angular grains with fine and very fine quartz grains. The sample also had some small rounded, black and green grains as well.
However, in comparison to CO-B2 and CO-B1, it had less undigested calcareous clasts.
Fines analysis. The fines had a few traces of dark yellow particles under the microscope assumed to be either pigment or iron oxides. With a few bits of micas, the fines appear to be clean particles in white and peach colors.
168
Figure 3-37. Fines and sands from sample CO-B3 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-38. Floccular dark yellow residue in sample CO-B3 (Photo courtesy of author).
169
MH-D1. The sample was the one of the softest to grind. It has a vigorous reaction to acid but was quick to calm down from the violent bubbling.Compared to other samples, this had lesser floccular particles that were easy to mix as a suspension even without using the ultrasonic cleaner. The result of the ultrasonic cleaner was a whitish suspension that was drained of with other fines.
Sand analysis. The sand in this is case is most angular, sub-angular and sub- rounded grains with fine and very fine clear quartz grains. It is also mixed with a few coarse and medium grains that are frosty and clouded. Except a few traces, there is hardly any undigested calcareous clast. A few very fine black particles are also present in the sample. The range of sand grain size in the sample is less varied on the coarser front compared to the CO-B1, CO-B2, and CO-B3.
Fines analysis. A few traces of dark yellow particles can be seen in the sample with other white and peach colored particles. There are small buts of mica present in the fines.
Figure 3-39. Residue in sample MH-D1 (Photo courtesy of author).
170
Figure 3-40. Fines and sands from sample MH-D1 (Photo courtesy of author).
MH-D2. Quite soft to grind in the mortar and pestle and was quick to get digested by the acid. The reaction was vigorous, and the violent bubbling calmed down quickly like MH-D1. Like MH-D1, the floccular particles were less stringent and upon mixing with an ultrasonic cleaner became a slightly yellow suspension solution. The suspension was drained with the rest of the fines leaving behind the insolubles/sand.
Sand analysis. The sand was like MH-D1, with sub-angular grains of medium to coarse grain size along with fine and very fine grains. Aside from the clear quartz, the very fine sand had black grains as well. No undigested calcareous clasts can be seen, however there is presence of opaque, rounded, pure white grains of a feldspar, an ooid sand grain or a fragment of a fossil.
There are a few rounded sand grains of the brown color. The range of sand grain size in the sample is less varied on the coarser front of sand grain size compared to the
CO-B1, CO-B2, and CO-B3.
171
Fines analysis. A few particles of dark yellow color can be spotted in the sample with other white, peach, grey-black colored particles. Very few bits of mica are present in the sample.
Figure 3-41. Fines and sands from sample MH-D2 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-42. Residue in sample MH-D2 (Photo courtesy of author).
172
The softness of samples MH-D1 and MH-D2 could possibly relate to the high porosity of them as blocks compared to the rest of the samples, as observed visually though the petrographic analysis.
The reason of undigested calcareous clasts found in several samples, can be explained with several reasons.
The 3M Hydrochloric acid used in quantity of about 80 mL (due to the shortage of beakers) digested samples weighing from 6 gm to 9.9 gm over a period of 45 hours.
The basic chemical calculation suggests that the moles of acid present in the solution should be enough to digest the moles of pure calcium carbonate present in the samples
(considering a maximum amount is present). However, it should be factored that there are or may be other acid solubles present in the block samples, (like the binder and other compounds present as anomalies of the aggregate) of a variant molecular weight, hence varying number of moles. These moles of acid solubles could have exceeded the amount of HCl that was added to the solution resulting in undigested portions of calcareous content in the residual insoluble/sands. It should be factored that the reagent grade HCl available in the laboratory could have been aged and not been true to the molarity its container suggested.
It the previous section of the technical investigation, it is known that the sands available throughout Florida vary in sizes shapes but is largely angular grains of pure quartz. This fact coincides with the all the sand samples found in the block samples where the grain sizes are variant and much of it is pure clear quartz, but grain shape includes sub-rounded and rounded shapes are well.
173
Concerning the ratio of sand aggregate in the block mixture, it should be borne in mind that the calcareous aggregate used in the blocks also may have their own sand/silica content which may have released in the digestion adding to the sand aggregate of the block. Following are the ratios in mass (%) of the digested samples:
Table 3-3. Analysis of Ocala limestone sourced from Cummer Lumber Company pit.
Sample Mass (%) Ratio Fines: Acid Solubles: Sand GR-C1 2.15 : 97.39 : 0.45 LS-E1 4.47 : 39.48 : 56.05 CO-B1 1.06 : 88.46 : 10.48 CO-B2 2.85 : 75.13 : 22.02 CO-B3 1.84 : 79.46 : 18.70 MH-D1 1.48 : 79.47 : 19.07 MH-D2 2.09 : 80.63 : 17.28
The presence of dark yellow to brown flocculate precipitate after the reaction with acid is suspected to be a product of iron oxides reacting with the acid to give iron chlorides and further iron hydroxide precipitate. The ultrasonic cleaning may have disintegrated this precipitate to be included in the fines and may have influenced the color tones of fines as well. The fines in several cases showed traces of dark yellow particles (except in GR-C1 and LS-E1) which could be hypothesized to be either the particles of the acid-digested products (iron chlorides and further iron hydroxide precipitate) of naturally occurring iron oxides or synthetic iron oxides also termed as pigments. It should also be kept in mind that naturally occurring iron oxide is also industrially known as yellow ochre, which has been a mineral resource in Florida. It is possible that it may have been an additive to the block’s recipe but albeit be a natural oxide, not allowing the attribution of natural oxide as a component of the calcareous aggregate but the block mixture.
174
As a first instance of a technical, scientific analysis on Ocala block, it should be borne in mind that to understand its make up based on existing understanding of concrete blocks may not yield conclusive arguments as the block is region specific using calcareous materials like cement, lime and limestone in an intertwined way with no recorded history of its production.
Figure 3-43. Sand samples with their fines (Photo courtesy of author).
Thin Section Petrography
Petrography involves the study of material at a microscopic level which describes it mineral composition and natural or as is textural adjustment. Polarized light is passed through thin section prepared of the material at various intensities to observe the components it has, all by using the petrographic microscope. The seven samples of
175
Ocala block were subjected to thin sectioning: where a 30-micron sliver of each of the samples was mounted on a microscope slide to be observed via polarized light passing through it. Expected to have high porosity with a considerable calcitic, lithic and quartz components, the thin sections were stained with a blue epoxy to point out the voids in the thin section of the material. Thin sections were observed both in Plain Polarized
Light (PPL) and Cross Polarized Light (XPL) under a petrographic microscope at 4X magnification. Following are the observations noted of each sample while going through the petrographic observations:
GR-01. The striking feature in the field of view is the low number, if not lack, of sand grains in this sample. The few grains that could be spotted were of fine to very fine grain sizes. The lack of sand as an aggregate in this block as suggested through the gravimetric analysis is confirmed with the petrographic observations. The fossilized fauna or bioclasts, pure calcareous clasts, appear whiter in PPL than the matrix of the sample which is a muddy grey-white, suggesting that the binder could be consisting
Portland cement. Another quality that sets this sample apart from others is the well packed composite structure with very few pores and voids in the block.
LS-E1. Much unlike other samples, the sample consists unusually large clasts of carbonate and very coarse, coarse, medium sand grains in a matrix of fine and very fine sand and binder. The isolated, cohesive calcareous clasts suggest that presence of crushed limestone screenings mixed with local sourced sand aggregate, having a variety in sand grain sizes and shapes. The matrix of the sample is a muddy grey, suggesting that the binder could be consisting Portland cement. A visual estimate of
176
pore space in this sample is 20%-25%. The fossilized fauna, a feature of Ocala limestone, cannot be seen in this sample.
Figure 3-44. PPL photomicrograph of GR-C1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-45. XPL photomicrograph of GR-C1 (Photo courtesy of author).
177
Figure 3-46. PPL photomicrograph of LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-47. XPL photomicrograph of LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
178
Figure 3-48. PPL photomicrograph of CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-49. XPL photomicrograph of CO-B1 (Photo courtesy of author).
CO-B1. There is presence of wide-ranging sand grains like observed in the gravimetric analysis. However, in the field of view, they are not as many sand grains as there are in sample LS-E1. One can observe the less integrated carbonate or
179
calcareous clasts blended with the binder and sand aggregate, implying a rather good mixing of the block mix with softer crushed aggregate. The fossilized fauna, intact in form, can be seen throughout. The dull-grey patches in the muddy matrix suggests the presence of Portland cement. A visual estimate of pore space in this sample is 15%-
20%.
CO-B2. The san grains observed in the CO-B2 sample include a range of very coarse to very fine sands with a few grains of fine gravel, as observed in the thin section. Both foraminifera and carbonate or calcareous clasts are seen blended with the binder and sand aggregate packed as a composite material. The fossilized fauna can be observed throughout. The grey patches blend with the muddy matrix suggesting the presence of Portland cement. A visual estimate of pores in this sample is 10%-20%.
CO-B3. The sands in this sample are have a size range from coarse to very fine sand, however, does not have very coarse or fine gravel grains like CO-B1 or CO-B3.
Figure 3-50. PPL photomicrograph of CO-B2 (Photo courtesy of author).
180
Figure 3-51. XPL photomicrograph of CO-B2 (Photo courtesy of author).
.
Figure 3-52. PPL photomicrograph of CO-B3 (Photo courtesy of author).
Unlike the above-mentioned samples, the grains are less rounded or sub- rounded grains and more angular and sub-angular sand grains. The carbonate clasts and the fossilized fauna in this sample are quite disintegrated, suggested rough mixing
181
or use of disintegrated crushed aggregate. Sand aggregate also appears to be in a higher proportion than CO-B2 and CO-B2. The evenly dull-grey matrix suggests the presence of Portland cement. A visual estimate of pore space in this sample is 20%-
25%
Figure 3-53. XPL photomicrograph of CO-B3 (Photo courtesy of author).
MH-D1. The sand grain distribution in this sample appears to be varied, as seen in the gravimetric analysis and not well sorted. There is coarse gravel size rounded grain of feldspar in the thin section. Carbonate clasts appear to be cohesive and of a comparably larger size as seen in other samples. The color of the matrix in PPL suggests the presence of Portland cement, but it should be borne in mind that this sample contains black/dirt particles as observed in the gravimetric analysis. A visual estimate of pore space in this sample is 20%-30%.
182
Figure 3-54. PPL photomicrograph of MH-D1 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-55. XPL photomicrograph of MH-D1 (Photo courtesy of author).
MH-D2. Just like MH-D1, the sand grain distribution in this sample appears to be variant and not well sorted. Carbonate clasts and fossilized fauna appear to be cohesive and of a comparably larger size as seen in other samples. The dull-grey color of the
183
matrix suggests the presence of Portland cement, but it should be kept in mind that this sample contains black/dirt particles as observed in the gravimetric analysis. A visual estimate of pore space in this sample is 20%-40%.
Figure 3-56. PPL photomicrograph of MH-D2 (Photo courtesy of author).
Figure 3-57. XPL photomicrograph of MH-D2 (Photo courtesy of author).
184
Due to the lack of sufficient expertise, the fossilized fauna of each sample could not be identified accurately but fauna resembling at least three of the four fossilized fauna (the foraminifers, echinoids, bryozoans) found commonly in Ocala limestone were spotted in the thin section petrographic observations of the Ocala block samples.
185
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This study began by posing the question: What is Ocala Block? The principle goal was to define this regionally-specific material that was made and widely used in
Northcentral and, to a lesser degree, other parts of Florida during the postwar period
(ca.1940 through early 1970s). While further study is needed, initial, primary research did not identify a manufacturer of a specific product referred to as “Ocala Block.” Rather, the term Ocala Block seems to be a moniker that describes a family (to borrow a term from biological clarification) of concrete masonry units that were made with limestone from Florida’s Ocala limestone formation. Though the characteristics of the sub-families vary significantly, concrete masonry units classified as Ocala Block share several commonalities and attributes.
The ambiguity of whether what we see today to be Ocala block could have been either Cummer block or buff block, or varying overlaps of the two of their time. This ambiguity is not merely because there is no written, recorded history of the material but because this confusion may have existed even during the mid-century, when the blocks was being produced and used in Florida.
It should be borne in mind that two products were in the market that looked visually similar, that are now addressed with same name of ‘Ocala block’ by the public: first being the Cumroc masonry unit aka the Cummer block and the second known as the buff block. While this difference may be only known to senior experts of the block manufacturing world today, in the eyes of Floridians both have been or are named same for their visual similarity.
186
To funnel down the big picture to some conclusive theories and outcomes on
Ocala block, the background or the context of its period of significance ought to be revisited:
Timeline of Events Affecting Ocala block
• The Phosphate boom – 1880s • Ocala limestone -1892 • Limerock begins to be used as base for all roads – 1919 • Florida Land Boom begins – 1920 • Florida Land Boom ends – 1925 • South Florida Hurricane – 1926 • Mediterranean fruit fly – 1927 • Florida Portland Cement Company established - 1927 • Another hurricane in South Florida – 1928 • Lull or Limbo period – 1930s • MoMA exhibit on International style – 1932 • Public awareness about Ocala limestone due to canal – 1935 onwards • Wright at the Florida Southern – 1938 • Cumroc Masonry Units – 1939 • Twitchell’s exposed Ocala block – 1941 • War years – 1941-1945 • Geologist Cooke’s paper on Geology of Florida – 1945 • Twitchell and Rudolph Ocala block system - 1948 • High popularity of Ocala block – 1950s, 1960s • Ocala block used in Spring house – 1953 • Twitchell and Rudolph split - 1958 • Decline of hotel business in downtown Ocala – 1960s • Interstate I-75 inaugurated from Lake City to Wildwood - 1964 • Phosphate operation shut – 1965 • Cummer assets sold to Dixie Lime and Stone Co. – 1965 • Dixie merges with New York company – 1966
Conclusions
Origin
It is however, established that what came about to be known as Ocala block was either a derivative or the Cumroc masonry unit/Cummer block itself.
187
In the case of 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard at Snell Isle, St. Petersburg, repetitive mention of the wall masonry as “Ocala certified block”, “Cumrock”, “Cumrock stucco block walls and then as “Cumrock Ocala concrete block” directly links the idea of
Ocala block to the Cumroc Masonry Units. This is reinforced by the attestations given by a few block manufacturers in the region that Ocala block was originally a product of the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. Among block manufacturers of Florida even today, the block is known by the name Cummer block instead of Ocala block and was always sourced from the city of Ocala.
Looking at the multiple advertisements of the1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard property, it can be postulated that Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. may have collaborated with pre-war developers to promote their newly launched Cumroc masonry unit aka Cummer block. A sophisticated extension of such a possibility could be that the
Ocala block system developed by architect Ralph Twitchell and Paul Rudolph is a result of a mutually benefitting collaboration between the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing
Co. and the trendsetting architects. Twitchell’s popular network, working relationship with the government is likely to have him brought across the enterprising family of the
Cummers.
While the origin of the Ocala block may have been the Cummer Lime and
Manufacturing Co. or a collaboration between the company and architect Ralph
Twitchell, the production of Ocala block for the mid-century period was not limited to them. Several other block manufacturing companies had come up in Ocala and other towns that had begun selling buff block, which as well was known to be Ocala block.
188
Inspiration
Inspiration for the early use of Ocala Block, or the Cummer block per se, could very well be Frank Lloyd Wright. His eventful arrival with the Florida Southern College followed by inspiring, resourceful execution of the coquina block constriction of the Anne
Pfeiffer Chapel makes for a story that could have easily inspired Edward C. Roe of
Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. as obviously as it did the architects Twitchell and
Rudolph.
Credit here could also be attributed to coquina concrete blocks that dotted the
North City area of St. Augustine starting the 1920s.
Location
Ocala Block seems to occur in Florida and is most predominant in the
Northcentral and Southwest Florida area due in part to concentration of limestone mines and industry centered around Ocala and Marion County. Not only limestone, but the sand production centers were also focused in the same region, as mentioned previously.
An anecdotal, visual survey of a buildings with Ocala block spotted the author seem to be covering only the area of Northcentral and Southwest Florida: as seen in
Gainesville, Keystone Heights, Sarasota, St. Petersburg, Cedar Key, Kendrick, Ocala,
Lakeland.
Size
Aside from the standardized block size that was followed by Twitchell and
Rudolph, Ocala block of the mid-century did come in a variety of sizes for the use of public. Even as Twitchell’s and Rudolph’s Ocala block system flourished along with the self-building phenomenon in postwar Florida, there was always the difference in size
189
between Twitchell’s block being 8 in. x 8 in. x 16 in. or 8 in. x 8 in. x 8 in., and the self- built/other architects’ who used it as masonry, facia or ornament in exaggerated brick or manipulated block sizes (as mentioned in previous sections and also seen in the size range of samples sourced for this thesis).
Figure 4-1. The exaggerated brick size seen in the feature article of a self-built home (Bayle, 1958).
In pictures published in newspapers, the size of the Ocala block shows to have kept changing and so did the name from Ocala block to Ocala brick, quite often. The idea of making an Ocala brick along with an Ocala block is easily plausible to a limestone quarry owner, who would be thinking of profits over prototyping. As mentioned in the previous section that several brick producers had taken up block production in the early 20th century, it is likely that block producers were also making concrete bricks to provide choices to the clients, in this case Ocala brick.
Even the Cumroc masonry unit, the predecessor of what came to be Ocala block, came in a variety of sizes as seen in their brochure from 1967. Even as this tells that
190
Cumroc masonry units had a broad size range of products, it should be noted that the by the year 1967 the ownership of Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. had bee acquired by several other block manufacturing and limestone companies and the brochure could represent the new companies’’ business production under the same brand name, Cummer,Inc.
The demand of Ocala block was being met with the production of buff block, which necessarily did not always come from Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. The variance in sizes could also be a result of the disorganized catering to the demand of the cream-colored Ocala block by the public.
Color
The color range of Ocala bock has been described between as lemon, coral, beige, tan, buff, light ochre, blue gray and gray (John Howey Archive, 2010; John
Howey Archive, 2010), implying that the color of the Ocala block was dependent on an ingredient that showed different results each time – the porous limestone aggregate.
The study on Ocala limestone proves that the color of the aggregate depends on its the place arrangement with the water table of Florida, perhaps suggesting the depth at it which it would be quarried would result in a typical color of the blocks made from that aggregate. The color of the aggregate, which changes upon contact of and discharge of moisture, is dependent on the impurities and the metal oxides present.
Individual Ocala Blocks, even those form a single manufacturer or source, may have varied in color, or atleast has aged in varying colors in a masonry wall. Perhaps the above stated reason may be why the colors of Ocala block have always been a range of tints and shades and not in a singular shade. Whereas the buff block, knowing it has added pigment, should be expected to have a consistent shade.
191
In theory, the inclusion of the local limestone in the Cummer block that only acquires color once exposed to air (due to oxidation of metal oxides and impurities), can lead to a whole palette of yellows ochres, even after having been put as masonry in a wall. While the synthetically pigmented buff block, depending upon its recipe, should be expected to have even colors throughout.
Perhaps in a healthy building, a varying color palette of yellows and tans could mean the color is natural and yielded from the aggregate, leading to the detection of whether the block is Cummer or buff.
However, it should be kept in mind that the color is yielded to the block by iron oxides present in the limestone aggregate naturally. Iron oxides also form the make-up of the natural yellow pigment that is widely available as a mineral resource in Florida as
‘ochre’. While in future research, the synthetic colorant could be differentiated from the naturally colored Ocala blocks, it would still be ambiguous to tell apart naturally colored blocks from the ones that had natural ochre added as a pigment – as encountered in the gravimetric analysis of samples for this thesis.
Regarding texture, few block manufacturers in Florida describe texture of
Cummer block to be usually rough compared to the buff block, which would be smooth.
These nuances of texture and color variety could have been noticed by the Floridian diaspora, however to them the entire range fell into one family name that resonated with them: Ocala block. An example of this was seen during the sampling of Ocala blocks done for this thesis, where samples JG-A2 and JG-A3 were donated as Ocala blocks by the property owner but compositionally the respective samples turned out to baked bricks.
192
The high production of the sand-lime brick in Florida, which is slightly like the
Ocala brick visually, could perhaps have added to the ambiguity what sets Ocala block/brick apart from other similar looking bricks.
Figure 4-2. Varying colors in the ribbed Ocala blocks in a building, Gainesville, 2017 (Photo courtesy of author).
Nomenclature
Ocala block has been used in association with several terms that mean a cream- colored, beige concrete masonry unit. Aside from the understanding that the Cummer block and the buff block as sub-families of Ocala block, Ocala block has had additions to its phrase like limestone, limerock, lime, concrete, cumrock by architects and the
Floridian diaspora. It is imperative to understand the evolution of a moniker like Ocala block, for which no tangible singular product exists but an entire family of cream- colored, beige concrete masonry units that are homegrown in Florida does.
It is established that even as the prime ingredient of the Ocala block was the limestone aggregate, the makers of the block were not specifically looking of Ocala
193
limestone. With geological research that continued till the WWII years and the general lack of awareness of what differentiates Ocala limestone from other stratifications, it is unlikely that the block was being called so for its aggregate ingredient. However, it can be theorized that the public awareness brought about Ocala limestone (due to the
Cross-Florida Barge canal and the postwar importance given to limestone in Florida) could have played a role in attaching the name Ocala to the Ocala block.
With an active, focused industry centered in Ocala pertaining to limestone mining and manufacture of products, and with several senior block manufacturers attesting that the Ocala block gets its name as the block manufacturer (Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co.) who was based in Ocala; the name Ocala with the block appears to come from the place, the town of Ocala – after which the limestone stratification itself was named.
Ocala Block: A Case of Lack of Patenting?
It is plausible, as no evidence has surfaced yet on the patent of Cumroc masonry units or the Cummer block, that there never was one.
On one hand, the advertisements of the Cumroc masonry units (in 1939) were launched with pomp and show that almost left people with a mystery of what the unit was. On the other hand, multiple advertisements for the same 1344 Bridgewaters property with words ‘Ocala’, ‘concrete’, ‘limestone’, ‘limerock’ and ‘Cumrock’ used together, gave away the constituents the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. was using to make their special units. The repeated reporting on the limestone concrete blocks by the State Geological Survey’s Annual Reports also brought awareness about recipe of these blocks that were special to Florida.
194
Parallelly, the onset of war may have come in the way for the Cumroc masonry units or Cummer block to have progressively engaged with the market using their own trademark. Also, the postwar attention to limestone by the state and the widespread public awareness about the ‘Ocala limestone dome’ directed everyone’s attention to the potential in limestone business, particularly limestone blocks (The Ocala Star Banner,
1945) easily gave out ideas to other aspiring businessmen to make such blocks.
The Cummers were a respected family of North Florida of the early 20th century but had been rattled in personal family losses starting 1930s starting with the loss of
Waldo Cummer, followed by the death Arthur Cummer in the 1940s, leaving the entire empire with one heir, their nephew Edward Roe. Roe, who wrapped all the Cummer operations by the 1960s, sold the limestone interests first and then moved out of
Jacksonville by the end of the mid-century period. The slow but eventual end of the
Cummer legacy during the mid-century may have played a role in derailing their trademark products from aggressive lobbying, especially postwar.
Ocala Block: A Case of the Ocala block fad e.g. ‘Italian Marble’?
With the evidence of new plants for limestone blocks coming up postwar and wide publicity of the use of limestone, the production of the limestone blocks was not limited to the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. The major ingredients were being spoken about like in the 1344 Bridgewaters Boulevard advertisements and in the promotion by architects Twitchell and Rudolph as ‘lime block’. Limestone blocks produced like the ones ‘from Ocala’ (Cumroc or Cummer block) or of the color of the
‘Ocala limestone dome’ were easy references the people could latch onto, which may have catapulted the beginning of the term ‘Ocala block’.
195
With different names and sizes but similar appearance, perhaps Ocala block can be looked upon as a frenzy for a loved building material and not a tangible entity; a frenzy started by Cumroc Masonry Units, fueled by architectural elitism and then with the self-building spirit, and sustained by the love for Florida’s natural wealth, a booming economy and easy availability till the end of mid-century.
The term Ocala block in this context can almost be compared to ‘Italian marble’, which is a revered material that everyone would want in their home but isn’t, exactly a type of marble available in the construction market.
Ocala block: A Case of Rebranding by the Architects?
If one were to negate the possibility of a collaboration between Twitchell and
Cummer, it is still likely that Twitchell could have been the medium through which
Cumroc masonry units or Cummer block became Ocala block. His qualities, skills and personality appear to have been of an architect wanting to set his own construction trends. With a proven Wrigtian influence over Rudolph, if not Twitchell, it is likely that the Ocala block system was developed on lines of the ‘textile block system’ of Wright.
Wright’s textile block system, outside of a patent clash that may have stayed in the
Southwest United States as a story, could be the aspiration Twitchell and Rudolph may have had with the Ocala block system. Plausibly, it could also be a similar story of a local, lesser known construction material being picked up by a celebrity architect to be rebranded as a popular, desirable building construction system of his own genius. It is also proven that Twitchell and Rudolph did source their ‘lime block’ from block manufacturing firms other than Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co.
196
In most of the Twitchell and Rudolph buildings that were published nationally and internationally, the name ‘lime block’ or ‘sand lime block’ was used, again to inform people about the primary constituent of the block.
Composition
The rapid success of concrete block as a building material is credited to the easier availability of quality Portland cement, both at the national and the state level. In all cases observed so far, there had been use of Portland cement for block making in
Florida in the late 19th century when none was being manufactured in the state.
After the year 1927, when Florida Portland Cement Company was established, several reports by the State Geological Survey refer to the use of cement with crushed limestone and/or crushed lime for making ‘unique, beautiful blocks’ in the mining and lime plants of Florida – establishing that Portland cement was used in the initial limestone blocks manufactured in the state.
There is a singular reference where the absence of sand in the above blocks is mentioned by the State Geological Survey (Dowling & Gunter, 1941), which seemingly matches with the sample GR-C1, the Ocala block from the Glorieux residence from
1941. This pre-war Ocala block has no sand aggregate apart from a few grains that may be inclusions of the aggregate itself. Sample GR-C1, a Twitchell building Ocala block, is also the only pre-war example in the entire sample list and the only one to be missing sand in a considerable amount in its composition.
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Cummer block or Cumroc masonry unit was well placed in the market in the pre-war years with its actual nomenclature,
Cumroc, in use. Several newspapers at this time used the word Cumroc or Cumrock or
197
Cummer along with Ocala block. It would be imperative to explore the pre-war Cumroc masonry units to know if they had sand present in them at all.
About the aggregate used in Ocala block, the presence of most of the Ocala limestone’s fossilized fauna in the samples directly suggest the use of the crushed limestone as its aggregate. However, it cannot be said that the presence or absence of exactly the Ocala limestone’s fauna limits the definition of Ocala block; an Ocala block could include fauna of the Suwanee or Tampa limestone, but would still be considered
Ocala block due to its lack of differentiation to a layman, primarily in this case the block manufacturer on site.
The idea of what portions of crushed limestone aggregate were used in a mining and lime plant operation may require more research into the operational history
Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. in Ocala and the material science, but it is understood that the limestone aggregate blocks (Cummer block leading to Ocala block) were being made in the mining plants along with an array of existing limestone products. Besides the established component of cement, crushed limestone, and may be sand, additions of clay have also been reported by the State Geological Survey’ reports and bulletins in these blocks.
In addition to the above propositions, it is likely the buff block (that would come under the family of Ocala block) may have white cement as a binder instead of Portland cement, to aid the action of the synthetic colorant. The timeline of when the white cement was used in buff blocks, in addition to the synthetic colorant is an area of research that needs to be explored.
Summary of What is Ocala block?
There are two ways to gather an idea about what Ocala block is to Florida:
198
1. Ocala block came from the manufacturer or the architect: a purist theory would say that as the forefather of the Ocala block, the Cumroc or Cummer block were the beginning of a building material trend which would last decades. Similarly, one can also award credit for the development of taste for Ocala block to architects Twitchell and Rudolph for their elegant wall system assembly, who made Ocala block a material everyone wanted in their house– like a status symbol. From this point of view, the Cumroc masonry unit is the original Ocala block.
2. Ocala block as an ethnographic moniker: understanding that Ocala block was not a term originated in 1939-1940, even as the prequel of the material or the material for that matter had originated. Political and cultural changes with the war, the arrival of architects’ prized modern houses, the limestone’s publicity as natural wealth, the concept of self-building: once all of this was lived through by the people of Florida, Ocala block may have surfaced as a post-war a term that stayed with the realm through the 1950s and 1960s. From this point of view, the buff block, made with whatever pigments or not, must also be considered as Ocala block.
The End: 1960s-70s
• With the advent of air-conditioning, the porous block could not perform well in holding the moisture out. Perhaps, once the effects began showing, Ocala block had begun to be considered unfavorable as a building material.
• The end of the Cummer family legacy and block plant in Ocala changing hands again and again may have contributed to the departure of Ocala block from the construction market.
• Even if someone was aping the high style architect’s work with bars and grout, the imitator would not see the clear silane coating that gave Ocala block its life and would therefore miss out in his/her own buildings. Implying that the buildings made later, made of the porous limestone block lacked this treatment, they may have suffered disintegration quickly; thereby making Ocala block lose it charm as everyone’s favorite material.
• The heightened love for the material followed by a change of public taste and architectural trends may have let Ocala block evaporate from the construction market starting the 1970s.
Historic Conservation
The case of conservation of a mid-century heritage resource like Ocala block is a matter of concern for the Floridian realm. The lamentation around the absence of Ocala
199
block in the market by homeowners and nostalgic Floridians is directly linked to the conservation issues the existing building stock of Ocala block is facing.
High porosity of moisture and dirt resulting in biological growth is a common pathological condition, aside from the severe moisture ingress it may be facing already.
In sample LS-E1, one can notice this biological growth impressed onto the block surface to a depth of atleast 2 mm. The high porosity of the block makes its surface condition more complicated which cannot be addressed by simplistic cleaning methods like pressure washing. A discourse on addressing the cleaning methods of Ocala block needs to take place as a first of the several conservation pathologies and their solutions that may unfold with time on this material.
Figure 4-3. Biological growth on LS-E1 (Photo courtesy of author).
200
Future Directions
While the objective of this thesis was to cover as maximum ground to build a first, however limited but informed narrative on Ocala block, there are several components that should have been extrapolated but were not due to the limitations of a master’s thesis.
Several anecdotal accompaniments that were carried along following the research frame to inform the research directly or indirectly have been included as ideas for further research:
• Only a few block manufacturers were consulted for this research and only a handful today are aware of the history of the Ocala block, the Cummer block and the buff block. Recording of comprehensive oral histories of these senior experts that can be reached out via the Florida Concrete Product Association, is key to the contextual and the scientific knowledge of the Ocala block.
• The information in the State Geological Survey’s reports give clues like the lack of sand in some of the pre-war limestone blocks. These connections should be further established to know who these block manufacturers were. Ties between the Florida Portland Cement Company in Tampa and Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co. should also be analyzed.
• At many given points in this research, the historical ASTM of C-90 was brought up in context of the Cummer blocks, which were known to have not followed any standard. Research on the detailed evolution of the standards pertaining to limestone aggregates and concrete blocks by the Bureau of Standards, ASTM and other regulatory bodies from the mid-century must be performed, in context of Florida.
• The history of the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co is significant to the origin of the Ocala block, tracing ex-employees of the Cummer Lime and Manufacturing Co or heirs of the Cummer family, locating the company’s archive: are activities that should be pursued to conduct an informed overview.
• Following the oral histories with the experienced block manufacturers of the state, a telltale mechanism should be established to distinguish the sub-families of Ocala block (Cummer block and buff block) from one another.
• After the identification of the original Cummer block constructions, which may be limited in the state, the properties should be listed or perhaps even filed as Florida Master Site Forms.
201
• The debate around the pricing of Ocala blocks needs to be addressed as well, as some parts of the research suggested Ocala block to have been cheaper than concrete block, others did not. A pricing of the blocks from the midcentury would further verify the theories and conclusions above.
• A more organized sampling should be conducted once the visual differences between the sub-families of Ocala block (Cummer block and buff block) is established to carry out a methodical scientific analysis which would reveal the recipe(s).
• The presence of Ocala block (Cummer block and buff block, perhaps separately) in properties across Florida should perhaps be mapped to attain a sense of geographical boundary of the region to which Ocala block belongs to.
• Only 67 newspapers of Florida were researched for this thesis, there are several local newspapers, other architectural journals and magazines that may contain information which would further furnish the research on Ocala block.
In the scope of this research, the resources that were involved were literature, archival, oral history and scientific. As the first body of research on Ocala block, only the wholesome context and some primary information on material Ocala block could be gathered. While more tangible answers require further research, the presence of an educated background is essential to be able to move forward on the path of Ocala block. This thesis provides the first ground base to look for truer, more specific answers to the question: What is Ocala block?
202
LIST OF REFERENCES
Adams, W., Steinbach, R. H., Scardaville, M. C., Nolan, D., & Weaver, P. L. (1980). Historic Sites and Building Survey of St. Augustine, Florida. St. Augustine. Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000206/00001/1
Alexander, J. (1958, November 30). Florida Home Planned For Two. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1L-2L.
Architectural Forum. (1941). 81 New Houses. Architectural Forum, 257.
Bayle, F. (1958, August 12). Florida Christian College Family Did It All By Themselves. The Tampa Times, p. 2.
BGT History. (2017). Anheuser-Busch Brewery. Retrieved from http://bgthistory.com: http://bgthistory.com/attractions/defunct-attractions/anheuser-busch-brewery/
Bowles, O. (1939). The Stone Industries. New York and London: Mc-Graw Hill Book Company, Inc.
Carroll, L. (1958, February 9). They Wanted Distinction With Comfort. Tampa Bay Times, pp. 1-G.
Chusid, J. M. (2013). Lee Nelson Book Award, Honorable Mention, 2012: Saving Wright. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology, 71-73.
Cilento, K. (2010, Septemeber). Frank Lloyd Wright's Textile Houses. Retrieved from ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/77922/frank-lloyd-wrights-textile-houses
Clark, A. (2014, August 2). I-75 opened 50 years ago. Retrieved from www.gainesville.com: http://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20140802/News/604153241/GS/
Clarke, J. O. (1891). Ocala, Fla. : a sketch of its history, residences, business interests, etc. with illustrations of picturesque scenery and portraits of leading citizens. New York: The Republic Press.
Clements, G. (2018, February 9). General Manager. (M. Chawla, Interviewer)
Cliver, E. B. (1979). Tests for the Analysis of Mortar Samples. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 68-73.
Concrete Products. (1919, April). Personals. Concrete Products, 44.
Concrete Products. (1919, September). Tests on Concrete and Other Building Materials. Concrete Products, 16.
Concrete products. (1921, June). Helm Presses Brick and Block. Concrete products.
203
Concrete Products. (1921, March). Hyrdostone. Concrete Products, 27.
Concrete Products. (1921, July). Lambie Concrete House Corp. Concrete Products, 2.
Concrete Products. (1921, November). Mud Pies or Concrete Units? Concrete Products, p. 42.
Concrete Products. (1921, May). Personals. Concrete Products, 49.
Concrete Products. (1921, March). Plans for Concrete Dwellings. Concrete Products, 53.
Concrete Products. (1921, January). Post Economy Punch. Concrete Products, 8.
Concrete Products. (1921, September). Straub Patented Blocks. Concrete Products.
Cooke, W. (1945). Geology of Florida: Geological Bulletin no. 29. Tallahasse: Florida Grower Press, Tampa.
Crews, J. (2014, March 7). Tallahassee Democrat. p. C2.
Davis, G. W. (1936). Second Biennial Report . Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Dowling, R. L., & Gunter, H. (1938). Second Biennial Report Part III. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Dowling, R. L., & Gunter, H. (1938). Third Biennial Report. Tallahassee: Geological Division Florida State Board of Conservation.
Dowling, R. L., & Gunter, H. (1941). Fourth Biennial Report. Tallahassee: Florida State Board of Conservation; Florida Geological Survey.
Ferguson, P. (1963, February 27). Carl Rose dies at 70. Orlando Evening Star, p. 1.
Ferguson, P. (1965, November 12). New Programs Shown in Dixie Lime Meeting. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 69.
Ferguson, P. (1966, September 1). Tossed Salad. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 98.
Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute. (n.d.). Discovery of Phosphate in Florida. Retrieved from http://www.fipr.state.fl.us: http://www.fipr.state.fl.us/about- us/phosphate-primer/discovery-of-phosphate-in-florida/
Florida land boom of the 1920s. (2018, March 12). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_land_boom_of_the_1920s
204
Florida Memory. (19-?). Adding limerock to road base. Retrieved from https://www.floridamemory.com: https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/132309
Florida Memory. (192-?, https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/36488). Road construction between Mt. Dora and Zellwood : close-up of a portable Cummer asphalt plant - Orange County, Florida. Retrieved from https://www.floridamemory.com.
Florida Memory. (1924). Cummer Lumber Company pit near Zuber - Marion County, Florida. Retrieved from https://www.floridamemory.com: https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/124738
Florida Memory. (189-). Dunnellon phosphate mine. Retrieved from www.floridamemory.com: https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/141777
Florida Springs Institute. (2018). Florida, Land of 1,000 Springs by Robert L. Knight. Retrieved from http://floridaspringsinstitute.org: http://floridaspringsinstitute.org/springs-of-florida
Foley, B. (1996, March 24). Cummers synonymous with city:. Florida Times Union, p. B7.
Fort King National Historic Landmark . (n.d.). Fort King National Historic Landmark . Retrieved from https://fortkingocala.com/: https://fortkingocala.com/
Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Archives (The Museum of Modern Art | Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, New York). (2017, June 6). Urbanist, Marketeer, Horticulturalist: Frank Lloyd Wright Is All These and More at New MoMA Exhibition. Retrieved from http://www.metropolismag.com: http://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/urbanist-marketeer-horticulturalist- frank-lloyd-wright-new-moma-exhibit/
Gainesville Daily Sun. (1908, August 15). Gainesville Daily Sun, p. 8.
Gebhard, D. (1987). The American Colonial Revival in the 1930s. Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 22, 109-148.
Google, Inc. (2018, March 5). 24 Cincinnati Avenue. Retrieved from www.google.com: https://www.google.com/maps/place/24+Cincinnati+Ave,+St+Augustine,+FL+320 84/@29.9018559,- 81.3181342,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM6atsxjWTaY5mDA- X94rYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e427c75684ca01:0x34dddbb4d10 5ad43!8m2!3d29.9019559!4d-81.3181298
Google, Inc. (2018, March 5). 33 Old Mission Avenue. Retrieved from www.google.com/: https://www.google.com/maps/place/33+Old+Mission+Ave,+St+Augustine,+FL+3
205
2084/@29.903907,- 81.3201844,3a,60y,156.49h,96.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJNcTlqbIrljmSu8EsKyj FA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e427c71a377d23:0x4c270d44fb66aed7 !8m2!3d29.9036136!4d-81.
Gorenflo, D. (2018, February). Masonry Specialist, A1 Blocks Corporation. (M. Chawla, Interviewer)
Groer, A. (1995, March 19). Florida is for...and Frank Lloyd Wright Fans in Lakeland. The Washington Post, p. E01.
Gunter, H. (1924). Fifteenth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1925). Sixteenth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1925). Sixteenth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1927). Eighteenth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1931). Twenty-First - Twenty-Second Annual Reports. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1940). Fourth Biennial Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1945). Letter of Transmittal. In W. Cooke, Geology of Florida: Geological Bulletin no. 29 (p. v). Tallahasse: Florida Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1949). Eighth Biennial Report. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey.
Gunter, H. (1953-1954). Eleventh Biennial Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Hardwood, T. (2018, April). Email correspondence with Maanvi Chawla. Gainesville.
Harvill, D. (1965, September 11). Recreation Center Dedication Sunday. Tampa Times, p. 1.
Herschel Shepard Collection. (1967). Cumroc Limestone Masonry Units Brochure. Ocala, Florida: Cummer, Inc.
Howey, J. (1995). The Sarasota School of Architecture 1941-1966. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Hurts, J. T., & Gunter, H. (1947). Seventh Biennial Report. Tallahassee: Florida State Board of Conservation; Florida Geological Survey.
206
J., T., & McQuade, D. A. (2011, September 29). Mid Century Modern in South West Florida. Retrieved from http://www.mcmo-swfl.com: http://www.mcmo- swfl.com/bio/Twitchell-%20Ralph%20S-%20Narrative.pdf
John Howey Archive. (2010). "Four Current Projects by Rudolph" artcile in Architectural Record March 1963. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 9, Folder 99a. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). "House for tomorrow's market" article in House + Home April 1953. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). "House in Florida" article in Art and Architecture November 1948. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). "House planned for children". John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). "In the Southeast" article by Architectural Forum September 1947. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). “Interpreting moods in Sticks, Stones and Sunshine: the life and architecture of Ralph Spencer Twitchell” by Patty Rice May 1992. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 47. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Concrete Masonry Work of Paul Rudolph, by National Concrete Masonry Association Vol. 33 1977. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 9, Folder 99a. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Draft 1 of the book. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 5, Folder 66. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Howey's notes on Rudolph. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 2, Folder 25. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Howey's notes on Rudolph. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 2, Folder 25. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
207
John Howey Archive. (2010). Patti Rice Notes. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 3, Folder 43. Gainesville : University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Paul Rudolph CV. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 2, Folder 25. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). Specifications for Siegrest Residence in Venice, Florida. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010). St. Petersburg and Southwest Florida Architecture by B.R. Walzer. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 4, Folder 45. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (2010, June). Timeline of buildings by Twitchell. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection,Box 3, Folder 44. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Archive. (June 2010). TImeline of buildings by Twitchell. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection,Box 3, Folder 44. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
John Howey Arcihve. (2010). The Sarasota School of Architecture by Robina M. Twitchell. John Howey's Sarasota School of Architecture Collection, Box 3, Folder 43. Gainesville: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
Kevin Schweizer Architects. (2018, February 27). 'Stone Masonry' from drawings. Florida.
King, J. (2018, February-March). Email correspondence with Maanvi Chawla.
King, J., & Domin, C. (2002). Paul Rudolph The Florida Houses. New York City: Princeton Architectural Press.
Knight, G. (1958, December 14). Tour of Budweiser Plant. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 4C- 5C.
Knight, G. (1959, August 16). Good Things In Small Packages. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 5-G.
Knight, G. (1959, November 9). Slightly Oriental. The Tampa Tribune (, p. 109.
Knight, G. (1962, March 11). Home For Career Girl. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-D.
Little, J. R. (1979). National Register of Historic Place Inventory - Lewis House. Tallahassee: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.
208
Marder, W., Mattick, B. E., & Waber, A. (2009). National Register for Historic Places. St. Augustine: United States Department of the Interior National Park Service.
Marion County Chamber of Commerce. (1929). Map of Ocala Florida. Ocala, Florida. Ocala, Florida: Marion County Chamber of Commerce.
Marion Sentinel. (1965, November 12). Buying Cummer Facility. Marion Sentinel, p. 78.
Mase, S. (1947, June 12). Port Tampa Builds New City Hall. The Tampa Times, p. 4.
McCarthy, K. M., & Jernigan, E. (2004). Images of America Ocala. Great Britain: Arcadia Publishing.
Merritt, H. (1972). Westminster Presbyterian Church Drawings. Harry Merritt Materials. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Smathers Libraries.
Miller, C. (1974, December 27). They Built Home That's Just Wright. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 13.
Murray, L. D., Shiver, C., & Jones, R. O. (2015, October 9). National Park Service. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov: https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/15000587.pdf
New York Times. (1951, August 7). John Roe, Leader In Cypress Field: Official of Florida Concern Is Dead--Former G.E. Sales Executive in Atlanta. New York Times, p. 25.
Ocala Star Banner. (2007, December 9). Fate of historic Ocala House sealed as city takes charge. Ocala Star Banner. Retrieved from http://www.ocala.com/news/20071209/fate-of-historic-ocala-house-sealed-as- city-takes-charge
Osgood, N. (1957, September 1). He Lives It Alone And Likes It. Tampa Bay Times, pp. 5-E.
Painter, J. (2018, February 19). President, The Masonry Society. (M. Chawla, Interviewer)
Patton, C. (2011, january 9). Cummer Museum’s 50th anniversary celebration begins with ‘The Cummer Legacy’ exhibit. Retrieved from http://www.jacksonville.com: http://www.jacksonville.com/article/20110109/ENTERTAINMENT/801259520
Patton, C. (2013, April 6). Cummer’s restored Olmsted Garden will open April 11. Retrieved from http://www.jacksonville.com/: http://www.jacksonville.com/article/20130406/ENTERTAINMENT/801254933
209
Patton, C. (2013, April 6). Cummer’s restored Olmsted Garden will open April 11. Retrieved from http://www.jacksonville.com: http://www.jacksonville.com/article/20130406/ENTERTAINMENT/801254933
Prudon, T. H. (1989). Simulating Stone, 1860-1940: Artificial Marble, Artificial Stone, and Cast Stone. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol. 21, 79-91. Retrieved February 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1504299
Ralph S. Twitchell, Architect. (1941, August 12). Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Twitchell; Sheet 3. Sarasota: Ralph S. Twitchell, Architect.
Reef, C. (1985, February 25). Johnson Brothers to Open Another Barbeque Restaurant. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 3E-H.
Robin, D. A. (2015, July 9). Charting the Wright Course. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 8A.
Rosin Preservation. (2015, March 8). The Story of Nel-Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rosinpreservation.com: http://www.rosinpreservation.com/the-story-of- nel-stone/
Royle, J. C. (1925, January 2). Build Your Own House, Slogan Now. The Tampa Times, p. 5.
Ruck, D. (2001, December 3). South Florida Business Journal. Retrieved from www.bizjournals.com: https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2001/12/03/focus5.html
Schottelkotte, S. (n.d.). Cement Products and Supply Co. Inc. Retrieved from http://www.cementproductsusa.com: http://www.cementproductsusa.com/CementProducts- SupplyCompanyHistory.html
Scientific American. (1909, November 20). San Lime Brick. Scientific American, 372. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26007868
Selections from the Cornell Anthropology Collections. (2012). Tabby brick. Retrieved 2018, from Cornell University Library DIGITAL COLLECTIONS: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:3235910
Sellards, E. (1912). Fourth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Sellards, E. (1914). Sixth Annual Report. Tallahassee.
Sellards, E. H. (1908). First Annual Report. Tallahassee: Capital Publishing Co., State Printer.
Sellards, E. H. (1909). Second Annual Report. Tallahassee: Capital Publishing Co.
210
Sellards, E. H. (1910). Third Annual Report. Tallahassee: The Record Company St. Augustine.
Sellards, E. H. (1915). Seventh Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geoloigical Survey.
Sellards, E. H. (1917). Ninth Annual Report. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Sellards, E. H. (1918). Tenth and Eleventh Annual Reports. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Sellards, E. H. (1921). Thirteenth Annual Report,. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
Sellards, E. H., Gunter, H., & Cox, N. H. (1911). Road and Road Materials of Florida. Tallahassee: Florida State Geological Survey.
Sergeant, J. (1976). Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian Houses. New York : Whitney Library of Design.
Sickels-Taves, L. B. (1997). Understanding Historic Tabby Structures: Their History, Preservation, and Repair. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology, 28, 22-29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1504529
Sickels-Taves, L. B., & Sheehan, M. S. (1999). The Lost Art of Tabby: Preservating Oglethorpe’s Architectural Legacy. Southfield, MI: Architectural Conservation Press.
Simpson, P. H. (1999). Cheap, Quick, & Easy: Imitative Architectural Materials, 1870- 1930. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Simpson, P., Hunderman, H., & Slaton, D. (1995). Twentieth-century building materials:history and conservation / edited by Thomas C. Jester. (T. C. Jester, Ed.) Washington D.C.: McGraw Hill.
Sims, H. G. (1941, September 14). Modernistic College Chapel. New York Times, p. SM15.
Sims, H. G. (1941, September 14). Modernistic College Chapel. The New York Times, p. SM15.
Singer, D. (1999). The Architecture of Donald Singer. Fort Lauderdale: Bienes Center for the Literary Arts.
Siry, J. M. (2004). Frank Lloyd Wright's Annie M. Pfeiffer Chapel for Florida Southern College: ModernistTheology and Regional Architecture. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 63(4), 498-539. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128016
211
Soqui, T. (2017, June 23). Step Inside Los Feliz's Famous Ennis House. Retrieved from http://www.laweekly.com: http://www.laweekly.com
Stockbridge, D. (1992, May 17). Sarasotan grew with Town. Sarasota Herald Tribune, p. 1.E.
Szymanski, D. (1986, February 5). Expansion set for King. The Tampa Tribune, p. 6.
Tallahassee Democrat. (1962, April 29). The George Lewis II Home. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 23.
Tallahassee Democrat. (1966, August 20). 35 Income Property. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 12.
Tallahassee Democrat. (1968, April 12). Tallahassee Realty Co. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 18.
Tallahassee Democrat. (1984, June 8). Lewis & Associates. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 58.
Tampa Bay Times. (1904, August 6). Eureka Stone Co. Tampa Bay Times, p. 5.
Tampa Bay Times. (1910, January 7). Concrete Blocks. Tampa Bay Times, p. 6.
Tampa Bay Times. (1922, January 1). Well Seasoned Concrete Blocks. Tampa Bay Times, p. 40.
Tampa Bay TImes. (1939, May 21). House of Today. Tampa Bay TImes, p. 30.
Tampa Bay Times. (1939, February 27). Wright Will Return to Lakeland Mar. 12. Tampa Bay Times, p. 4.
Tampa Bay Times. (1940, February 11). For Sale New House at Snell Isle. Tampa Bay Times, p. 45.
Tampa Bay Times. (1941, March 9). At Snell Isle. Tampa Bay Times, pp. D-7.
Tampa Bay Times. (1943, March 23). Snell Isle. Tampa Bay Times, p. 30.
Tampa Bay Times. (1949, January 1). 21-Concrete, Tile, Brick Work, and Perma-Stone. Tampa Bay Times, p. 23.
Tampa Bay Times. (1950, January 29). New Office-Apartment Opens. Tampa Bay Times, p. 1950.
Tampa Bay Times. (1952, June 1). Will Greet Visitors to Pinellas. Tampa Bay Times, p. 73.
Tampa Bay Times. (1953, November 8). On Display Today. Tampa Bay Times, p. 71.
212
Tampa Bay Times. (1955, December 18). Tampa Bay Times, p. 7.
Tampa Bay Times. (1955, December 4). Gas Firm in New Building. Tampa Bay Times, p. 8F.
Tampa Bay Times. (1957, January 26). Venice Art School Plans Open House. Tampa Bay Times, p. 23.
The American Architect. (1906). The American Architect and Building News (Vol. Vol. LXXXIX). New York: The American Architect.
The Architectural Forum. (1928, December). Natco Bars Dissatisfaction. The Architectural Forum, p. 89.
The Daytona Daily News. (1906, January 20). Will Erect New Building. The Daytona Daily News, p. 1.
The Gainesville Star. (1903, November 20). The Cummer Company. The Gainesville Star, p. 2.
The LaFayette Sun. (1907, August 21). Build a Home of Concrete Blocks. The LaFayette Sun, p. 7.
The Miami News. (1906, February 3). The Miami News, p. 3.
The Miami News. (1919, November 5). Concrete Blocks. The Miami News, p. 10.
The Miami News. (1921, January 1). Concrete Block Stucco Advertisements. The Miami News, p. 10.
The Miami News. (1924, January 1). Business Blocks At Coral Gables Are Well Planned. The Miami News, p. 5.
The Miami News. (1925, August 22). Houses For Sale. The Miami News, p. 28.
The Miami News. (1928, January 1). Gables Issues 1927 Permits of $2,602,900. The Miami News, p. 1928.
The Miami News. (1934, January 3). Beach Homes. The Miami News, p. 15.
The Miami News. (1939, February 6). New and Better Lime Products. The Miami News, p. 5A.
The Miami News. (1940, January 3). Coral Gables Homes. The Miami News, p. 9B.
The New Enterprise. (1902, February 27). Scientific and Industrial. The New Enterprise, p. 6.
213
The Ocala Evening Star. (1901, December 10). Florida Grand Trunk R.R. The Ocala Evening Star, p. 1.
The Ocala Evening Star. (1902, August 8). A Prospective Big Orchard. The Ocala Evening Star, p. 2.
The Ocala Star Banner. (1945, August 20). Limestone's future. The Miami News, pp. 8- A.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1921, October 7). Fight Fire When You Build. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 10.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1927, July 3). The Orlando Sentinel, p. 8.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1939, February 6). New Plant at Ocala Opened. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 2.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1939, February 21). Not Silly To Secure Self. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 4.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1953, February 26). Groveland Talks Band. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 7.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1956, August 9). Truck Company to Erect New Structure. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 2BX.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1961, November 1). The Orlando Sentinel, p. 2.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1961, March 8). Houses for Sale. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 31.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1963, February 28). Mr. Carl Rose, Builder of Florida. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 12.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1965, May 21). Four-Lane. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 58.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1966, June 7). Adam Announces Charters. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 57.
The Orlando Sentinel. (1966, October 1966). He Takes Time to Listen To Others' Problems. The Orlando Sentinel, p. 2.
The Palm beach Post. (1939, February 7). Cummer Lime Company Lime Plant Complete. The Palm beach Post, p. 16.
The Pensacola News. (1889, August 1). Rivers and Harbors. The Pensacola News, p. 1.
The Polk County News (Bartow, Florida). (1891, June 19). Florida Phosphates. The Polk County News, p. 2.
214
The Santa Fe New Mexican. (1996, March 17). FUNERAL SERVICES AND MEMORIALS. The Santa Fe New Mexican, p. B2.
The St. Lucie County Tribune. (1907, Septemeber 6). Florida Topics. The St. Lucie County Tribune, p. 2.
The Tampa Morning Tribune. (1904, August 20). Busy Lakeland And Its Events. The Tampa Morning Tribune, p. 6.
The Tampa Times. (1939, February 7). New Lime Plant Built at Ocala. The Tampa Times, p. 12.
The Tampa Times. (1940, August 27). The Tampa Times, p. 5.
The Tampa Times. (1941, January 1). Sarasota Bids on Housing. The Tampa Times, p. 3.
The Tampa Times. (1950, Decemeber 1950). Small Homes. The Tampa Times, p. 18.
The Tampa Times. (1958, October 20). Distinctive Home. The Tampa Times, p. 17.
The Tampa Times. (1959, April 11). Armenia Baptists Hold Open House. The Tampa Times, p. 15.
The Tampa Tribune. (1902, August 20). The Assasin Fled. The Tampa Tribune, p. 6.
The Tampa Tribune. (1905, January 5). For the Purpose of Manufacturing Concrete Blocks. The Tampa Tribune, p. 5.
The Tampa Tribune. (1909, December 20). Cummer Funeral Largest In Jacksonville History. The Tampa Tribune, p. 3.
The Tampa Tribune. (1924, May 30). Cummer Lumber Co. Begins Erection of Second Lime Plant. The Tampa Tribune, p. 5A.
The Tampa Tribune. (1925, November 4). Limerock Firms Organise in Body to Rush Road Job. The Tampa Tribune, p. 18A.
The Tampa Tribune. (1931, August 9). Lands for Sale by Cummer Lumber Company. The Tampa Tribune, p. 5.
The Tampa Tribune. (1932, May 7). Contracts for Rock and Timber Let by Road Board. The Tampa Tribune, p. 18.
The Tampa Tribune. (1936, June 29). Waldo E. Cummer. The Tampa Tribune, p. 2.
The Tampa Tribune. (1938, May 9). Wright Named Architect For Foundation. Tribune, The Tampa, p. 14.
215
The Tampa Tribune. (1939, February 19). Build this Lovely Modern Home. The Tampa Tribune, p. 7.
The Tampa Tribune. (1939, March 19). Bulid this Modern Davis Islands Home. The Tampa Tribune, p. 9.
The Tampa Tribune. (1939, February 7). New and Better Lime Products. The Tampa Tribune, p. 13.
The Tampa Tribune. (1940, April 26). Southern Chapel to Use New Chapel in Program Today. The Tampa Tribune, p. 21.
The Tampa Tribune. (1946, March 23). State Issues Charters for Two Tampa Corporations. The Tampa Tribune, p. 7.
The Tampa Tribune. (1946, August 17). Surplus Building Materials at the Bushnell Air Field. The Tampa Tribune.
The Tampa Tribune. (1946, September 22). There Is A Mountain At Ocala But Its Buried. The Tampa Tribune, p. 15A.
The Tampa Tribune. (1947, December 14). About Florida. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 4-B.
The Tampa Tribune. (1948, August 4). Post Office at Astatula Now in New Building. The Tampa Tribune, p. 11.
The Tampa Tribune. (1953, May 31). 160-A Stock Farm - $15,000. The Tampa Tribune, p. H7.
The Tampa Tribune. (1953, December 22). Ground Broken for New Zephyrhills Church. The Tampa Tribune, p. 30.
The Tampa Tribune. (1955, October 30). Lakeland 1st Church of God Dedicates Santuary Today. The Tampa Tribune, p. 8A.
The Tampa Tribune. (1955, July 24). Nothing Like It. The Tampa Tribune, p. 8B.
The Tampa Tribune. (1957, November 1). First Service Slated in Florida's Newest Church. The Tampa Tribune, p. 4.
The Tampa Tribune. (1965, Decemeber 30). Ocala Buys Drainage Property. The Tampa Tribune, p. 24.
The Weekly Tribune. (1899, March 16). Lumber Plant Destroyed. The Weekly Tribune, p. 5.
Twitchell & Rudolph. (1949-51). Bennett Residence Drawings; Sheet 4. Residence for Mrs. & Mr. Allen Bennett. Bradenton: Twitchell & Rudolph - Architects.
216
Twitchell & Rudolph. (1950). General Conditions & Specifications for Kerr Residence in Venice, Florida. Sarasota: Twitchell & Rudolph, Architects.
Twitchell and Rudolph. (1950). General Consideration and Specifications: Residence for Mrs. and Mr. Watson. Sarasota: Twitchell and Rudolph, Architects.
U. S. Geological Survey. (2018, March). Ocala Limestone. Retrieved from mrdata.usgs.gov: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc- unit.php?unit=FLEOo%3B0
US Inflation Calculator. (2018, March 28). Retrieved from http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Vernon, R. O. (1957-58). Thirteenth Biennial Report . Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey,.
Vernon, R. O. (1959-60). Fourteenth Biennial Report of the . Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey.
Weaver, P., & Jones, R. O. (1998). Nation Register of Historic Places: Horace Walker House. St. Augustine: United States Department of Interior National Park Service.
Weaving, A. (2006). Sarasota Modern. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.
White, D., & Cooke, C. W. (1915). Professional Paper 95. Shorter Contributions to General Geology, 107.
Wikipedia. (2018, March 8). Nummulites. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nummulite
Zimmerman, B. (2018, February 9). President, Cement Products & Supply Co., Inc. . (M. Chawla, Interviewer)
217
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Trained as an architect in India, Maanvi intends to pursue architectural heritage conservation as a specialization. During the 4 years between architecture education and now the master's at University of Florida, Maanvi worked in Indian firms including the
Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (aka INTACH). Maanvi has worked on heritage inventories, condition assessments, measured drawings; and most significantly on the post-flood damage assessments of her hometown, Srinagar, after the 2014 floods in Kashmir valley. With a focus on the technical aspect of heritage structures, Maanvi has oriented her graduate study at the University of Florida towards her interest in materials conservation by studying courses in geology and chemistry along with her major. Maanvi was the 2015 US/ICOMOS International Exchange
Program Scholar representing India in the United States.
218