Puerto Rico's Henry Klumb

Puerto Rico’s Henry Klumb

This book follows Henry Klumb’s life in architecture from Cologne, Germany, to Puerto Rico. Arriving on the island, Klumb was a one-time German immigrant, a moderately successful designer, and previously a senior draftsman with Frank Lloyd Wright. Over the next forty years Klumb would emerge as Puerto Rico’s most prolific, locally well-known, and celebrated modern architect. In addition to becoming a leading figure in Latin American modern architecture, Klumb also became one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s most accomplished protégés, and an architect with a highly attuned social and environmental consciousness. Cruz explores his life, works, and legacy through the lens of a sense of place, defined as the beliefs that people adopt, actions undertaken, and feelings developed towards specific locations and spaces. He argues that the architect’s sense of place was a defining quality of his life and work, most evident in the houses he designed and built in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico’s Henry Klumb offers a historical narrative, culminating in a series of architectural analyses focusing on four key design strategies employed in Klumb’s work: vernacular architecture, the grid and the landscape, dense urban spaces, and open air rooms. This book is aimed at researchers, academics, and postgraduate students interested in Latin American architecture, modernism, and architectural history.

Cesar A. Cruz is an architectural historian and educator. He has taught architectural history and theory, building structures, and design in Illinois, Indiana, and New Mexico. In August 2016 he received his Doctorate in Architecture from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. Routledge Research in Architecture

The Routledge Research in Architecture series provides the reader with the latest scholarship in the ﬁeld of architecture. The series publishes research from across the globe and covers areas as diverse as architectural history and theory, technology, digital architecture, structures, materials, details, design, monographs of architects, interior design, and much more. By making these studies available to the worldwide academic community, the series aims to promote quality architectural research.

Worship Sound Spaces Architecture, Acoustics and Anthropology Christine Guillebaud, Catherine Lavandier

InterVIEWS Insights and Introspection on Doctoral Research in Architecture, Federica Gofﬁ

The Multi-Skilled Designer A Cognitive Foundation for Inclusive Architectural Thinking Newton D’souza

Ethical Design Intelligence The Virtuous Designer Philippe d’Anjou

The Architect as Magician Albert C. Smith and Kendra Schank Smith

Puerto Rico’s Henry Klumb A Modern Architect’s Sense of Place Cesar A. Cruz

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Research-in-Architecture/book-series/RRARCH Puerto Rico’s Henry Klumb A Modern Architect’s Sense of Place

Cesar A. Cruz First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Cesar A. Cruz The right of Cesar A. Cruz to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cruz, César A. (César Antonio), author. Title: Puerto Rico’s Henry Klumb : a modern architect’s sense of place / César A Cruz. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019054854 (print) | LCCN 2019054855 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367149727 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429054174 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Klumb, Henry, 1905-1984–Criticism and interpretation. | Architecture–Puerto Rico–History–20th century. | Place (Philosophy) Classification: LCC NA737.K577 C78 2020 (print) | LCC NA737. K577 (ebook) | DDC 720.97295/0904–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054854 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054855

ISBN: 978-0-367-14972-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-05417-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK To my wife Kris, and to Orson and Lucy

Contents

List of ﬁgures x Image credits xii Preface xiii Acknowledgements xv

1 Looking into a modern architect’s sense of place 1 A sense of place – a theoretical underpinning 5 Deﬁning place 6 Places as sources of meaning, and other factors leading to a sense of place 8 Searching for evidence of phenomenological thinking 14 Investigative cycles and narrative writing 16

2 From Germany to the modern American metropolises, 1905–1927 20 Henry Klumb’s pamphlet series: an introduction 21 Klumb’s German period, 1905–1927: the setting that began to shape a young modern architect 22 Klumb, the early modernists, and higher values 26 Klumb and the (un)natural modern city, 1927–1929 28

3 With Wright in Arizona and Taliesin, 1929–1933 37 Camp Ocotillo 39 Taliesin 44 viii Contents 4 Vernacular inﬂuences I: the Native American projects, 1938–1941 52 Respecting tradition, nature, and context in Native American architecture 53 The Tulsa, Gallup, and San Francisco exhibits 54 Klumb in Sells, Arizona 59 Lasting impressions of the American Southwest and Klumb’s experiences there 63

5 Vernacular inﬂuences II: reimagining Puerto Rico’s jibaro hut, 1944–1948 68 Klumb’s Puerto Rico, February 1944 69 Puerto Rico’s post-war modernist project in context 72 The jibaro hut in Klumb’s pamphlets 74 The jibaro hut reimagined through the Teacher’s Farms 80 A return to the more traditional jibaro hut through the Low Cost Rural Houses 86

6 The grid and the landscape: the Haeussler Residence, 1945 94 Klumb’s orthogonal and triangular grids in Puerto Rico’s terrain 98 The Haeussler Residence 98 The Evans Residence 101 The Ewing, Fullana, Tugwell, and Foreman homes 103 The grid and the landscape within a series of oppositions 106

7 Open air rooms: the Emilio Rodriguez and Duchow residences, 1951 and 1958 114 Klumb’s initial open air rooms in Puerto Rico – the patio 115 The varied moods of nature at Klumb’s terraces, verandas, cross-ventilated spaces, and breezeways 120

8 Additional house types: houses in dense urban spaces and modern stilt houses 127 Balancing nature with the burgeoning modern city 127 The Kogan house 128 The Marrero and Velez houses 129 Klumb’s modern stilt houses 133 The jibaro hut reimagined once more 134 A career in its twilight, 1967–1984 140 Contents ix 9 A coda to a sense of place: the Klumb House, 1947–1984 145 Impressions of the Klumb House 146 An early personal transition for Klumb in Puerto Rico 147 Viewing the Klumb House through the architect’s naturalistic worldview 154

10 Conclusions 159

Appendix A: Klumb’s pamphlet series 167 Appendix B: Henry Klumb’s “Taliesin” 172 Appendix C: Notes on Klumb’s Houses 175 Index 185 Figures

2.1 Photograph of the Cologne Cathedral 24 2.2 Photograph of New York Harbor 30 3.1 Site plan, Camp Ocotilla 40 3.2 Photograph of Camp Ocotillo 41 3.3 Aerial perspective, Taliesin 46 4.1 Model Rooms nos. 1 and 2 56 4.2 Floor plan and perspective, the Papago Tribal Community House 60 4.3 Interior perspective, the Papago Tribal Community House 61 5.1 Map of Puerto Rico 70 5.2 Maps of the San Juan metropolitan area, 1947 and 1969 72 5.3 Photograph of a “jibaro shack” by Edwin Rosskam 76 5.4 Klumb’s collage, “Puerto Rico” 77 5.5 Aerial perspective and plan, the Teacher’s Farms in concrete 83 5.6 Details, the Teacher’s Farms in native materials 84 5.7 Plan, the Low Cost Rural Houses (phase 1) 87 5.8 Elevation and plan, the Low Cost Rural Houses (phase 2) 88 5.9 Axonometric and plan, the Low Cost Rural Houses (phase 3) 90 6.1 Satellite images of the Bosch and Ewing houses 97 6.2 Site plan, the Haeussler Residence 99 6.3 Floor plans, the Evans Residence 102 6.4 Site plan and floor plan, the Fullana Residence 104 6.5 Elevation and floor plan, the Tugwell Cottage 105 6.6 Perspective, the Foreman Mountain Retreat 106 7.1 Perspective and floor plan, the Emilio Rodriguez House 116 7.2 Perspective, the Bosch House 120 7.3 Perspectives, the Duchow Residence 122 7.4 Floor plans, the Duchow Residence 123 8.1 Site plan and perspective, the Marrero House 130 8.2 Section and floor plan, the Velez House 131 8.3 Site plan, the Benitez Mountain Cottage 136 8.4 Section and floor plan, the Benitez Mountain Cottage 137 Figures xi 9.1 Photograph of the Klumb House exterior 150 9.2 Photograph of the Klumb House living room 151 9.3 Floor plan, the Klumb House 152 9.4 Photographs of a sitting area and hammock at the Klumb House 153 Image credits

Figures 2.1–2.2, 3.2, 4.1–4.3, 5.3–5.9, 6.2–9.4. Images courtesy of the Architecture and Construction Archives at the University of Puerto Rico in Rio Piedras, used by permission of Richard H. Klumb Figures 3.1 and 3.3. Copyright © 2020 Frank Lloyd Wright Founda tion, Scottsdale, AZ. All rights reserved. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Archives (The Museum of Modern Art | Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, New York) Figure 5.2. Maps courtesy of the Historical Topographic Map Collection, the U.S. Geological Survey Figure 6.1. Courtesy of Google Earth Preface

My motivation for taking on this research project was simple. As a doctoral student at the University of Illinois from 2011 to 2016, I wanted to study an architect whose practice was grounded in architectural phenomenology. They – whoever this architect turned out to be – did not have to see themselves as a phenomenologist. They just had to show evidence of it. Immedi- ately, certain high profile names sprung up in my mind. I also considered a couple of names closer to my adopted home of New Mexico. Then I remembered a brief conversation I had with one of my architectural history professor when I was a master’s student at the University of New Mexico. He told me about a former Wright protégé, a German, who had been quite successful in Puerto Rico. I had filed that conversation away for four of five years, only for it to resurface at this opportune time. The more that I read about this architect, Henry Klumb, the more that it struck me. I did not think that I had run across an architect with such a strong tie to one place. Other aspects of his background held great appeal as well – German, modernist, Wright protégé. It was a perfect match for me, and my professors in Illinois agreed. I ask readers to bear in mind the original intentions of this book. It is intended to be an unusual history, a phenomenological history. It is not a boilerplate biography. I have not followed every twist and turn of Klumb’s life. In fact, I filed away for another day, possibly for other potential future projects, much of the evidence that I discovered during my fieldwork in Puerto Rico. Now, as a historian I aim to provide an honest accounting of my subject. To do so it is my responsibility to identify, acknowledge, and remain open to all of the major factors and influences that had an impact upon my subject. These factors may be, for example, political, economic, cultural, ideological, international, regional, local, familial, or exclusively and idiosyncratically personal to a historical figure. Only by facing all such major factors can a historian then proceed and conduct a more narrowly bounded historical study. Put another way, a historian should strive to understand their subject as broadly, thor- oughly, and in as unbiased a manner as possible. With this in mind, and on hand, a historian can then write that honest account of their subject. xiv Preface As an unusual history, a phenomenological history, some readers will find that this book is not exactly what they expected. This book is about a Latin American modernist, but it is not an exposition on Latin American modernism. The subject of this book, an immigrant architect, benefitted from an opportune political climate in Puerto Rico, but the book is not a work of political economy. More than anything else, this book is about subjective experience. What did this architect think, feel, and believe over his life? Had I found evidentiary reason to interject at length broader nar- ratives on Latin American history or politics, I would have had to follow that evidence. As it is, I did not find such evidentiary reasons. What I did find to be relevant is what I included in the book. I hope that you enjoy reading about Klumb nearly as much as I did researching and writing about him. Cesar A. Cruz Muncie, Indiana October 2019 Acknowledgements

In completing this book I owe a debt of gratitude to a phalanx of sup- porters, colleagues, friends, and family. First, there is my doctoral dissertation committee at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where this book originated. My advisor and committee chair, Professor John Stallmeyer, guided me over the course of my five-year doctoral education. Thank you for sharpening my writing at every turn, and for taking a leap of faith with me on the subject of Henry Klumb. Professor Lynne Dear- born’s words of encouragement, her mentoring in architectural research methods, and her ability to squeeze in a last minute meeting with a student in the middle of her full schedule showed the heights to which she will go to help her students. Professor David Hays made the process of studying architectural history as enjoyable as it was instructive, which is to say that it was quite a bit of both. Professor Chris Fennell opened my eyes more than anyone else to notions of place as they are understood outside of architecture. The day that I decided to enroll in his landscape archeology class was a fortunate one for me. Three organizations at the University of Illinois were instrumental to the conduct and completion of my research. The Kilby and Love Fellowship from the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies financially supported my first research trip to Puerto Rico in June 2014. The Graduate College supported my fieldwork and dissertation writing through its Dis- sertation Travel Grant and the Dissertation Completion Fellowship, both awarded in May 2015. Finally, the School of Architecture supported me through numerous fellowships and three teaching assistantships. In the course of my fieldwork in Puerto Rico, several people lent their support. Professor Enrique Vivoni, who is now the retired director of the Architecture and Construction Archives at the University of Puerto Rico in Rio Piedras (AACUPR), generously allowed me to advance Klumb’s legacy. The current director of the AACUPR, Professor Laurie Ortiz Rivera, stepped in after Professor Vivoni to lend invaluable assistance in turning my dissertation into a book. The head archivist at the AACUPR, Elena Garcia, was the consummate professional. Her patience and timely service with every request for drawings and documents were Herculean. Without xvi Acknowledgements her help, this research would have taken many more years. Juan Rodriguez Colon’s words of encouragement and enthusiastic interest in my research sealed a friendship over a common scholarly interest. Several people kindly helped me as I traversed the San Juan metropolitan area looking for Klumb’s houses. These included the current residents of the Ewing residence, the chief of building maintenance at the Bacardi plant in Cataño, and the security guards in the gated communities of Santa Maria and San Patricio. My family in Puerto Rico helped immensely with lodging, transportation, food, and getting reacquainted with the Isle of Enchantment after so many years. Thank you, Mami, Papi, Waldy, Laurie, Andy, Tio Ma, and Tia Cuca. Next, there are my immediate families in Indiana, California, Oklahoma, and Washington State. The Cruz Family in Crawfordsville, Indiana was always available for a much needed break and a home cooked meal. Thank you, Juan, Lisa, Eric, and Trevor. The Herzons and Michaels were my biggest boosters. Their pride in my accomplishments has always been palpable. Thank you, Fred, Celia, Leslie, Scott, Louisa, Jotham, Lisa, Ian, and Bekki. Five people helped to bring the book project to a successful completion. Richard H. Klumb, Henry Klumb’s youngest son, was supportive from the instant that we first communicated over e-mail. It has been an honor to study and write about his father. Henry Klumb has taught me as much about architecture as any professor. Three students at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana – Steven Polchinski, Mitchell D. Geis, and Maarten J. Bergsma – lent invaluable technical expertise and precious time just when time was of the essence. To my editor at Routledge, Grace Harrison, thank you for believing in this book and for guiding me through the publication process. Finding the right publisher and editor changes everything for an aspiring academic. I am fortunate to have found both at Routledge. Finally, to my wife Kris, your strength is unbounded. With tireless support you shared with me every success, frustration, and worry. Our jour- ney together with Orson and Lucy has been as remarkable as it has been eventful. What would I have done without you when I got temporary amnesia? Is it too soon to talk about a second book? 1 Looking into a modern architect’s sense of place

In February 1944 a thirty-nine year old itinerant architect named Heinrich “Henry” Klumb moved from Los Angeles, California to the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico. He went there for what was supposed to be a short- term public works job with the island’s provincial government. Encouraged to relocate to the island by a long-time friend and former business partner, Klumb had arrived at an opportune time. The 1940s would turn out to be a period of significant transformations on the island. As Puerto Rico was wholly an American protectorate (Spain had ceded the island to the United States in 1898 following the Spanish-American War), the administration of the island was a joint affair between the United States federal government and a limited local government. There was a popularly elected Senate and House of Representatives, for example, but Puerto Ricans lacked a local constitution and the governor was still a political appointee (selected by the American president). Within this framework, local politicians and reformers were promoting political, economic, and social changes with far-reaching consequences. These political actors wanted to shift the local economic base from agriculture to manufacturing. The intent was to catch up with other industrialized nations, alleviate many of the island’s social and economic ills, and engender greater political and economic autonomy from the United States. Along with these goals there was an impetus to build – schools, public housing, hospitals, government buildings, and the infrastructure for a tourism industry that was expected to grow after the Second World War. Moreover, this postwar transformation project was to feature a new, postcolonial face. In order to recast Puerto Rico as a progressive and evolving nation state, local leaders planned to rely heavily upon modern architecture. In this regard, Puerto Rican authorities would employ an unusual and early brand of twentieth-century globalism. This was not a new phenomenon on the island. Puerto Rico has a long history of imported and adapted architectural styles, from the Spanish colonial to Art Deco, among other examples. Therefore, it was not surprising that aspiring local architects pursued their educations at the top architecture schools of their new 2 Looking into an architect’s sense of place patron country, the United States. It was also notable that local authorities eagerly sought out and accepted the participation of architects from outside of Puerto Rico. The most readily available pool of talent was from the United States and Europe. All of these architects – whether local or foreign born – found themselves in the middle of an institutionally driven, island-wide search for a new Puerto Rican self-identity, and quasi-equality among its Latin American and North American neighbors. This was in part what led to Klumb’s arrival in Puerto Rico. For Klumb, the past eleven years – between 1933 and 1944 – had been trying. Over that time, he and his family had moved around the United States numerous times. Remarkably, though, Klumb had eked out a succession of jobs despite the scant work opportunities of the Great Depression and the American home front of the Second World War. Finally, it seemed that in Puerto Rico he had found a fertile ground for a design professional. At the time of his arrival on the island, Klumb was a one-time German immigrant, a former protégé of Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn’s occasional design and business partner in the mid and late 1930s, and a moderately successful designer. Over the next forty years, Klumb would emerge as Puerto Rico’s most locally well-known and prolific modern architect. On the surface, those things that broadly defined Klumb’s life – German immigrant, Frank Lloyd Wright’s protégé, and Latin American modern architect – leads a person to wonder. How did Klumb emerge so far from Germany, in the Caribbean, as Puerto Rico’s leading modern architect? Why did he live and work in Puerto Rico longer than any other place? What kind of architecture did he produce (that is, in terms of a recurring building type or a unique “style”)? What is his legacy today, either in Puerto Rico or more generally? Questions such as these flow from the fact that Klumb is a relatively obscure figure, if not entirely unknown, outside of Frank Lloyd Wright scholars, architects from Puerto Rico, and specialists on Latin American modernism. As a person learns the answers to these questions, they begin to see a life and career that is multifaceted, complex, oftentimes surprising, and consequential even beyond the boundaries of Puerto Rico. This book aims to answer questions such as the ones above and more. The objectives of this book are twofold. First, for many people who come across this book it will be an introduction to Klumb’s unusual biography. The second and chief objective of this book, however, is to take the scholarly research on Klumb into a new direction. That direction is a study of his sense of place. Within this study, a sense of place is defined as the beliefs that people adopt, the actions they undertake, and the feelings they develop towards those locations that through time, experience, group norms and practices, personal investment, or immediate appreciation (that is, upon first impression) have become important or meaningful to them.1 Looking into an architect’s sense of place 3 For all people who are coming to know Klumb for the first time, I have written this book not only with architectural historians, students, and interested architects in mind, but also for a broader audience outside of the profession. Anyone fortunate enough to work in architecture knows that it is a field with great appeal. If you tell anyone that you are an architect or that you teach architecture, you have immediately piqued his or her interest. That has always been my experience as well with the subject of Henry Klumb. His life story is too unusual and interesting to elicit any other response. Therefore, it has been my intent, even in writing the doctoral dissertation that preceded this book, to write in a way that anyone with a certain level of education should be able to relate to it. That should not diminish the level of scholarship within the book. To the contrary, this is an asset. Instead of writing a book that only a small number of scholars will be able to or want to engage with it, I strove to produce a book that, no matter how complex the subject matter or difficult it was to put together, comes across as coherent and accessible. Whether you are reading your first book or journal article on Klumb, or you are already familiar with him, I intend to provide the most in-depth examination of the architect’s life. This has been possible due to the large cache of evidence that I have amassed and the resultant depth to which I have taken certain episodes of Klumb’s biography. In terms of the evidence, many of the drawings, personal and professional correspondence, handwritten notes, public statements, and lectures that I studied have received little or no attention before now. The large collection of fresh evidence contained herein sheds new light on Klumb’s life story. Consequently, I have been able to report and interpret important aspects on Klumb far beyond what has been covered in any previous work. But in unearthing, analyzing, and interpreting this evidence, my aim is not to simply provide more, previously unknown, factual information about Klumb. Thus, we turn to Klumb’s sense of place. The historical and theoretical research that has revolved around the Modern Architecture movement of the twentieth century has emphasized what the geographer Ed Relph has described as a “largely placeless approach to design,” which was characterized by an architecture “that could fit almost anywhere” (Relph 2009, 29). Similarly, the architect Kate Nesbitt has observed, “One can argue that place and the body were not recognized by the Modern Movement because of its focus on accommodating the collective over the individual, expressed in a language of universality, both technological and abstract” (Nesbitt 1996, 40). Of course, these generalizations do not apply to every architect of the era. An architecture that adheres to the unique and evocative qualities that emerge from local conditions could not have and did not pass away with the rise of the Modern Architecture movement. Indeed, writers such as the architectural historian and theorist Christian Norberg-Schulz and others after him have searched for contrary cases from the annals of architectural 4 Looking into an architect’s sense of place history and have tried to highlight exemplary place-centric architects and their approaches. Henry Klumb was one architect whose career stands out for his association with a particular location as well as by his abilities to synthesize local environmental conditions with more universal, modern approaches. As such, Klumb’s sense of place was a defining and demonstrable quality of his life in architecture. It was characterized by a heartfelt affection for various places where he lived and worked, and for the local populations at those places. These places and peoples included Frank Lloyd Wright’s home and studio in rural Wisconsin, the American desert Southwest and its Native American populations, Puerto Rico’s mountainous countryside and its rural working poor populations, and parts of the San Juan metropolitan area. This sense of place was evident in Klumb’s reactions to and recollections of these locations and peoples. It was likewise evident in his views regarding the rightful interrelation between people and their surroundings. All of these aspects were chronicled in his collection of letters, public speeches, essays, and other private papers spanning a period of over fifty-five years. Closely linked with Klumb’s sense of place are the houses that he designed and built in Puerto Rico between 1944 and 1975. That is because these buildings were a direct result of those experiences that taught him how to bring together in a harmonious relationship the daily lives of people with their built and natural environments. With such an idea in mind, Klumb in turn attempted to create houses that were meant to foster the same harmonious relationship for others. Nowhere was Klumb’s fondness for a location and its peoples more evident and directly relatable than in the houses that he designed and built in Puerto Rico. Consequently, when we look at the many circumstances in Klumb’s life that led him to value specific locations through his demonstrated beliefs, actions, and feelings, we see that these same circumstances found direct expression in his residential practice. This book, then, is the study of a specific quality within one architect. What did it consist of, how did it develop or grow within him, and how did he apply it in his work? We will come to understand this attribute – his sense of place – by examining the key events, people, experiences, and locations that impressed that quality on him. To be sure, to posit a deep- seated, heartfelt, and long-lasting bond between Klumb and Puerto Rico is already a part of the scholarly literature on him. The link essentially springs forth from his biography. Some researchers have explicitly drawn from the idea, while still others consider it a priori, a tacit acknowledgement, to understanding Klumb and his work. My contribution to this discourse will be to apply insights derived from phenomenological philosophy, architectural phenomenology, and other fields to reexamine in detail and shed new lights on the key turning points over the long arc of the architect’s life and career. Looking into an architect’s sense of place 5 The examination of Klumb’s biography begins in the next chapter. Before engaging in that examination, however, in the remainder of this chapter I will establish a set of foundational elements that were instrumental to this research. Just as this book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation on Klumb, what follows in this chapter is a condensed version of that research’s theoretical framework and research methods. In discussing these routine research requirements, the reader should take the following sections as abridged background matter rather than full treatments of the subjects contained therein. Any reader who is not interested in the inner workings of a research project may wish to proceed to the historical narrative starting in Chapter 2.

A sense of place – a theoretical underpinning The study of a sense of place has a long history within a number of academic disciplines. As the geographer Edward Relph notes, the subject was first the purview of his peers in geography in the early 1970s (Relph 1993, 32). Since then it has also been a fertile research area in many other fields, among them anthropology, archeology, environmental and developmental psychology, architecture, landscape architecture, education, and even recreation, sports, and leisure. To draw from the most appropriate literature, I looked to David Seamon’s phenomenological ecology as an initial orienting principle. Seamon coined the term “phenomenological ecology” in 1993 to categorize the contributions to two edited volumes by a number of notable geographers, philosophers, architects, landscape architects, and environment-behavior researchers (Seamon 1993b; Seamon and Mugerauer 2000). The contributing authors to Seamon’s two edited volumes directed their efforts at the intersection of theory, design, and the built environment. In the second of those two books, Seamon extolled phenomenological ecology as a new, multidisciplinary field of study that was grounded in phenomenological thinking and methods, and the relationships between people and their environments. Phenomenological thinking and methods aim to transcend what Seamon sees as the overly specialized and limited scopes of traditional scientific and quantitative approaches. Phenomenology, Seamon argues, allows for “a deeper, more holistic way” of seeing and understanding any part of the lived-world (i.e., that realm that encompasses peoples’ everyday lives and experiences) (Seamon 1993b, 8, 17). Phenomenological “ways of knowing,” Seamon wrote, “are wider-ranging and incorporate qualitative description, intuitive insight, and thoughtful interpretation.” He continues, “Human beings, including scholars, ‘know’ in many different ways – intellectually, emotionally, intuitively, viscerally, bodily, and so forth. A full understanding of any phenomenon requires that all these modes of knowing belong and have a place” (ibid., 15). Seamon uses the term environments to refer to the built environment, landscapes, communities, or in general any “world outside ourselves” 6 Looking into an architect’s sense of place (ibid., 16). In phenomenological ecology, however, Seamon tells us that there is no rift between person and world, between subject and object, as there is in “conventional Western philosophy” (ibid., 14). Phenomenological ecology aims to bridge those divides and apprehend people, objects, and their environments clearly and as they are, that is, interrelated to one another rather than “isolated” or “fractured” from each other (ibid.). Finally, Seamon directly asserts that all of the concerns inherent in phenomenological ecology coalesce around places. As Seamon explained, “Phenomenological ecology is an interdisciplinary field that explores and describes the ways that things, living forms, people, events, situations and worlds come together environmentally. A key focus is how all these entities belong together in place” (ibid., 16). For this book’s research project to have satisfactorily progressed, I relied on phenomenological ecology’s various contributors (as well as similar thinkers and writers) in order to clarify several overarching issues. The central issues that preceded my research were as follows:

• There exists ambiguities and overlapping deﬁnitions in the scholarly understanding of “place” and “a sense of place.” • How is a sense of place generally manifested in an individual? • What precedes a sense of place as a personal philosophy or conceptual framework? • How is a sense of place acquired? • How can an investigator leverage a sense of place into a viable research strategy?

In resolving these issues, I was seeking a cogent and practical understanding of a sense of place. My initial intent was to leverage such a foundation into a viable research tool. My larger intent was for this work to stand as a guide for present and future architects so that they could reﬂect on and strengthen their positions on the notions of place. Also, an understanding of Klumb’s sense of place would stand as a phenomenological history, which is to say an example of how to study other architects with strong ties to speciﬁc places. Now let us take each issue above in turn.

Defining place In framing the theoretical underpinnings behind this book, it became apparent that thinkers and writers frequently use the word “place” to describe a great many phenomena. As the geographer Tim Cresswell and the philosopher Edward Casey have pointed out, place is such a common part of our everyday speech that it routinely avoids precise definition and consequently rigorous thinking (Casey 1997, x, xiv; Cresswell 2004, 1, 15–16). When place is not a precise identifier of any one thing or concept, Looking into an architect’s sense of place 7 it assumes a multiplicity of meanings, and it carries with it an overabundance of ambiguities. The most common consequence of this situation is that we conflate what places are with how we relate to them and how they affect us. This dilemma was the first issue that preceded my research. To aid my efforts, I chose to define place in a way that isolated it from its many associated and subjective meanings. Thus, the following definition:

• place: a collection of all objects and materials brought together by people and natural processes at a speciﬁc, habitable location. A place is not just any one thing but rather an entire composition, everything that comes together at that location.

A place, as indicated above, requires three conditions: (1) a geographic location, (2) the physical and material compositions at those locations, and (3) the fact that those compositions are the results of human and natural processes or interactions. The defining qualities of a place are concrete and relational in nature. In other words, understanding places only as places demands that we understand what a place physically consist of, how did its component elements come to be in combination to one another, and who or what brought them there. One other important element that bears clarification is the notion of a specific, habitable location, which we can better understand by turning to the notion of place scales. The geographer Yi-Fu Tuan has said, “Place exists at different scales. At one extreme a favorite armchair is a place, at the other extreme the whole earth” (Tuan 2011, 149). To be sure, in this statement Tuan is conflating a multiplicity of meanings associate with places. Most notably, he does so by using the word “place” (in reference to an idea) rather than “aplace” or “places.” Nevertheless, Tuan is also alluding to places as specific, habitable locations (which a chair and the world both are) and to their varying material makeup depending upon the size of those locations. There is also in Tuan’s statement how a person might feel about such locations (not just an armchair but a favorite armchair), of which I will say more below. For now, though, to get closer to what Tuan is referring, consider how we refer to different localities of varying sizes as a place. Relph and Norberg-Schulz have codified these different place scales. Relph’s place scales are comprised of the following:

Home – Street – City – Landscape – Region – Nation. (Relph 2008, 18–22)

Norberg-Schulz’s place scales, which he termed environmental levels, include the following:

Countries – Regions – Landscapes – Settlements – Buildings – Sub-places. (Norberg-Schulz 1980, 16) 8 Looking into an architect’s sense of place When we view the different place scales in descending order of size, each level physically subsumes all the levels below them. Also, each stop or habitat in this sliding scale supports a greater capacity for material composition of built and natural elements than those places that exist at smaller scales below them. Similarly, larger places support greater varieties of human activities. A large international city, for example, will offer a greater number of possible activities than Tuan’s proverbial armchair in a living room or den. As I alluded to earlier through Tuan’s favorite armchair, what follows next from these place scales is the varying capacities for meaningful associations with places. That is because each stop along Relph’s or Norberg-Schulz’s place scales engender differing meanings, which is to say that different places elicit varying perspectives, attitudes, or levels of commitment from each of us. We view a city center differently than we do a natural landscape, a landscape differently than we do our own homes, our own homes differently than a grand hall in a faraway country manor, and the roads, rural vistas, and landmarks in a faraway country differently than those in our own neighborhoods. Using our deﬁnition for place and an understanding of place scales as new starting points, we are able to move on to the many ways that people internalize their associations with places.

Places as sources of meaning, and other factors leading to a sense of place Already in my introductory remarks above I have presented my deﬁnition for a sense of place, which is as follows:

• a sense of place: the beliefs that people adopt, the actions they undertake, and the feelings they develop towards those locations that through time, experience, group norms and practices, personal investment, or immediate appreciation (that is, upon ﬁrst impression) have become important or meaningful to them.

This definition addresses the next three issues that preceded my research – how is a sense of place generally manifested in an individual, what precedes a sense of place as a personal philosophy or conceptual framework, and how is a sense of place acquired. It does these things by encompassing much from phenomenological ecology. To begin with, the philosopher Jeff Malpas refers to the ways that people relate to places in general as “mutuality,” that is, the idea that “while we may affect the places in which we live and so may take responsibility for them, those places also affect us in profound and inescapable ways” (Malpas 2009, 22). Cresswell adds, “As well as being located and having a material form, places must have some relationship to humans and the human capacity to produce and consume meaning” (Cresswell 2004, 7). A similar sentiment is evident in Relph’s observation: “Some people are not much interested in Looking into an architect’s sense of place 9 the world around them, and place for them is mostly a lived background. But others always attend closely to the character of the places they encounter” (Relph 1997, 208). In these statements, Malpas, Cresswell, and Relph acknowledge an inherent interdependence between people and places. They further contend that this interdependence is a source of meaning for people. But what meanings, and through what processes do we derive such meanings? Can it happen spontaneously or only if we “attend closely to the character” of places? Among the most commonly studied sources of meaning, significance, and value that people derive from their links to places are place attachment, a sense of belonging, and personal and collective identity (Altman and Low 1992; Manzo and Devine-Wright 2014). Others may include feelings of nostalgia, drives towards conservation and preservation, and even a profound sense of loss when faced with abrupt cases of displacement (Casey 1997, 6). Another significant association that can develop between people and places is place dependence, whereby a particular place is more suitable “for satisfying an individual’s goals and needs when compared with some other potential area” (Nanzer 2004, 365). What is important about these relational aspects between people and places is that people are conscious of them and that they can see them as important and potentially influential aspects in their lives. But, although these elements correspond in a general way with what phenomenological ecologists consider to be a sense of place, it does not fully delineate this sense yet. Relph has written extensively on the subject of a sense of place over four decades, refining his interpretation, responding to critics, and reconsidering the concept in light of a globalized, interconnected, and technological world. Some of his more salient conclusions on a sense of place include the following:

• It is “an innate faculty, possessed in some degree by everyone” (Relph 1997, 208). • It is “a strong and usually positive faculty that links us to the world,” although it can also be negative and harmful, even destructive (as a result, for example, of territorialism, parochialism, or nationalism) (ibid., 209). • It can mature self-consciously and unselfconsciously (Relph 2008, 64–67; 2009, 25). • Similar to any skill or ability, it is transferrable. It can be taught, learned, refined, or strengthened, both individually and collectively (Relph 1997, 208–209, 221–222, 225; 2009, 25–26). • Like a critical theory, it can be leveraged to assess any issue of consequence between people and the built environment, for example, urban- ization, globalization, gentrification, immigration, commercialism, and urban sprawl. The point is not pure condemnation against examples of 10 Looking into an architect’s sense of place placelessness, but rather an appraisal of “how the intrinsic and the placeless fit together, and in what sort of balance” (Relph 1997, 211; 2009, 24–31). • There are temporal aspects to a sense of place that transcend across generations, communities, and cultures. Relph relates what he calls a geographic sense of place as it has evolved from antiquity, through the pre-modern world, modernism, and postmodernism. He illustrates the shift between these eras through the cross-generational example of his grandfather and himself, both born in rural south Wales but pos- sessing decidedly different attitudes toward places (one from the pre- modern world and the other of modernism/postmodernism) (Relph 1997, 214–215, 219–220; 2009, 29).

The works of other phenomenological thinkers reaffirm Relph’s notions of a sense of place as something that is universal, evolving over time, as well as simultaneously regional, communal, and personal. First, for the archeologist Christopher Tilley, a sense of place is as much a cultural and communal affair as it is a personal belief system. In fact, often it is that person’s surrounding culture or community that first and principally transmits a sense of place upon an individual. This may happen through the tutelage, demonstration, or practice of place-centered rituals and traditions. At times it is one key person – a family member or community elder acting as a sort of guide – that instructs or leads a younger person or young people through such a years- long process. Next, according to Tilley, since the process of attaining and developing one’s own sense of place begins close to home and in the community, a sense of place is a personal matter, cultivated through experience, long before it comes under the influence of abstract philosophical theories and rigorous critical thinking. Following the development of modern modes of thinking in philosophy, geography, architecture, and other fields, our current understanding of a sense of place has shifted in large part into the realms of the theoretical and abstract. Such a shift has masked the fact that a sense of place is first rooted in practice and personal experience. And last, not only is a sense of place inborn to people, communities, and cultures, it is primordial. Tilley’s theories regarding people’s attitudes and approaches toward places are based on anthropological research of numerous preindustrial cultures around the world. Following his analyses of their accumulated set of ideas of what a sense of place entails, Tilley applies that knowledge to his analyses and interpretations of prehistoric cultures made available to us through archeological excavations. Tilley’s understanding of a sense of place presupposes this quality in all humans, as well as challenges academic approaches that are overly reliant on materialist (i.e., Marxist) theoretical frameworks in their analysis of prehistoric evidence (Tilley 1994). Norberg-Schulz and Casey have studied evolving attitudes toward places across the long arc of history. This has helped us to understand a sense of place as both a universal phenomenon and a nuanced, localized Looking into an architect’s sense of place 11 occurrence. Norberg-Schulz traced historic attitudes related to places back to the Greek’s concretizing sacred spaces through the building of temples, and the Romans’ beliefs in a genius loci or spirit of place. He then illustrated the spirit of place, and the structures of natural and built places across eras and throughout the world in locations as varied as Khartoum, Prague, and Chicago. He even turned his phenomenological and place- centric lens onto the modern architectural era, reinterpreting the movement in light of its unique types of spaces and places, among them the free plan and the natural house (Norberg-Schulz 1976; 1980). Casey has examined place as a theme in Western philosophy throughout various periods of its ascension and decline. He traced the philosophical subject of place from the oldest creation stories, through antiquity, and on through the most revered names in the modern philosophical tradition, to include Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Derrida, and Irigaray (Casey 1997). Both Tuan and the landscape historian J.B. Jackson have argued that how we come to act and feel towards meaningful locations is by necessity a temporal phenomenon. In Jackson’s seminal work, A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time, an overarching theme is how the passage of time changes our perception of those locations we are most familiar with or just interact with regularly. Jackson draws from historical and first-person anthropological examples to illustrate how over the seasons, years, decades, and centuries the physical makeup of a place changes in both great and small ways. These changes are the result more so than anything else of the hands of the very people who inhabit those locations but also due to social, economic, political, and cultural forces. Thus, people’s relationships with places and the meanings they derive from them will likewise change (Jackson 1994). Tuan, in trying to ascertain “attachment to a place as a function of time,” asks “how long does it take to know a place?” (Tuan 2011, 179, 183). Tuan tells us that over the course of a person’s life, there are many factors to consider. A person is likely to feel a unique affection for their place of origin, where they were born and raised, and in a different way for a place they may encounter later as an adult. Childhood memories of a place, although inchoate, can have profound, long-lasting effects. Also, although an adult has greater powers of environmental awareness and self- reflection, their responses to different locations can vary from indifference to an intense desire to experience and learn about new destinations. Furthermore, in encountering a new location, an intense first impression, especially of some evocative foreign environment, can also leave a long- lasting impression. On the other hand, “Attachment, whether to a person or a locality, is seldom acquired in passing” (ibid., 184). Building upon the many contributors to phenomenological ecology and likeminded thinkers that are cited above, I approached my definition for a sense of place through the following assumptions. A sense of place results 12 Looking into an architect’s sense of place from the appreciation or significance that a person or a group of people derive from a place or places. Such places can include a person’shome, neighborhood, favorite travel destination, or their native city, region, or country. A sense of place follows first from a familiarity with such places. It subsequently grows as that familiarity evolves into an attachment or rootedness. This attachment or rootedness, indeed a reverence for such places, is a temporal process that can take years, even a lifetime, of engagements with specific places. Key events, experiences, and places in a person’s life conspire to shape their general attitude towards a specific place or places. To the extent that a person acknowledges such a kinship, they should be led in their thoughts and actions to engage with the world in specific ways, but hopefully in a more caring, respectful, and mutually beneficial manner. It follows, then, that a person’s most deeply felt connections with various places have their genesis not in a personal philosophy or a conceptual framework. Such connections arise initially and principally out of an accumulation of experiences that are inexorably tied to where those experiences occurred. Those experiences and places then have an impact upon a person’sthoughts, actions, and feelings. To provide a last measure of clarity to the process of imparting or acquiring a sense of place, and the resulting effects on a person, I further conceived of the following definitions:

• impressing: the accumulation of personal experiences that shapes or imparts upon a person their outlook towards a place, multiple places, or places in general. • place thinking: the personal adoption, generation, or articulation of positions, standpoints, or ideas that are amenable to a particular location or places in general. • place making: the ways that a person will alter the physical environment to better suit their needs or desires, or to ﬁt a person’sworldviewor ideology.

Place thinking, which is akin to adopting beliefs in regards to a sense of place, is supported by several aspects from phenomenological ecology and the temporal aspects of a sense of place. The most relevant aspects for a recent historical figure under Klumb’s circumstances are examples of pre- modern, modern, and postmodern place thinking, and expressions of community values related to places. In studying Klumb and his houses, there is also Seamon’s characterization of phenomenology as “a deeper, more holistic way” of seeing and understanding the world around us. A related concept in architectural phenomenology is Norberg-Schulz’s conception of the inhabited landscape. The inhabited landscape embodies the idea that architecture, when properly carried out, seeks to create an organic whole between a building and its surrounding environment or context. Norberg-Schulz called this “a complex totality of interrelated Looking into an architect’s sense of place 13 things” (Norberg-Schulz 1985, 19). In this vein, a building and its environment enliven each other. Natural elements and surroundings complement the built environment, and vice versa. Each brings out the best qualities of the other (Norberg-Schulz 1983, 62–64). Elements of phenomenological ecology and the temporal aspects of a sense of place also support place making acts. A key aspect explored in this study’s theoretical underpinnings and crucial to this book’s critical lens is the ability to see the multifaceted qualities inherent in places. These qualities include a person’s ability to apprehend places at different scales. To reiterate, places at different scales support differing capacities for material composition of built and natural elements, they support many varieties of human activities, and they engender a range of perspectives, attitudes, or commitments from individuals or communities. To personally realize these aspects related to place scales and to take action upon that realization demonstrate an acute understanding of the highly variable power of places and are important personal qualities necessary for conscious place making. Also, holistic architectural and landscape designs along the lines of Norberg-Schulz’s inhabited landscape serve as examples of place making. Strong indicators of place making acts from the temporal aspects of a sense of place include works that conform to local (i.e., past, traditional, vernacular) building practices and community values. Also relevant would be art or cultural objects retained or produced as part of experiences associated with meaningful places. Although instances of place thinking and place making are paramount to this book, feelings towards specific places play a key part in this kind of study. From phenomenological ecology, the many types of place meanings apply here as well, as in feelings of nostalgia, attachment, dependence, belonging, inclusion, and exclusion, among others. Impressing supports the definition of a sense of place adhered to in this chapter, which suggests a transformative process that depends on time, experience, group norms and practices, personal investment, or immediate appreciation. Impressing keys in on the experiential and temporal aspects of this process, which can be seen as overarching and inherent in the other components of the definition. In other words, time and experience are inherent in attaining a sense of place through group norms and practices, personal investment, or immediate appreciation. The emphasis on these experiential and temporal aspects also build upon an underlying assumption of this book, established above, that a person’s sense of place is not just a personal philosophy or a conceptual framework, but rather is firsttheresultofasetof experiences that are inexorably tied to where those experiences occurred. Impressing also speaks to Relph’s self-consciously and unselfconsciously maturing sense of place, and to its transferable quality. The concept of impressing also completes the refining of the all- encompassing umbrella term of place. In this introductory chapter, 14 Looking into an architect’s sense of place such refining began with separating place as location from sense of place as beliefs, actions, and feelings associated with places. The refining continued as I drew from research and writings associated with notions of place to make evident essential aspects of a sense of place. The resulting understandings of place, sense of place, place thinking, place making, and impressing will be guiding concepts throughout this book.

Searching for evidence of phenomenological thinking In addition to imparting a place oriented focus to this study, phenomenological ecology has played a central role in matters of information gathering, analysis, and narrative writing. In my information gathering and analysis, I focused on discovering evidence of phenomenological thinking on Klumb’spart.Tobe sure, I do not assert that Klumb was a phenomenologist. I do not assert that Klumb had specifically read and absorbed the tenets of phenomenological philosophy as established in the early to mid-twentieth century by the German philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Neither is there such evidence in relation to the later works and English translations of such influential figures as the French philosophers Maurice-Merleau Ponty and Gaston Bachelard, or Christian Norberg-Schulz. Nevertheless, as per David Seamon, “a phenomenological perspective” can be demonstrated “either explicitly or implicitly” through research and the professional design practices (architecture, landscape architecture, or environmental design) (Seamon 1993a, 1). In assembling contributing authors for his edited volume Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing,Seamonwrote,“Though many of the authors in the present volume would not call themselves phenomenologist or their work phenomenological, I feel their studies are significant phenomenologically” (ibid., 17). Yet key questions remain. What constitutes evidence of phenomenological thinking, and how am I able to attribute it to Klumb? Some of the principal indicators include the following:

• a holistic worldview, consistent with Norberg-Schulz’s inhabited landscape, whereby people, buildings, and their surrounding environments constitute an organic, interrelated whole. • an awareness and appreciation of the multifaceted qualities inherent in places, especially their different potentials at different scales. • the presence of those processes that typify an evolving valuation for speciﬁc locations, namely the processes of impressing, place thinking, and place making.

The potential evidentiary sources are individual expressions (through manifestoes, essays, personal and professional correspondence), and holistic architectural and landscape design. A second set of potential evidence entails Looking into an architect’s sense of place 15 references to or the adoption of community values and practices, vernacular building practices, and cultural objects and art. To locate this evidence I turn to the Henry Klumb Collection at the Architecture and Construction Archives at the University of Puerto Rico in Rio Piedras (AACUPR). The thousands of documents in the Klumb Collection necessitated two critical selection criteria. First were those documents associated with Klumb’s houses built in Puerto Rico. Second were any documents that showed careful consideration of the importance of places, site, context, nature, landscape, the environment, materiality, architecture and personal experience (subjective, sensorial, and bodily experience), the house, and Klumb’s life in Puerto Rico. I sought out these many topics as search terms in Klumb’s papers. One example of many was in looking for evidence in a heretofore unpublished document written by Klumb titled “Taliesin” (of which an English translation and some background information can be found in Appendix B of this book). Numerous examples of phrases and key terms in the essay support the second search criterion described above. Klumb clearly states Taliesin’s context in terms of place scales – a valley, near the city of Madison, in the state of Wisconsin. Its natural surroundings and the many natural materials used in its buildings are inherent throughout the essay. Klumb wrote, for example, “Taliesin stands today on the crown of the hill, completely fused with it, living and breathing proudly. It is a part of the characteristically southwestern Wisconsin landscape” (Klumb 1931, 1). In terms of its natural materials Klumb observed, “Out of a neighboring quarry comes the yellow-brown limestone out of which the walls and the great masses of chimneys have been erected in layers of rock,” adding later, “The plastered surfaces of the light, wooden structures that make up the walls and on which the shadows of the deep overhanging roofs fall, resemble the color and the surfaces of the sandy banks of the wide, outstretched river plain” (ibid., 1–2). And of his own personal experiences Klumb writes of “the great, open fireplaces […] where during the long winter months and after a strenuous day’s work a person will find the company to engage in small talk or to play music around the warming wood fire” (ibid., 2). In these few samples we glimpse a document that both in its overall tenor and its fine details supports the search for evidence related to the importance of places, nature, materiality, and many other relevant topics. The initial importance of the essay “Taliesin” was discovered by noting the preponderance of key terms (in the original German) such as valley, hill, landscape, rocky outcropping, dark cedars, and white birch trees, among many other examples. Although similar elements in drawings and photographs were less directly apparent than in words in a text, they were still discernable. Constructed perspective drawings, period photographs, site plans, and design sketches were especially useful at capturing visible, recognizable, and relevant contexts. Such contextual information included foreground, 16 Looking into an architect’s sense of place background, and adjacent built forms and details. It also included landscape and topographical features such as level of vegetation, grades, and ground slopes. Photographs were likewise key sources of information and objects of analysis in themselves, especially in a photograph’s ability to convey the relationship between buildings and their contexts. Of particular historical and phenomenological relevance, a crucial step in the process of searching and locating evidence was to identify the inclusion and exclusion over time of key building elements that related to place in general or to specific contexts. Once I was able to identify specific occurrences of these building elements, I studied how combinations of these elements came together in houses that joined with and enlivened the places around them along the lines of Norberg-Schulz’s inhabited landscape.

Investigative cycles and narrative writing My principal interpretive approach consisted of a series of investigative cycles that ﬁltered through many disparate pieces of evidence and allowed me to match events with their plausible causes. The pieces of evidence were disparate because any point in Klumb’s life might not be fully comprehended without information that may reside in a document produced sometimes decades after the fact. Nonetheless, I began my process with broad, open-ended inquiries into Klumb’s houses. I began to investigate these inquiries through his architectural drawings. My ﬁrst objective in these inquiries was to identify recurring themes, if any were present, in Klumb’s houses. By themes I mean any common physical and conceptual threads, or trajectories in his residential practice in Puerto Rico. Concurrently, I looked at these drawings and their associated written documents (e.g., letters between Klumb and his clients) for evidence of phenomenological thinking. These actions represented my entry into a hermeneutic circle. Originating in the practice of interpreting religious texts during the Middle Ages, hermeneutics has evolved to include “the understanding of all human behavior and products” (Inwood 1995, 353). Of particular interest for our purposes is the process of the hermeneutic circle. William Schroeder explains,

The hermeneutic circle […] implies that one’s grasp of a text’s parts will depend on one’s grasp of the whole and vice versa. It allows interpretations to be refined and sharpened by allowing parts and whole to clarify each other. Thus, understanding proceeds in a continuous circu- lar process of comprehending relationships among parts and wholes. (Schroeder 2005, 150) Looking into an architect’s sense of place 17 Two salient points regarding hermeneutic circles are (1) understanding how an interpreter enters into this interpretive cycle, and (2) determining how broad and inclusive is to be one’s hermeneutic circle. In terms of the latter point, hermeneutics has been tailored to suit entire interpretive fields, specific genres, individual authors, or single works. Generally, in this study it worked thusly. Following the investigation of an initial set of Klumb’s drawings and their related written documents, I undertook a new investigative cycle of the architect’swritings– his personal and professional correspondence, speeches and other public statements, publications, and unpublished transcripts and notes. The purposes of this cycle were to locate evidence of phenomenological thinking, and to collect detailed biographical and design project information. Over subsequent rounds of these investigative cycles, significant parts of the whole of the subject took shape. As a result, more concise and detailed investigative cycles facilitated connections in information resulting from earlier cycles – associations between buildings and conceptual frameworks (such as architectural theories or movements), between multiple buildings that share common features, and, most significantly, between Klumb’s houses and earlier, formative personal and professional experiences. The more that the investigative cycles moved from evidentiary discovery to the synthesis of results across distinct cycles, the research process required that the historical, phenomenological, and hermeneutic components came together in a written narrative. In composing this narrative I relied on a process of (1) establishing the historical context, (2) describing the relevant details found in the documentary or physical evidence, and (3) interpreting the significance of the combined historical context and evidence. The first and third of these steps allowed me to bring the full weight of my accumulated documentary evidence into this study. The second step in the narrative writing, the descriptive process, was essential to understanding every project, place, and experience phenomenologically as espoused in an important way by David Seamon and his fellow contributors in phenomenological ecology. Seamon has called phenomenology both “awayof thinking rigorously and of describing accurately the complex relation between person and world,” and “a qualitative, descriptive approach to environment and environmental experience” (Seamon 2000, 1, 2). In bringing together researchers whose works he finds to be “significant phenomenologically,” he includes among their methods “careful observation and interpretation,” and “qualitative description, intuitive insight, and thoughtful interpretation” (Seamon 1993a, 15). Seamon’s assertion is that deep description is a prelude to valuable insight, which he explains through a historical example,

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe […] believed that thoughtful, dedicated looking at a particular phenomenon would eventually lead to a vivid moment of seeing in which the phenomenon and its various aspects are understood in a deeper, more holistic way. (Ibid., 8) 18 Looking into an architect’s sense of place The greatest value of description as I have leveraged it in this study is in ﬁrmly situating the reader both in the numerous historical contexts I have encountered and in speciﬁc places. The latter includes individual buildings, sites, landscapes, or cities. What follows in the next eight chapters are the results of an interwoven tripartite process of historical inquiry, phenomenological thinking, and interpretive research cycles. Like the research processes itself, the narrative within each chapter alternates between analyses of the formative events in the process of impressing a sense of place on the architect, and analyses of Klumb’sworks,withanemphasisonhis residential practice.

Note 1Mydefinition of a sense of place evolved between February and April 2016. At the end of that time I wrote the definition above for the first time. One and a half years later – after having completed my dissertation and graduated with my doctorate in architecture – I discovered that the writer Winifred Gallagher had used strikingly similar language to describe the power of place, which she described as “how our surroundings shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions” (Gallagher 1993). Galla- gher’s point of departure in her study was the behavioral sciences. Mine, as indicated in this chapter, has been the works of phenomenologists – architects, philosophers, and geographers, among others. Though I was unaware of Gallagher’sworkwhen I was conducting my research, it bears mentioning that we arrived at similar ends despite the different geneses and aims of our respective works.

References Altman, Irwin, and Low, Setha M. Place Attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1992. Casey, Edward S. The Fate of Place. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 1997. Cresswell, Tim. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Gallagher, Winifred. The Power of Place. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993. Inwood, Michael J. “Hermeneutics.” In Honderich, Ted, ed. The Oxford Compan- ion to Philosophy. Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press, 1995. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Klumb, Henry. “Taliesin.” 1931. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 1, Folder 3, AACUPR. Malpas, Jeff. “Place and Human Being.” In Environmental and Architectural Phe- nomenology 20:3 (Fall 2009), 19–23. Manzo, Lynne C, and Devine-Wright, Patrick. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. Nanzer, Bruce. “Measuring a Sense of Place: A Scale for Michigan.” In Administra- tive Theory and Praxis 26:3 (September 2004), 362–382. Looking into an architect’s sense of place 19 Nesbitt, Kate, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965–1995. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “The Phenomenon of Place.” In Nesbitt, Kate, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965–1995. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, 1976. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1980. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.” In Perspecta 20 (1983), 61–68. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. The Concept of Dwelling. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1985. Relph, Edward. “Modernity and the Reclamation of Place.” In Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993. Relph, Edward. “A Sense of Place.” In Hanson, Susan, ed. Ten Geographic Ideas that Changed the World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997. Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness (2008 Reprint). London, UK: Pion Limited, 2008. Relph, Edward. “A Pragmatic Sense of Place.” In Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology 20:3 (Fall 2009), 24–31. Schroeder, William R. Continental Philosophy: A Critical Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Seamon, David. “Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: An Introduction.” In Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993a. Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993b. Seamon, David. “Dwelling, Place, and Environment: An Introduction.” In Seamon, David and Mugerauer, Robert, eds. Dwelling, Place and Environment (2000 Reprint). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 2000. Seamon, David, and Mugerauer, Robert, eds. Dwelling, Place and Environment (2000 Reprint). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 2000. Tilley, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford, UK: Berg Pub- ilshers, 1994. Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place (25th Anniversary Edition). Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press, 2011. Notes

Chapter 1 1Mydefinition of a sense of place evolved between February and April 2016. At the end of that time I wrote the definition above for the first time. One and a half years later – after having completed my dissertation and graduated with my doctorate in architecture – I discovered that the writer Winifred Gallagher had used strikingly similar language to describe the power of place, which she described as “how our surroundings shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions” (Gallagher 1993). Gallagher’s point of departure in her study was the behavioral sciences. Mine, as indicated in this chapter, has been the works of phenomenologists – architects, philosophers, and geographers, among others. Though I was unaware of Galla- gher’s work when I was conducting my research, it bears mentioning that we arrived at similar ends despite the different geneses and aims of our respective works.

Chapter 2 1 Scholars have likewise varied in referring to Klumb’s pamphlets. Tobias Guggenheimer, in his study of Wright’s apprentices, called the pamphlets Klumb’s “memoirs” and “unpublished diaries” (Guggenhei- mer 1995, 21, 23, 174). The Klumb scholar Rosa Otero called them Klumb’s “unpublished pamphlets,” his “self-reflections and explan- ations of his works,” and his “unpublished diaries” (Otero 2005, 5, 304). Enrique Vivoni of the AACUPR called them Klumb’s “unpublished manuscript[s]” (Vivoni Farage 2005, 11). 2 These few details of Klumb’s early life emerge primarily from his mem- bership forms with the American Institute of Architects, which he joined in 1944 and rose to the level of a Fellow in 1965. 3 Among those publications referencing Cologne, Germany is a 1950 reprint of a newspaper from 1880 that commemorated the official dedication ceremony of the Cologne Cathedral. Two others are a 1960 picture book on Cologne and a city guide published in 1979 by the Cologne Tourist Office, both of which showcased the cathedral. 4 Klumb’s college graduation date has varied in his historiography. I have relied on his architecture office’s documents that report a consistent graduation date of 1926 (Klumb 1951, “The Office of Henry Klumb” 1967). 5 Hannes Meyer was the second director of the Bauhaus. Klumb’s remark that “Architecture was reduced to a formula” may very well have been a reference to Meyer’s famous edict that “all things in this world are a product of the formula: (function times economy).” This, Meyer went on to say, was especially true of building design and construction (Meyer 1971, 117). 6 Though no doubt familiar to anyone within architecture, a reader outside of the profession may not be familiar with the term pilotis. Pilotis are slender, cylindrical concrete columns. Le Corbusier made the term popu- lar when he included pilotis in his theoretical Maison Domino project and the many built works derived from it. 7 The Wright, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier’s designs Klumb was referring to were the St. Marks towers, the Friedrichstrasse skyscraper, and the towers in the garden in the “City for Three Million People” project.

Chapter 4 1 Presumably, Klumb’s experiences with Wright’s 1930 Princeton exhibits and lectures, and the 1931 European travelling exhibit on behalf of Wright worked to his advantage in obtaining the job with the Golden Gate International Exposition Commission. 2 At the time of Klumb’s involvement with the Sells, Arizona project, the Native American tribe there was known as the Papagos Tribe of Ari- zona. As the name Papago was ascribed to them by outsiders, in 1986 the tribe adopted the name the Tohono O’odham Nation. This book utilizes the name in the historical records of the events described therein. No offense is intended to the people of the Tohono O’odham Nation. 3 Klumb included the drawings for “The House for Else Klumb” in his pamphlet The Ofﬁce of Henry Klumb 2: Architecture of Social Con- cern, 1933–1944 (Klumb 1979).

Chapter 5 1 Klumb did not care for the term “Tugwell Towns.” He thought that it was used derisively by Tugwell’s critics and therefore demeaned the important work related to planned cooperative housing being done in the 1930s (Klumb 2005, 231). As a political ally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Tugwell was susceptible to attacks by critics of the president’s New Deal. 2 Subsequent to Klumb’s move to Puerto Rico in 1944, over the next thirty-five years Klumb remained friends with Tugwell and his family. Their relationship was such that in 1963 and 1964 he designed a vac- ation house for them, the Tugwell Cottage, which was located amidst Puerto Rico’s rainforest natural preserve known as El Yunque. I dis- cuss the house further in Chapter 6. 3AsKlumb’s invitation to work in Puerto Rico is normally attributed to have come directly and solely from the more well-known Tugwell, Arneson’s role has historically been diminished if not altogether overlooked. Nevertheless, Arneson took credit for the idea of invit- ing Klumb to Puerto Rico (Mock 1944). Also, in 1954 Klumb explained to a reporter that it was actually Arneson who reached out to him, extolling the many opportunities available to experienced architects such as themselves thanks to the aggressive public works programs expected of the CDPW (“Henry Klumb Finds an Architec- ture for Puerto Rico” 1954, 123). Arneson then acted as an inter- mediary between Klumb, the CDPW, and Governor Tugwell to bring his friend to Puerto Rico. Arneson even personally arranged for the Klumbs’ air transportation and move of their household goods. 4 The first of these three projects, the Zero-Plus Housing was a key pre- cedent for the subsequent six projects of August 16, 1944. The out- door performance space was a band shell for a traditional Puerto Rican guitar quartet. 5 The Teacher’s Farms projects were part of a broader outreach effort by the Puerto Rican government. The farms had their origins in a 1941 law establishing a “commission to study the problems of children without schools.” In its report two years later to the governor and the legislature, the commission recommended and subsequently gained authorization to provide alongside each rural school “a dwelling house for the teacher and a parcel of land to be cultivated by him.” It fell upon the Land Authority of Puerto Rico to establish, manage, and maintain these farms, which included providing the teachers with farm- ing equipment, tools, and supplies (The General Design Section of the CDPW 1944a). 6 Before the Teacher’s Farms there was one other domestic project designed by Klumb while with the CDPW, but its aims were funda- mentally different than those of the Teacher’s Farms. That project, the Zero Plus Housing, intended to fill the short and mid-term mass housing needs of Puerto Rico’s interior through a series of temporary occupancy, one and two-story duplexes that were to be deployed in clusters of six akin to a small suburban subdivision. The Teacher’s Farms, on the other hand, were single occupancy dwellings. The farms also constituted a more long-term commitment to a place, to include a more meaningful relationship with the land, namely cultivating the adjoining farmland and tending to the farm animals there. Finally, while the Teacher’s Farms offered clear options between modern and local materials and construction techniques, the units of the Zero Plus Housing project were hybrids of the two (The General Design Section of the CDPW 1944b). 7 Klumb and Steven Arneson remained very close friends until Arneson’s untimely death in 1956. They frequently exchanged letters, sometimes even weekly, eventually amassing the largest number of letters between Klumb and any other person. These letters were warm, humorous, and unguarded, and they provide a great deal of insight into Klumb’s first twelve years in Puerto Rico. 8 Other projects that Klumb’soffice handled on behalf of the CDPW included a number of office furniture designs, workers’ housing, and a school for girls (Klumb 1948).

Chapter 6 1 In referring to this relationship as one existing between the grid and the landscape, I am invoking two specificdefinitions of the term “landscape.” One definition is of a landscape as a scene or visual image of the outside world, for example, a view of a valley or distant mountain- tops. Another is of a landscape as the ground, terrain, and topography that a person or building is able to inhabit. Both definitions are evident in Klumb’s houses. 2 Barry Bergdoll, Michael Cadwell, and Christian Norberg-Schulz are among those writers who credit Mies van der Rohe with greater sensi- tivity to place than many of Mies’s chroniclers (Berdoll 2002, 67–115; Cadwell 2007, 93–132; Norberg-Schulz 2000, 28–29, 40–41, 55–56, 68). As Bergdoll points out, Johnson and Hitcthcock’s treatment of Mies’s Barcelona Pavilion in their 1932 MoMA exhibit and book, The International Style, set the tone for blotting out context in Mies’s works (Berdoll 2002, 67).

Chapter 7 1 The granting of Klumb’s FAIA award has consistently been reported to have occurred in October 1979. The evidence indicates, however, that he received the award on the aforementioned date in 1964. The documentary evidence includes references to the award in letters between Klumb and his friends, and his signature stamp reading “Henry Klumb, FAIA” in many construction drawings after 1964. The most definitive proof, though, is the press release by the AIA’s New York Chapter (dated May 10, 1964), an announcement in the June 1964 issue of Architectural Record, and the official program for the awards dinner on June 18, 1964. 2 A nearly identical situation existed at the Benitez Mountain Cottage, which is profiled in Chapter 8.

Chapter 9 1 The size of the property varies in several accounts. In my narrative I adhere to 6.5 acres, as per Cassanova and Jensen (Cassanova and Jensen 1997, 1). 2 A coqui is a small frog that is ubiquitous to Puerto Rico. It gets its name from its distinctive nighttime chorus of “Coqui! Coqui! Coqui!” The coqui is as much a part of the Puerto Rican cultural identity as El Morro, jíbaros, and Old San Juan. References

Altman, Irwin, and Low, Setha M. Place Attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1992. Casey, Edward S. The Fate of Place. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 1997. Cresswell, Tim. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Gallagher, Winifred. The Power of Place. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993. Inwood, Michael J. “Hermeneutics.” In Honderich, Ted, ed. The Oxford Compan- ion to Philosophy. Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press, 1995. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Klumb, Henry. “Taliesin.” 1931. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 1, Folder 3, AACUPR. Malpas, Jeff. “Place and Human Being.” In Environmental and Architectural Phe- nomenology 20:3 (Fall 2009), 19–23. Manzo, Lynne C, and Devine-Wright, Patrick. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. Nanzer, Bruce. “Measuring a Sense of Place: A Scale for Michigan.” In Administra- tive Theory and Praxis 26:3 (September 2004), 362–382. Nesbitt, Kate, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965–1995. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “The Phenomenon of Place.” In Nesbitt, Kate, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965–1995. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, 1976. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1980. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.” In Perspecta 20 (1983), 61–68. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. The Concept of Dwelling. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1985. Relph, Edward. “Modernity and the Reclamation of Place.” In Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993. Relph, Edward. “A Sense of Place.” In Hanson, Susan, ed. Ten Geographic Ideas that Changed the World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997. Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness (2008 Reprint). London, UK: Pion Limited, 2008. Relph, Edward. “A Pragmatic Sense of Place.” In Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology 20:3 (Fall 2009), 24–31. Schroeder, William R. Continental Philosophy: A Critical Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Seamon, David. “Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: An Introduction.” In Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993a. Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993b. Seamon, David. “Dwelling, Place, and Environment: An Introduction.” In Seamon, David and Mugerauer, Robert, eds. Dwelling, Place and Environment (2000 Reprint). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 2000. Seamon, David, and Mugerauer, Robert, eds. Dwelling, Place and Environment (2000 Reprint). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 2000. Tilley, Christopher. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford, UK: Berg Pub- ilshers, 1994. Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place (25th Anniversary Edition). Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press, 2011. Guggenheimer, Tobias. A Taliesin Legacy: The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Apprentices. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995. Kassler, Elizabeth. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 16 September 1980. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 24, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Steven Arneson.” 1 December 1948. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Personal Data: Henry Klumb, Architect.” 1951. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 1, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Prepared for the Opening of ‘Skyscraper Architecture,’ an Exhibit at the Library of the UPR.” 1954. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Untitled Document – Handwritten Note with Khrushchev Quote.” 1960. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 9, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Wright, the Man.” In Wright, Frank Lloyd and Gutheim, Frederick, eds. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: The Architectural Record, 1975. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Ada Louise Huxtable.” 6 August 1981a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 22, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Moscoso, Jr.” 10 July 1981b. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 84, Folder 22, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Edgar Tafel.” 17 June 1981c. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 83, Folder 24, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Statements Made to UPR Architecture Students to Guide Design Approach.” 6–13 April 1981d. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 1, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb, 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. “Klumb of Puerto Rico.” In Architectural Forum 116 (July 1962), 86–90. Marrero, Julio. “Excerpts from an Interview Given to Julio Marrero for PALIQUE in 1954 and Brought Up to Date.” 6 May 1959. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 12, AACUPR. Meyer, Hannes. “1928, Hannes Meyer: Building.” In Conrads, Ulrich, ed. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971. “The Office of Henry Klumb, FAIA, A Management Audit.” 21 September 1967. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 85, Folder 4, AACUPR. Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Vivoni Farage, Enrique. “Modern Puerto Rico and Henry Klumb.” In Docomomo 33 (September 2005), 28–37. Vivoni Farage, Enrique. “Henry Klumb and Poetic Exuberance in Architecture.” In Vivoni Farage, Enrique, ed. Klumb: An Architecture of Social Concern. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2006. Gutheim, Frederick. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 27 March 1952. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 23, AACUPR. Gutheim, Frederick. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 14 October 1979. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 22, AACUPR. Kastner, George. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” Undated, c. fall 1933. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Taliesin.” 1931. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 1, Folder 3, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to George Kastner.” Undated, c. fall 1933. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Henry Klumb, Prepared for the Opening of ‘Skyscraper Architec- ture,’ An Exhibit at the Library of the U.P.R.” 1954. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Modern Trends in School Plant Planning.” 12 June 1958. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Wright, the Man.” In Wright, Frank Lloyd and Gutheim, Frederick, eds. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Klumb, Henry. “Henry Klumb 1: Architecture in Search of Higher Values, 1929–1933.” Undated, c. 1979. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 100, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Frederick Gutheim.” 5 February 1980a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 22, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Elizabeth Kassler.” 8 April 1980b. The Henry Klumb Col- lection, Box 1, Folder 13, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb: 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. “Klumb of Puerto Rico.” In Architectural Forum 116 (July 1962), 86–90. Levine, Neil. The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1996. Mock, Rudolph (Rudi). “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 1 January 1944. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. Tafel, Edgar. About Wright: An Album of Recollections by Those Who Knew Frank Lloyd Wright. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1993. Wright, Frank Lloyd. “Arizona.” 1929a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 1, Folder 8.3, AACUP. Wright, Frank Lloyd. “To Arizona.” 1929b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 1, Folder 8.3, AACUPR. Wright, Frank Lloyd. An Autobiography. New York, NY: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1943. Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Gutheim, Frederick, eds. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Pfeiffer, Bruce Brooks, eds. Frank Lloyd Wright, Collected Writings: Volume 4, 1939–1949. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1994. Arneson, Steven. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” Undated letter, c. 25 November 1948 (the letter was written in 1948 around Thanksgiving). The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. Arneson, Steven. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 29 March 1949. The Henry Klumb Col- lection, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. “Comments by Distinguished Visitors” [to the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition]. 1939. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 20, AACUPR. “Comments Made by Museum People” [at the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition]. 1939. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 20, AACUPR. Cordner, Frank. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 11 November 1947. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. d’Harnoncourt, René. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 21 March 1938. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 19, AACUPR. d’Harnoncourt, René. “Activities of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board since its Organization in 1936.” In Indians at Work 7:8 (April 1940a), 33–35. d’Harnoncourt, René. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 9 April 1940b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 19, AACUPR. d’Harnoncourt, René. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 14 March 1942. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 13, AACUPR. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Klumb, Henry. “Modern Room #1, Indian Products Adapted for Use.” Undated, c. 1938. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 29, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Untitled Document – Handwritten Note Listing Seven Native American House Types.” Undated, c. 1939. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 20, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to René d’Harnoncourt.” 5 June 1940. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 19, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Frank Cordner.” 19 December 1947. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Steven Arneson.” 1 December 1948a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Kenneth Disher.” 26 January 1948b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “The Office of Henry Klumb 2: Architecture of Social Concern, 1933–1944.” Undated, c. 1979. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 100, AACUPR. Mey, Susan Lebry. More than Curiosities: A Grassroots History of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board and its Precursors, 1920–1942. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001. “Native American Indian Arts Hold the Spotlight in New York.” In Indians at Work 8:6 (February 1941), 11–12. “Papago.” In Indians at Work 8:4 (December 1940), 3–5. Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969. Roosevelt, Eleanor. “White House Statement on the Opening of the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition.” 1939. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 20, AACUPR. Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture without Architects. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. “Signatures of Distinguished Visitors” [at the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition]. 1939. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 2, Folder 20, AACUPR. Vigeant, Xavier. “Telegraph to T.B. Hall.” 30 March 1940a. The Henry Klumb Col- lection, Box 2, Folder 19, AACUPR. Vigeant, Xavier. “Telegraph to T.B. Hall.” 1 April 1940b. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 2, Folder 19, AACUPR. Wright, Frank Lloyd. An Autobiography. New York, NY: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1943. Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Future of Architecture. New York, NY: Horizon Press, 1953. Young, James W. “The Revival and Development of Indian Arts and Crafts.” In Indians at Work 7:8 (April 1940), 25–31. Arneson, Steven. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 10 September 1945. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 3, AACUPR. Carranza, Luis E. and Fernando Luiz, Lara. Modern Architecture in Latin America: Art, Technology and Utopia. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press, 2014. The General Design Section of the Committee on Design of Public Works. “A Plan for Teacher’s Farms.” 16 August 1944a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 4, AACUPR. The General Design Section of the Committee on Design of Public Works. “Zero Plus Housing.” 1944b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 2, AACUPR. Guillermety, Luis., Jr. “Letter to Draft Board No. 182.” 14 July 1944. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 3.1, AACUPR. Hampton, Ruth. “Letter to Harry (sic) Klumb.” 4 February 1944. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 1, AACUPR. “Henry Klumb Finds an Architecture for Puerto Rico.” In Architectural Forum 99 (July 1954), 122–127. Jopling, Carol F. Puerto Rican Houses in Sociohistorical Perspective. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1988. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Draft Board No. 182 (Glendale, California).” 5 January 1944a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 3.1, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Untitled Document – Committee on Design of Public Works Internal Memorandum.” 16 August 1944b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 3, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Paula Elkind Echeverria (The Architectural Forum).” 24 March 1949. The Henry Collection, Box 2, Folder 59, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. Committee on Design of Public Works: 1944, 1946–1948. Undated, c. 1979a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 100, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Henry Klumb: Eight Architectural Concerns.” Undated, c. 1979b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 100, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “The Office of Henry Klumb 3: Architecture of Social Concern, 1944–1947.” Undated, c. 1979c. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 100, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “On Tropical Architecture.” Undated, c. 1980. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 10, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Leopold Kohr.” 14 April 1982. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 84, Folder 39, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb: 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Klumb, Henry. “Committee on Design of Public Works, Work Performed as Architect-Consultant, June 46 to June 48.” Undated, c. 1948. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 5, AACUPR. Mock, Rudolf. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 1 January 1944. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 2, Folder 57, AACUPR. “Puerto Rico: Senate Investigating Committee Finds It An Unsolvable Problem.” In LIFE Magazine 14:10 (March 8, 1943), 23–31. Rosskam, Edwin. “Photograph X 427 from the Office of Information of Puerto Rico.” October 1945. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 99, Folder 28, AACUPR. Tugwell, Rexford G. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 13 February 1944. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 3, Folder 3.1, AACUPR. Vlach, John Michael. The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. Cleveland, OH: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1978. Arango, Silvia. “Henry Klumb and the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus: The Logic of the Results.” In Vivoni Farage, Enrique, ed. Klumb: An Architecture of Social Concern. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2006. Berdoll, Barry. “The Nature of Mies’s Space.” In Riley, Terence and Bergdoll, Barry, eds. Mies in Berlin. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 2002. Cadwell, Michael. Strange Details. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. Kassler, Elizabeth. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 16 September 1980. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 24, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb: 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa.,, Perme- able Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Con- cern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Principles of Modern Architecture. London, UK: Andreas Papadakis, 2000. Unwin, Simon. Twenty Buildings Every Architect Should Know. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. Jack Bernstein Associates Inc. (on behalf of the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects). “Press Release.” 10 May 1964. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 83, Folder 30, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb: 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Marrero, Julio. “Excerpts from An Interview Given to Julio Marrero for PALIQUE in 1954 and Brought Up to Date.” 6 May 1959. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 12, AACUPR. “The Office of Henry Klumb, FAIA, A Management Audit.” 21 September 1967. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 85, Folder 4, AACUPR. Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Ayala, Cesar J., and Bernabe, Rafael. Puerto Rico in the American Century: A His- tory Since 1898. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. Figueroa, Josean, and Vivoni Gonzalez, Edric. Henry Klumb: Principios Para Una Arquitectura de Integración. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2007. Fuster, Nataniel, and Crichfield, Heather. “The Klumb House: The Recycling and Modernization of the Type.” In Vivoni Farage, Enrique, ed. Klumb: An Architec- ture of Social Concern. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2006. Kassler, Elizabeth. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 16 September 1980. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 24, AACUPR. Katzman, Laura, and Brannan, Beverly W. Re-viewing Documentary: The Photo- graphic Life of Louise Rosskam. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2011. Klumb, Henry. “Henry Klumb, Prepared for the Opening of ‘Skyscraper Architec- ture,’ An Exhibit at the Library of the U.P.R.” 1954. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Certificate of Incorporation of Klumb Foundation.” 16 February 1968. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 87, Folder 3, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Frederick Gutheim.” 25 September 1970. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 23, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Wright, the Man.” In Wright, Frank Lloyd and Gutheim, Frederick, eds. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: The Architectural Record, 1975. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Edgar Tafel.” 12 December 1980. The Henry Klumb Col- lection, Box 83, Folder 24, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Leopold Kohr.” 14 April 1982. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 84, Folder 39, AACUPR. Levine, Neil. The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1996. Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969. Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Gutheim, Frederick, ed. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Cassanova, Otto Reyes, and Jensen, Karen Gonzalez “National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.” Washington, D.C.: The United States Department of the Interior, 14 February 1997. Curbelo, Silvia Alvarez. “The Design of Progress: Henry Klumb and the Moderniza- tion of Puerto Rico (1944–1948).” In Vivoni Farage, Enrique, ed. Klumb: An Architecture of Social Concern. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2006. “From the Office of Henry Klumb.” In Progressive Architecture 40:8 (August 1959), 110–113. “Klumb of Puerto Rico.” In Architectural Forum 116 (July 1962), 86–90. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Steve Arneson.” 23 October 1947a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 3, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Steve Arneson.” 16 December 1947b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Anthony S. Reiner.” 24 October 1947c. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 12, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Steve Arneson.” 28 September 1948. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Holger Fog.” 14 January 1949. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 84, Folder 31 (I), AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Henry Klumb, Prepared for the Opening of ‘Skyscraper Architec- ture,’ an Exhibit at the Library of the U.P.R.” 1954. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 4, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Certificate of Incorporation of Klumb Foundation.” 16 February 1968. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 87, Folder 3, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Untitlted Document – Klumb Foundation Statement.” June 1969. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 11, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Leopold Kohr.” 7 September 1971. The Henry Klumb Col- lection, Box 83, Folder 2, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Letter to Leopold Kohr.” 11 December 1982a. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 2, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Untitled Document – Miscellaneous Handwritten Notes.” Undated, c. 1982b. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 9, AACUPR. Kohr, Leopold. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 13 July 1971. The Henry Klumb Collec- tion, Box 83, Folder 2, AACUPR. Klumb, Henry. “Writings by Henry Klumb, 1934–1982.” In Otero, Rosa, ed. Perme- able Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Con- cern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Marrero, Julio. “Excerpts from an Interview Given to Julio Marrero for PALIQUE in 1954 and Brought Up to Date.” 6 May 1959. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 84, Folder 12, AACUPR. Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Pickens, Buford L. “Letter to Henry Klumb.” 16 September 1959. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 29, AACUPR. The Puerto Rico Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. “Bulletin No. 2.” 30 April 1969. The Henry Klumb Collection, Box 83, Folder 29, AACUPR. Figueroa, Josean, and Vivoni Gonzalez, Edric. Henry Klumb: Principios Para Una Arquitectura de Integracion. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2007. Friedland, Roger, and Zellman, Harold. The Fellowship. New York, NY: Regan Books, 2006. Otero, Rosa. Permeable Walls and Place Recognition in Henry Klumb’s Architecture of Social Concern: A Dissertation in Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Tafel, Edgar. Apprentice to Genius: Years with Frank Lloyd Wright. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Tafel, Edgar. About Wright: An Album of Recollections by Those Who Knew Frank Lloyd Wright. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1993. Vazquez-Perez, Jose Fernandez. “Henry Klumb: Tropical Tropes.” In Modernism Magazine 9:2 (Summer 2006), 70–79. Vivoni Farage, Enrique. “Modern Puerto Rico and Henry Klumb.” In Docomomo 33 (September 2005), 28–37. Vivoni Farage, Enrique. “Henry Klumb and Poetic Exuberance in Architecture.” In Vivoni Farage, Enrique, ed. Klumb: An Architecture of Social Concern. San Juan, Puerto Rico: CAAPPR, 2006. Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Gutheim, Frederick, ed. In the Cause of Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Pfeiffer, Bruce Brooks, ed. Letters to Apprentices. Fresno, CA: The Press at CSUF, 1982.