National Register Nomination for the Roush Residence

NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE ROUSH RESIDENCE

A Project

Presented to the faculty of the Department of History

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

HISTORY

(Public History)

Skylar Ensbury

SUMMER 2019

Skylar Ensbury

NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE ROUSH RESIDENCE

A Project

Skylar Ensbury

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Dr. Anne Lindsay

______, Second Reader Dr. Nathan Hallam

______Date

iii

Student: Skylar Ensbury

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Dr. Anne Lindsay Date

Department of History

Abstract

NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE ROUSH RESIDENCE

Skylar Ensbury

This project nominates the Roush Residence to the National Register of Historic

Places. Constructed in 1954, the Roush Residence is eligible for listing in the National

Architectural style. The Roush Residence is locally significant and retains all seven aspects of integrity. This project establishes the historic context of Sacramento, particularly the Arden Oaks neighborhood, and maps the phenomenon of Mid-Century

Modern architecture throughout the United States, California, and the Sacramento area.

Sources used for this project include works on architectural history and architectural

styles, city and county histories, Office of Historic Preservation documents, newspaper

articles, ephemera, historic photographs, and county records.

______, Committee Chair Dr. Anne Lindsay

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Gretchen Steinberg, the President and Co-Founder of

Sacramento Modern, who introduced me to the Roush Residence, for the advice, assistance, and opportunities she has provided me with throughout my project. She has been incredibly supportive, and her insight was invaluable. Gretchen is an inspiration for preservationists everywhere. I would also like to thank Patricia Geyer, the current owner of the Roush Residence for opening her home to me, sharing her collection of historic photographs, and being enthusiastic throughout the nomination process.

I dedicate this project to my incredible support system. To my Nana and Dad, the amazing people who have supported me throughout my entire educational experience and have given me nothing but love and encouragement along the way. To Jerzie and Talynn, my wonderful sisters who motivate me to lead by example and set my goals high. Finally, to Kevin who made sure to tell me he was proud of me every single day, and whose love and reassurance makes my life brighter. Thank you all for your support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgements ...... vi

List of Figures ...... ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Need for Project ...... 2

2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ...... 5

Historic Preservation in California ...... 21

Historic Preservation in Sacramento ...... 24

Economic Advantages of Historic Preservation in California ...... 25

3. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY ...... 27

The Emergence of Modernism ...... 27

Mid-Century Modern Architecture ...... 30

California Modernist Architects ...... 32

Mid-Century Modernism in Sacramento ...... 34

4. HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 36

Rancho Del Paso ...... 37

Haggin Ranch ...... 40

Development of Arden Oaks ...... 42

vii

5. DEVELOPING THE NOMINATION ...... 48

Methodology ...... 48

6. EVALUATION OF RESOURCE...... 54

Significance ...... 56

Integrity ...... 56

Evaluation ...... 58

Eligibility ...... 60

Appendix. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form ...... 61

Bibliography ...... 87

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. “Rancho Del Paso.” ...... 42

2. “Romance! In Real Country Living.” ...... 45

3. Aerial showing development of the Arden Oaks Neighborhood. 1953...... 53

4. Aerial showing the completed Roush Residence. 1957...... 53

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The years following World War II created enthusiasm for the future across the

United States. Advancements in technologies, the promise of space travel, obsession with the automobile, and mass production presented opportunities for improvement in almost every aspect of life. Twentieth century architects, such as John Lautner, seized this opportunity to design buildings, both commercial and residential, that were unlike anything previously imagined. Though the Modernist movement began in the early

1900s, this mid-century cultural shift led to architectural styles such as Googie,

Contemporary, and Organic, that contributed to a distinct style within the movement, now known as Mid-Century Modern.

In 1954, Robert Roush, owner of Roush Bakery Products, hired architect Terry

Waters to design a custom home for his family in the newly established Arden Oaks neighborhood in Sacramento, California. Drawing on principles learned from his time as a Taliesin Fellow and apprentice to renowned architect John Lautner, Waters designed an

Organic style masterpiece, tailored to meet the needs of the Roush family.1 The residence, which is encased in plate glass and steel beams, quickly rose to fame in

Sacramento, with the Roush family opening the property to the public for viewing shortly

1 Gretchen Steinberg, Dane Henas, and Karen Lial, “A Celebration of the Roush Residence,” Sacramento Modern, June 2, 2012, 6-8.

2 after its construction.2 The Roush Residence is still admired for its unique architecture, having been included in multiple historic home tours.

This project will examine the Roush Residence’s eligibility for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places and its context within the historic preservation movement and the Mid-Century Modern architectural movement. Chapter Two examines the evolution of historic preservation in the United States, California, and Sacramento, while establishing the economic and cultural benefits that preservation can provide to communities and individuals that make it a priority. Chapter Three analyzes the Mid-

Century Modern architectural movement, and traces its journey from Europe to

Sacramento, while identifying the architects and their processes, styles, and techniques that contributed to the development of this era of architecture. Chapter Four grounds the

Roush Residence in its historic context by tracing the land use history of the parcel and establishing the period of significance for the property. Chapter Five describes the research process necessary for preparing the National Register nomination. Finally,

Chapter Six evaluates the Roush Residence by establishing the property’s significance, analyzing its integrity, and determining its eligibility for listing in the National Register.

Need for Project

The City of Sacramento is dedicated to historic preservation as is made evident in the amount of resources within the city that are listed in the National Register of Historic

Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Sacramento Register of

2 “On Display…The Roush Residence, California’s Most Talked-About Home,” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento, CA) June 25, 1954.

Historic and Cultural Resources. Whether the properties are significant for their

association with one of the many prominent figures from Sacramento or California

history, or one of the examples of exceptional architecture that abound throughout the

city, it is evident that Sacramento takes pride in its enthusiasm for protecting the past.

Recently, the Mid-Century Modern aesthetic has come to the forefront of pop

culture. Media producers, collectors, and academics have created movies, television

shows, exhibits, and books calling attention to this era of design. Vintage arcade games

have taken over local bars, while productions like the television show Mad Men have

captivated twenty-first century audiences.3 Following this trend, there has been a

movement spear-headed by the city to recognize Sacramento’s Mid-Cenutry Modern architecture. As a result of this movement, throughout the summer of 2017, SacMod and

a group of volunteers conducted a massive reconnaissance survey, funded by the city, to

identify and evaluate significant Mid-Century Modern properties. Using archival research

and the survey conducted by SacMod, GEI Consulting, Inc. compiled a Mid-Century

Modern context statement for the city of Sacramento, which describes the evolution of

modern architecture, prominent local architects and developers, and significant

properties. Due to this effort, architecturally significant buildings such as Gunther’s Ice

Cream and the Iva Gard Shepard Garden and Arts Center were evaluated for eligibility

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of

3 Alice T. Friedman, American Glamour and the Evolution of Modern Architecture (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010), 1-2.

Historical Resources, with four of these properties being listed on the Sacramento

The nomination of 1701 Maple Glen Road to the National Register is a project that has been long anticipated by the owner of the property, Pat Geyer, and SacMod Co- founder, Gretchen Steinberg. The Roush Residence has been included in multiple historic home tours and celebrations throughout the past ten years and has been a property of interest for those at SacMod who contributed to its day of celebration in 2012. Despite the enthusiasm for celebrating the unique architectural style of this home, it has not been previously evaluated for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or the

Sacramento Register.

Most of the resources recognized for their Mid-Century Modern architectural styles in the City of Sacramento have been commercial or civic buildings, so it is

imperative to recognize an exemplary example of a residential Mid-Century Modern

property. The Roush Residence is the perfect candidate to fill this need in the

preservation of Mid-Century Modern resources within Sacramento, because of its

Organic style design and its nomination as a stand-alone property rather than as part of a

historic district. It is distinctly important that the preservation movement in Sacramento

consider these Mid-Century Modern properties as they become eligible for listing in the

registers at national, state, and local levels, before they disappear in the name of

development.

4 GEI Consulting, Inc., “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results,” (City of Sacramento Community Development Department Project no. 1701630, Sacramento, 2017), 4-7-4-8.

Chapter 2

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Historic preservation establishes the identity of a place, encourages a sense of connectedness, and acts as an avenue for one to anchor themselves to a place and time.

Preservation breaks up the homogenization of an ever-standardizing America, and acts as a lens into the lives of those who established our communities. As American novelist

Scott Russell Sanders declares, “one cannot feel delight or pride in a place, a sense-of belonging to a place, or concern for the well-being of a place, if ‘there is no there there.’”5 Experiencing authenticity in our communities enables us to become more authentic people in our world of virtual experiences, big box stores, and the repetitive cities of Anywhere, U.S.A.

Beyond the cultural benefits of historic preservation, local and state governments throughout the country rely on preservation activities to boost tourism and create jobs, therefore largely contributing to the economy. Historic preservation, and the cultural and economic benefits that it provides, is a vital part of communities large and small throughout the country. Preserving historically and architecturally significant resources, such as the Roush Residence, creates a dynamic opportunity for benefitting the community in which these resources are located.

Historic preservation in the United States traces its roots back to the early nineteenth century and American citizens’ feeling of patriotic duty. The Revolutionary

5 Scott Russell Sanders, “The Geography of Somewhere,” in Civic Tourism: The Poetry and Politics of Place, Dan Schilling (Prescott, Arizona: Sharlot Hall Museum Press, 2007), 2.

War created numerous sites that were symbolic of the establishment of the United States, and the men who fought for American independence. Historian Nathan Weinberg explains in his work, Preservation in American Towns and Cities, that the first major

instance of historic preservation in the United States was when the city of Philadelphia

purchased Independence Hall in 1816 from the state of Pennsylvania, at the behest of a

number of historical societies, in order to avoid demolition and resale of the land.6

At the time of preservation, Independence Hall was badly deteriorated and had

been missing the iconic tower since 1790. Instead of simply preserving Independence

Hall as it stood in 1816, architect William Strickland designed a Georgian style tower in

an effort to restore the hall.7 The restoration of Independence Hall is imperative to the

national preservation narrative because it displays the effort to not only to preserve our

nation’s past, but to restore and maintain the integrity of resources that represent the

United States and the founding fathers. Though the preservation of Independence Hall is

clearly a landmark in the history of historic preservation in the United States, Ann

Pamela Cunningham did not establish the first authentic preservation organization in the

United States until 1853.8

Mount Vernon, George Washington’s estate, has acted as a site of national pride

and pilgrimage since the late eighteenth century. When developers proposed to purchase

the decaying property on the Potomac River in order to construct a hotel, Ann Pamela

6 Nathan Weinberg, Preservation in American Towns and Cities (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1979), 20.; Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), 33. 7 William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997), 27. 8 Tyler, 33.

Cunningham founded the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union in 1853, to

protect, maintain, and preserve Mount Vernon.9 The United States government,

recognizing the success of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, has offered to take

over their trust, but to no avail. The preservation, maintenance, and programming at

Mount Vernon today is still organized by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association.

Preservationist and first keeper of the National Register of Historic Places,

William J. Murtagh, argues in his book, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of

Preservation in America, that the establishment of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association

changed the path that historic preservation in the United States has taken. Murtagh

explains, “the seminal quality of this organizational arrangement cannot be

overemphasized…Mount Vernon’s administrative organization became an instant

informational resource and blueprint for other potential preservationists to emulate.”10

The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association is not only imperative to the history of historic

preservation due to their efforts to preserve such a prestigious landmark. The Mount

Vernon Ladies’ Association’s organizational structure set an example for preservation

groups that followed. Cunningham established herself as regent, and then appointed a

vice-regent in each state involved with the project. In each locality participating within

each state, there was a “lady manager,” who reported to the state’s vice regent.11 This structure relied on private citizens as the backbone of preservation and stressed the

9 Murtagh, 28. 10 Ibid., 29. 11 Ibid.

importance of small towns and cities with respect to their involvement in historic

preservation.

Philosophically based in patriotism and paying homage to the great men who

established the country, and in practice reliant on private citizens and preservation

organizations, mostly consisting of women, for progress and implementation, historic

preservation in the United States proceeded this way throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Murtagh declares that “patriotism was the most obvious motivation, a patriotism which approached religious zeal at times,” for the initial preservation movement in the United States.12 Furthermore, Murtagh stresses that the leadership in the

early preservation movement was that of private citizens, particularly women, and that

the state and federal government of the United States were not involved in historic

preservation until well into the twentieth century.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century while private organizations

focused on the preservation of historic buildings and sites closely associated with

patriotic themes, the federal government was preoccupied with protecting and preserving

the indispensable natural resources and landscapes throughout the United States. In 1872,

the United States government established Yellowstone National Park, and then moved on

to designating other important landscapes throughout the United States as protected areas,

such as Civil War battlefields, in order to protect them from development. Shortly

12 Ibid., 37.

9 thereafter, congress passed the Antiquities Act of 1906 in order to ensure the protection of these federally owned sites.13

In 1916, the United States Department of the Interior established the National

Parks Service, which became the apparatus for bridging historic preservation in the private sector to efforts of the federal government.14 Public Historian Denise D.

Meringolo argues in her book, Museums, Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a

New Genealogy of Public History, that The New Deal provided the National Parks

Service History Division the authority they required to influence federal policy concerning site acquisition and preservation, bridging the gap between historic preservation and the federal government.15

Shortly after the establishment of the National Parks Service, a new proponent of historic preservation began to emerge in 1920s in the form of historic districts. Members of the public and city government began to appreciate the ambiance of historic neighborhoods and feared that development or demolition would ruin the aesthetic of these neighborhoods. Through a city ordinance in 1931, the first legal historic district in the United States was established in Charleston, South Carolina.16 Weinberg argues that during this time, “the emphasis in preservation shifted somewhat from a historical and patriotic to a cultural and architectural viewpoint.”17 This push to preserve historic aesthetic established the importance of architectural style in historic properties, and

13 Tyler, 35. 14 Ibid., 36. 15 Denise D. Meringolo, Museums, Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public (Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), 116. 16 Weinberg, 38-39. 17 Ibid., 23.

created a new path for historic preservation that was not centered around national values

or patriotism, but of preserving a sense of place and time, best represented through

periods of architecture and architectural style.

In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Historic Sites Act into law in the midst of

the Great Depression. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 contained legislation that charged

the Department of the Interior with creating a comprehensive list of important sites that

were strongly associated with American history, established the National Park System

Advisory Board, and created the federal distinction of a National Historic Site.18 As

another part of the New Deal, the Civilian Works Administration partnered with the

American Institute of Architects to document historic resources throughout the United

States, employing thousands of architects and photographers, bridging the preservation

efforts concerning patriotism and those concerned with architectural style and historic

aesthetic.19

In 1960, Ronald Lee, Chief Historian of the National Parks Service, enabled the establishment of the National Historic Landmarks, which acted as a new approach for designating historic sites. The National Historic Landmarks enabled persons not associated with the National Parks Service to nominate a site for distinction, eliminated the National Park Service Advisory Board’s confidential deliberations, and made the

18 John H. Sprinkle, Jr, Crafting Preservation Criteria: The National Register of Historic Places and American Historic Preservation (New York: Routledge, 2014), 12. 19 Tyler, 40.

previously private list of historic sites public. Eventually the distinction of National

Historic Landmark overrode that of National Historic Site.20

The creation of the National Parks Service, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the

Historical American Building Survey, and the eventual distinction of National Historic

Landmark, added to the establishment of a more regulated system. In 1949, the National

Trust for Historic Preservation was established to link the preservation activities of the

National Parks Service and the federal government with the efforts of private citizens and

organizations.21 This private, non-profit organization stressed the cultural importance of preservation in the United States and called for a governmentally regulated system of preservation in their 1966 publication, With Heritage So Rich.22 Within their publication,

the National Trust for Historic Preservation called for a survey of all architecturally and

historically important sites in the United States and their listing in a National Register,

economic incentives for historic preservation, and a program for all levels of government

to work in unison concerning preservation.23

In 1966, the National Trust for Historic Preservation had their plea recognized

with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic

Preservation Act included many of the ideas presented in With Heritage So Rich,

including funding for preservation activities, the establishment of State Historic

Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, ownership

20 Ibid., 17-18. 21 Ibid., 42. 22 Albert Rains and Laurance G. Henderson, With Heritage So Rich (New York, Random House, 1966), 20. 23 Tyler, 44.

12 rights for those who own historically significant properties, and the creation of the

National Register of Historic Places.24 The National Register of Historic Places is a list that contains upwards of 100,000 historical resources and employs scrupulous criteria to deem properties eligible for listing. Beyond identifying and documenting significant resources that meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the National Register of

Historic Places also encourages preservation by making governmental agencies aware of these properties, so as to avoid adverse effect, and offers federal grants and tax incentives for the owners of these historic properties.25

A set of amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in the 1980s established the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, a partnership between the

National Parks Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, and local governments.

The CLG program awards grants to local governments that meet the requirements set forth in the amendments, which include establishing a historic preservation review commission, maintaining a system for the cataloging of local historic resources, creating opportunities for public involvement in preservation, and enforcing state and local regulations pertaining to the maintenance and preservation of historic resources. 26 The

CLG program encourages local governments to be involved in the planning, designation, and preservation of their local historic resources.

24 Ibid., 45. 25 Ibid., 47. 26 Office of Historic Preservation, “Certified Local Government Program,” CA.gov, Accessed 7/23/2019, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 not only revolutionized the practices of historic preservation in the United States but aided in shifting the philosophical view of what was considered historically significant. With the criteria set forth by the National Register of Historic Places, historic resources could be considered significant at the local, state, or national level. No longer working on a strictly patriotic theme, historic resources that represented something significant for a local or state community could gain national recognition by being listed in the National Register of

Historic Places. Architectural historian Max Page proclaims, “through historic preservation, we can see the world we have created.”27 Protecting and preserving significant structures and sites within a community breeds a sense of place, a sense of community, and a connection to one’s past.

The academic conversation concerning historic preservation has shifted since the first instances of preservation in the United States. Throughout his book, Preservation in

American Towns and Cities, historian Nathan Weinberg explains how the preservation movement has evolved within the United States. Weinberg argues that active preservation has become about much more than patriotic duty and the founding of the United States.

In Preservation in American Towns and Cities, Weinberg asserts that “the aesthetic of preservation does not interfere with the development of the modern city, rather it supports it in symbolic, economic, and social ways.”28 Weinberg establishes preservation as a dynamic tool which contributes to the wellbeing of communities.

27 Max Page, Why Preservation Matters (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2016), 26. 28 Weinberg, 217.

William Murtagh builds on Weinberg’s assertion that preservation is a dynamic subject in his 1997 book, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in

America, by stressing that historic preservation is an “environmental, social, economic, and legal issue.”29 Throughout this work, Murtagh explains that the evolution of preservation within the United States has evolved in a logical manner, to meet the ever- changing philosophical and cultural needs of the public. Though, straying from the view

of other historians that the New Deal encouraged the shift in focus from patriotic

preservation to include that of architectural aesthetic preservation, Murtagh asserts that

the house museum was a vital point in this transition. He explains that house museums

were initially established as a way to preserve and celebrate the accomplishments of

important figures in American history, and that these museums inextricably included

artifacts. Murtagh argues that these artifacts, and their history and association with the

historic architecture in which they were displayed, caused architecture to become part of

the conversation pertaining to historic preservation through establishing a connection

between history and historical aesthetic.30

Another historian that understands the powerful connection between history and historical aesthetic is Dolores Hayden. In her 1997 book, The Power of Place: Urban

Landscapes as Public History, she establishes the importance of physical history and cultural identity. Hayden’s book is geared toward the future of historic preservation and

the inclusion of diverse and overlooked histories in the new narrative of the modern era

29 Murtagh, 167. 30 Ibid., 86.

of preservation. She argues that “change is not simply a matter of acknowledging

diversity or correcting a traditional bias toward the architectural legacy of wealth and

power.”31 Hayden argues that the track of historic preservation must continue to evolve to

include sites that represent minority and ethnic histories in order to truly represent the

American experience.

Historian Norman Tyler argues a different perspective on the evolution of historic

preservation in the United States. Throughout his 2000 book, Historic Preservation: An

Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice, Tyler argues that “historic preservation in the United States followed two distinct paths—in the private and the public sectors—from the earliest periods in the eighteenth century until the mid-twentieth century.”32 Tyler argues that rather than following a singular path from the private,

patriotic preservation of the past, to the publicly oriented preservation which dominates

the field today, historic preservation began simultaneously in the private and

governmental sectors, and combined in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic

Preservation Act. In addition to explaining how the field of historic preservation has

evolved over time, Tyler’s book also covers technical and economic aspects of

preservation, bringing new topics into the conversation.

In 2003 a collection of essays entitled A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century altered the conversation about historic preservation once again.

Historian Diane Lea explains in her work, “America’s Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to

31 Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995), 8. 32 Tyler, 33.

Enduring Ideals,” that the preservation movement within the United States began in an effort to commemorate the establishment of the country, and evolved over time to include resources that represent individual communities and important moments in American history. According to Lea, “preservation in America is an evolving phenomenon; The saving of early shrines to individuals and events of the Revolutionary War period represented a beginning that over time evolved into a national effort to preserve community history and identity.”33 Lea builds upon Murtagh and Hayden’s arguments by stressing the importance of the preservation of physical resources in the interpretation of a community’s collective experience. Although Lea acknowledges the positive impact that governmental involvement has had on historic preservation in the United States, she stresses that grass roots movements and public involvement are still ever important in the field of historic preservation.

Historian Antoinette J. Lee further focuses on the social impacts of historic preservation in her essay, “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation.”

Throughout this essay Lee argues that the field of historic preservation will prove to be more diverse in the twenty-first century as the United States continues to become more diverse. Lee asserts that “more than any other force, even beyond that of financial resources or regulatory advances, race and ethnicity will shape the cultural heritage programs of the United States in the next century.”34 Lee argues that for the past two

33 Diane Lea, “America’s Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals,” in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 1. 34 Antoinette J. Lee, “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation,” in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 404.

centuries historians have been focused on military and political history, creating an

American mythos that centered on patriotic themes, which were mostly associated with

white males. Lee goes on to explain that the modern focus on social history has created

the opportunity to reevaluate the historic narratives that are expressed through historic

preservation. Lee also asserts that the social movements of the recent past, such as

desegregation, will continue to impact and alter the historic preservation movement now

and in the future.

Preservationist Robert E. Stipe argues in his essay, “Where Do We Go from

Here?” that the field of historic preservation is at an integral point. Stipe agrees with Lee

that there is an opportunity for the field of historic preservation to be redefined in the

twenty-first century. He explains that “challenges to the concept of what is worth

preserving and to whom it is important have been forthcoming with an ever-stronger

voice since the early 1980s, and the beginning of the twenty-first century seems an

opportune time to reexamine our traditional ways of doing things.”35 Although he

recognizes this opportunity for the field to become more diverse and representative of a

broader narrative, Stipe argues that grass roots movements and differences at the local,

state, and federal levels have caused conflict and disorder in the field. He explains, “If we are to speak in political forum with a stronger voice, there must not only be stronger public support, but also a more unified and consistent vision of where we are going and

35 Robert E. Stipe, “Where Do We Go from Here?” in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 451.

what we stand for.”36 Stipe argues that instead of developing separate preservation

initiatives in the fields of architecture, history, preservation, and environmental study,

that professionals in these fields should come together and standardize a vision for the

future.

Preservationists Virginia O. Benson and Richard Klein also recognize the drastic

evolution of the preservation movement in the United States in their 2008 book, Historic

Preservation for Professionals. Benson and Klein explain that throughout the early

twentieth century, preservation was viewed as a civic duty, and therefore retained strong

patriotic themes. They agree with historian Antoinette Lee that this trend in preservation continued this way until social and economic challenges throughout the 1960s and 1970s forced preservationists to reevaluate their methods, shifting the focus of preservation to center around environmental and cultural sustainability.37 Benson and Klein express that

“the role of the contemporary preservationist is to save and maintain the United States’

best cultural traditions.”38 As argued by Benson, Klein, Lee, Hayden, and others in the

field, the United States’ best cultural traditions include those of numerous diverse

ethnicities and heritages. Benson and Klein assert that beyond altering what is preserved

and interpreted, it is important that the preservationist evolve in tandem with the field.

They explain, “the practice of historic preservation has for too long been the private

preserve of architecture and related disciplines.”39 Benson and Klein argue, in agreement

36 Ibid., 491. 37 Virginia O. Benson and Richard Klein, Historic Preservation for Professionals (Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 2008), 167. 38 Ibid. 39 Benson and Klein, 204.

with Stipe, that preservation is a multidisciplinary field, and therefore requires flexible

professionals.

Public Historian Denise D. Meringolo establishes the importance of the National

Parks Service within the historic preservation movement in her 2012 book, Museums,

Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public History. Meringolo

argues that the National Parks Service and the New Deal are the instrumental pieces that

bridged the gap between the private preservation sector and the federal government. She

goes on to argue that “the Park Service history program transformed vernacular

landscapes and local traditions into components of a national heritage.”40 Meringolo

explains that although the sites preserved through the National Parks System are

scientifically and/or environmentally significant, it is the interpretation that makes them

meaningful and valuable to the public. Meringolo asserts that the shift of authority in the

National Parks Service from scientific elitists to include historians concerned with public service continues to shape historic preservation today. Furthermore, Meringolo stresses

the importance of shared authority throughout her work and agrees with Benson and

Klein that historic preservation is a multidisciplinary field which requires shared

authority, much like other fields of study within public history. Meringolo builds upon

Benson and Klein’s argument for shared authority between professionals, by insisting

that shared authority must also be extended to the public, in order to accurately interpret

their narratives.

40 Meringolo, 86.

Architectural historian Max Page takes a more assertive stance on historic preservation in his 2016 book, Why Preservation Matters. Throughout this book, Page explains the social and cultural impact that historic preservation has on individuals and communities. He explains that “continuity without connection to the meanings embodied in old places is not sufficient. Preservation touches on our personal memories, linking us to our own past, and taps into our desire to connect with people of different places and times.”41 Page agrees with the argument that historic preservation serves to preserve sites that represent heroic moments in American history and architecturally significant buildings, functioning as an avenue to bring communities together through a shared narrative.

Although recognizing this imperative aspect of historic preservation, Page brings forth the argument that it is important to preserve and interpret “difficult places” as well.42 Page argues that “part of the calling of preservation is to help societies confront their difficult places and difficult pasts, to contribute to the fundamental human needs for memory and justice.”43 In agreement with others in the field, such as Hayden, Lee, and

Stipe, Page asserts that the social revolutions in the latter half of the twentieth century have irreversibly altered the course of historic preservation. Page argues that the preservation and interpretation of new culturally significant sites is not enough, the interpretation at preserved sites with “difficult pasts” must be reinterpreted in order to have a place in the modern vision of historic preservation.

41 Page, 27. 42 Ibid., 130. 43 Ibid.

Historic preservation in the United States is a field that was once dedicated to and

dominated by a patriotic zeal which pertained only to the great figures who founded this

country. An examination of the works which analyze preservation reveal that this field has come full circle but has been inevitably altered by two millennia of cultural, economic, and social change. In the twenty-first century historians and preservationists

still view historic preservation as a way to pay homage to our country by preserving the

“United States’ best cultural traditions,” only now it is recognized that these cultural

traditions are created by the diverse people who have defined what it means to be

American in the modern era.44

The Roush Residence is a powerful example of the human experience in the

Sacramento suburbs post-World War II. Through its Organic style Mid-Century Modern

architecture, the Roush Residence preserves the aesthetic of Mid-Century values through its architecture and design. The industrial plate glass and steel beams combined with the

360-degree views of nature represent the duality of the industrial innovations and the desire for coalescence with nature that occurred after World War II. This thesis adds to the academic conversation on historic preservation, by arguing that architecturally significant buildings, such as the Roush Residence, can represent and express cultural and social trends through design.

Historic Preservation in California

California’s Office of Historic Preservation asserts that the cultural and physical

landscapes of the state are characterized by a diverse human experience, therefore the

44 Ibid.

22 preservation of these landscapes adds to the prospect of a brighter collective future.45

Historian Nadine Ishitani Hata explains that the historic preservation movement in

California depended heavily on governmental influence in the form of legislation and governmental committees, rather than on grassroots movements from private individuals and organizations. Hata’s book, The Historic Preservation Movement in California 1940-

1976, exemplifies the drastic differences in the historic preservation movement that culminated from its evolution, which began with the preservation of Independence Hall in 1816, over a hundred years earlier.

Preservation efforts in California date as far back as 1875, when Catholic priests sought to preserve the Franciscan missions throughout California.46 During the early twentieth century historic preservation in California was left up to private organizations, such as the Landmarks Club of Southern California and the Native Sons of the Golden

West. This dynamic shifted during the late 1920s with the creation of the State Park

Commission and the first statewide survey of historic resources in the nation.47 In April

1931, Assembly Bill 171 was passed, creating California’s State Landmarks Program, which stated that the director of the Department of Natural Resources could designate properties as state landmarks, with owner consent, in which case the property would be listed on a state register and provided a plaque representing its significance.48

45 Forging a Future with a Past: Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California (Sacramento, California: Office of Historic Preservation, 1997), 1. 46 Nadine Ishitani Hata, The Historic Preservation Movement in California 1940-1976 (California: California Department of Parks and Recreation/Office of Historic Preservation, 1992), 3. 47 Ibid., 11. 48 Ibid., 17.

In 1949, the California State Legislature established the State Historical

Landmarks Advisory Committee, a seven-member committee appointed by the governor.

This committee makes recommendations on historical landmarks before final approval

from the State Park Commission and the Director of the Department of Natural

Resources. In 1969 the State Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee was brought into

conformity with the standards set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act, and in

1974, the name of this committee was changed to the State Historical Resources

Commission.49 The Commission meets six times per year, and is responsible for actions

such as evaluating resources for historical registration programs, developing criteria for

the rehabilitation of historic resources, keeping a statewide inventory of historical

resources, and submitting an annual report to the Director and the Legislature on the

commission’s yearly activities and suggesting any new legislation that could aid the

preservation effort in California.50

In 1970 Governor Reagan established the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), which benefitted historic preservation in California by providing further protections for historic resources throughout the state. The California Environmental

Quality Act acts as an extra protection for cultural and historic resources throughout

California, by requiring agencies to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties within the area of potential effect for their proposed undertaking. The

California Environmental Quality Act requires approval for the project from the Office of

49 Forging a Future with a Past, 80. 50 Ibid., 81.

Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer and requires that the

agency notify the public of their intended undertaking.51

Historic Preservation in Sacramento

The city of Sacramento is home to more than thirty designated historic districts

and hundreds of historic resources. Representing periods of history from the 1800s to the

Mid-Century Modern movement, these resources are significant both architecturally and

culturally. The official preservation movement in Sacramento started in 1974-1975 when

the City Council appointed the Preservation Board and established the first preservation

ordinance, which declared preservation vital to the city’s wellbeing through its impact on

economic growth and understanding of Sacramentans’ past and heritage.52 Historic

preservation has become so pivotal to Sacramento that the city has a full time

Preservation Director and Preservation Commission, both parts of the city’s CLG program, whose responsibilities include developing preservation policies for inclusion in the city’s general plan, making recommendations to the city council for significant resources, and managing the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.53

Beyond official preservation efforts, Sacramento has multiple private, non-profit

organizations that advocate and practice preservation efforts, such as Preservation

Sacramento and SacMod. These organizations call attention to the importance of historic

51 Ibid., 87. 52 “Preservation,” City of Sacramento Community Development, Accessed April 10, 2019, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Urban-Design/Preservation.; “Preservation Ordinance,” Preservation Sacramento, Accessed April 10, 2019, http://www.preservationsacramento.org/local-law. 53 “Preservation Commission,” City of Sacramento Community Development, Accessed April 10, 2019, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Meetings/Preservation-Commission.

25 preservation throughout Sacramento through actions such as hosting historic home tours, organizing historic property surveys, and advocating for preservation through revitalization projects and adaptive reuse. Sacramento is a community that values historic preservation and the impact that it has on the economic and cultural vitality of the city.

Economic Advantages of Historic Preservation in California

The advantages that accompany historic preservation are not solely cultural.

There are numerous economic advantages that accompany historic preservation in

California. Heritage tourism is a substantial part of California’s economy due to the jobs and tax revenue that it creates annually. According to California’s Office of Historic

Preservation, the travel industry is the third largest employer in the state.54 It is estimated by the California Trade and Commerce Agency Division of Tourism that travel spending in California reached over 55 billion dollars in 1995. Every local government within

California benefits from the tax revenue and travel spending generated by the heritage tourism industry.55

Along with the revenue generated by heritage tourism, there are multiple federal grants and tax incentives that support historic preservation at the state and local levels.

These grants are provided by the National Parks Service and awarded to the state. These funds are then redistributed by the state to Certified Local Governments, private preservation organizations, individual owners of historic properties, and colleges and universities on a competitive basis.56 The federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 provides a tax

54 Forging a Future with a Past, 17. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., 87.

credit of ten to twenty percent, depending on the type of property, for the rehabilitation of

a certified historic structure.57 The state Mills Act of 1972 allows private owners who

participate in the maintenance, rehabilitation, and preservation of their qualified historic

property to contract with local government, in order to receive property tax relief.58

Overall, the economic benefits of historic preservation in California are

prodigious. From the booming heritage tourism industry providing tax revenue and

securing hundreds of thousands of jobs for California residents, to the multiple grants and

tax incentives for owners of historic resources, historic preservation is a billion-dollar industry in California. Historic preservation not only impacts the connection that

California residents have with their communities; it provides funds to keep these communities thriving.

57 Ibid., 88. 58 Hata, 122.

Chapter 3

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY

Architecturally significant resources are important to the historic preservation

movement because they create an aesthetic that represents a specific moment in history.

The ambiance and feeling that architecturally important resources can add to a

community creates a sense of place and generates tourism and economic growth. It is

important that an array of architectural styles be preserved within communities to ensure

that a range of history is preserved, since architectural styles can represent the cultural

movement that spurred their creation. The Roush Residence represents a moment in

Modernism that focuses on functionality and coalescence with nature, an architectural

concept that was popular following World War II.59

The Emergence of Modernism

The modern architectural movement in the United States began with renowned

architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright began his career in Chicago at age eighteen,

working for the architectural firm Adler & Sullivan. In 1893, Wright began his own

architectural practice, where he pioneered the modern architectural movement by

designing the Prairie style house.60 Prairie style homes were typically multi-story, with one-story wings, low-pitched roofs, porches with massive square supports, and horizontal

line detailing on the façade.61 Prairie style residences were popular throughout Chicago

59 Leland M. Roth, A Concise History of American Architecture (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 277. 60 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017), 548. 61 Ibid., 551.; Carole Rifkind, A Field Guide to American Architecture (New York: Plume Books, 1980), 100.

28 suburbs, and the design was widespread throughout magazines and pattern books, though the style quickly faded from popularity after World War I.62

In the early 1900s, Wright travelled throughout Europe while fleeing domestic issues, disseminating his concept of Organic architecture to prestigious European architects. Wright’s Organic architecture encompassed buildings that complemented, rather than imposed upon their natural surroundings. Wright believed that architecture should be representative of a place and time, and should value function and cohesion with its surroundings, rather than a certain defined style.63 After Wright’s return to the United

States, he and his third wife, Olgivanna, established the Taliesin Fellowship in Wisconsin in 1932. At Taliesin, Wright and Olgivanna trained aspiring architects to become

“organic human beings”, the only people who Wright believed could truly create Organic

Architecture.64

After Wright introduced his new style of architecture to European architects in the early twentieth century, they elaborated on his ideas. In 1919, German architect Walter

Gropius founded the Bauhaus School of Art and Architecture, in Weimar Germany, which put emphasis on modern, functional designs.65 European architects capitalized on the new mass production of steel, concrete, and glass after World War I by using these materials to construct buildings that were minimalistic, lacking ornamentation, and

62 McAlester, 552. 63 “Organic Architecture,” Guggenheim, Accessed April 9, 2019, https://www.guggenheim.org /arts-curriculum/topic/organic-architecture. 64 Robert C. Twombly, “Organic Living: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin Fellowship and Georgi Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 58, no. 4 (1974-1975): 130. 65 Manfredo Tafuri, Modern Architecture (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1976), 130.

strictly functional.66 Bauhaus School architects used this opportunity to create an

architecture that was independent of any singular culture to avoid emphasizing cultural differences, which they believed led to World War I. 67

This method of modern architecture was introduced to the United States in the

1930s by architects like Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, and other Bauhaus alumni, as

they immigrated to flee Hitler and the beginnings of World War II.68 The first examples of the American version of International style were debuted at the 1933 Century of

Progress Exposition in Chicago.69 This functionalist architecture was deemed

International Style by the Museum of Modern Art in 1932.70 International style structures

were typically asymmetrical, unornamented, had flat roofs, and were supported by a

light-weight structural frame, usually metal. This type of structural frame incorporated

large expanses of windows and glass and a characteristic asymmetrical shape.

International style architecture became popular in the United States from the 1930s to the

1950s, and private residences in this style can mostly be found in the northeast and

California.71

While International style gained steam in Europe before it was introduced to

American architects, architecture in the United States was going through its own

transformative period. The Modernistic style was popular throughout the United States

66 GEI Consulting, 3-1. 67 McAlester, 620. 68 Ibid., 548. 69 Ralph Warner Hammet, Architecture in the United States: A Survey of Architectural Styles Since 1776 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976), 198. 70 McAlester, 620. 71 Ibid., 617.

from 1920-1940, and began with the chevron patterns, geometric shapes, and decorative

towers of the Art Deco movement.72 The Streamline Moderne style that emerged in the

1930s symbolized a clean break from the extremely ornamental style of Art Deco, with

its characteristically flat roofs, smooth walls, and horizontal layout. After World War II,

commercial buildings were constructed similarly, but incorporated aspects of

International style, and were considered to be Late Moderne style.73

Mid-Century Modern Architecture

Mid-Century Modern refers to the modern design movement in the United States

that emerged after World War II and encompasses many defined styles of modern

architecture. After World War II, hundreds of thousands of service men and women

returned to the United States and required adequate housing, schools, churches, banks,

and other service buildings. Using elements of the early modernist movement and

International style architecture, Mid-Century Modern styles incorporated the use of industrial materials including glass, metal, plastic, wood, stone, and concrete, and moved away from the sterility of International style buildings.74

In order to house the service men and women returning home from Europe, Asia,

and other arenas of World War II, sprawling suburban neighborhoods were established

throughout the United States. Veterans were able to obtain financing for homes in these

new suburbs through special programs administered by the Federal Housing

72 Marcus Whiffen, American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 196 73 GEI Consulting, Inc., 3-6. 74 GEI Consulting, Inc., 3-9.

Administration (FHA), Though, the FHA did not believe neighborhoods of extremely

modern homes would be a strong investment for veterans and civilians alike, leading to a

more conservative take on modernist architecture, deemed Bankers Modern style.75 It

was out of Bankers Modern style that Modern Ranch, Minimal Traditional, and Split-

Level residences came to be popular throughout suburban neighborhoods.

The most popular of these Bankers Modern style homes was by far the Modern

Ranch house. Initially desired because it was one of the few houses built according to the

Federal Housing Administration’s financing guidelines, the Ranch style home truly took

off after World War II becoming the most popular style of domestic architecture in the

United States throughout the 1950s and 1960s.76 Modern Ranch style homes are typically

broad, one-story structures, equipped with a large picture window and most importantly,

a garage, since the suburbs catered to those with automobiles.77

While home buyers and lenders were focused on a more conservative style of

modern architecture, post-World War II architects were experimenting with new

approaches to modernism and home design. Popular from 1945 to 1965, Contemporary style architecture dominated architectural journals, awards, and the attention of prominent architects.78 Contemporary style architecture is defined by its integration with the natural

surroundings of the structure, which was often accomplished by the incorporation of a

split-level floor plan and walls of windows, made possible by using plate glass.79

75 McAlester, 549. 76 Ibid., 602. 77 Ibid., 602-603. 78 Ibid., 632. 79 GEI Consulting, Inc., 3-10-3-11.

Contemporary subdivisions were extremely rare due to cost, but developer Joseph Eichler

was able to construct more than ten thousand of these properties in the San Francisco Bay

area, where this style thrived because of its ability to be built into hillsides and cliff-

faces.80 The Contemporary style began to lose popularity in the 1960s, and architects

moved forward with other Mid-Century Modern styles, such as Organic, A-Frame, and

New Formalism.

California Modernist Architects

The modern architectural movement in California began with brothers Charles

Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene, who began designing Craftsman style

bungalows in 1903 at their practice in Pasadena. Craftsman style houses were typically

constructed with materials that remained close to their unfinished, natural state.

Craftsman bungalows were often amicable to their natural surroundings due to their low,

broad shape and lack of ornamentation.81 These Craftsman style houses represent early

modernism because they embody a combination of aesthetic principles defined by Wright

as modern, such as the elimination of opulent ornamentation and the use of industrial or

mass-produced materials.82

Craftsman style architecture swept the nation from 1905 until the 1920s,

becoming exceedingly popular in pattern books, and even having pre-fabricated kits for

sale to be assembled on site. Craftsman style residences were the premiere style for

80 McAlester, 630. 81 John C. Poppeliers and S. Allen Chambers Jr., What Style is It?: A Guide to American Architecture (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 106. 82 Roth, 208.

33 almost two decades, though the popularity of these bungalows died down in the mid-

1920s.83 After the craze of the Craftsman style bungalow, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, and Period Revival styles swept California throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The leading architect of this movement in California, Claud Beelman, designed Art Deco and

Streamline Moderne buildings throughout the Los Angeles Area.84

Throughout the early development of the modernist movement John Lautner was training under Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin in Wisconsin. After spending six years as an apprentice to Wright, Lautner moved to Los Angeles in 1938 where he established a small independent firm. After the establishment of his firm, Lautner continued working as a representative for Wright. Throughout World War II, Lautner worked for the

Structon Company expanding his construction and engineering skills. After briefly working as a design associate for a large architectural firm, Lautner was finally able to focus on his independent practice in 1947.85

Keeping with the post-World War II modernist movement, Lautner designed

Googie’s coffee shop in Los Angeles in 1949, creating an entirely new style of architecture, that would come to be known as Googie or Exaggerated Modern style.86

Lautner’s new style of architecture reflected the American public’s post-war obsession with the automobile, space travel, and technological advancement in general, though the

83 McAlester, 578. 84 “Claud Beelman,” Los Angeles Conservancy, Accessed February 13, 2019, https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/claud-beelman. 85 John Lautner papers, 1929-2002, The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, Accession no. 2007.M.13. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/cifa2007m13. 86 GEI Consulting, Inc., 3-8.

34 popularity of Exaggerated Modern style receded in the 1960s.87 Lautner went on to design more than fifty properties throughout Southern California, where the environment allowed him to utilize glass, wood, and other natural design elements in his work, which was reflective of Wright’s Organic style preferences.88

Mid-Century Modernism in Sacramento

Sacramento saw a population influx in the years following World War II. In order to accommodate these new Sacramentans, numerous architectural practices stepped up to meet the needs of their growing community. The modernist movement in Sacramento included architects such as Carter Sparks, and developers like Joseph Eichler and the

Streng Brothers.89 Carter Sparks worked with the Streng Brothers to create customized modern homes for subdivision developments in Sacramento, creating enclaves of the modernist movement throughout the city.

Another prominent architect that contributed to the Mid-Century Modern movement in Sacramento is Terry Waters. Waters was a modernist architect with a prestigious academic background. After returning from England shortly after World War

II, Waters became a Taliesin Fellow under Wright in 1948. After his training at Taliesin

East and West, Waters became a draftsman for John Lautner, where he worked until

1968.90 Throughout his time working with Lautner, Waters designed modern properties

87 Ibid. 88 “John Lautner,” Los Angeles Conservancy, Accessed February 13, 2019, https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/john-lautner. 89 GEI Consulting, Inc., 3-16-3-33. 89 Ibid., 3-34. 90 “Terrance Waters, Architect,” Pacific Coast Architect Database, Accessed April 12, 2019, http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/2350/.; “Terry Waters,” The Malibu Times October 13, 2004,

throughout southern California, drawing on Wright’s principles of Organic architecture.

In 1954, Waters’ brother-in-law, Robert Roush, hired him to design a custom home,

which would come to be known commonly as the Roush Residence.91 Using the

techniques of Organic architecture that he practiced at Taliesin, Waters designed a home

that epitomized the Organic movement within the Mid-Century Modern era.

The Roush Residence is significant to the Sacramento region because it represents

the cultural and social shift in architecture and residential planning that occurred in the

area, post-World War II. With new development sprawling throughout the Arden Oaks

neighborhood, the Roush Residence embodies an architectural and cultural aesthetic that

is representative of Mid-Century America. Through this aesthetic, the Roush Residence

establishes a sense of place and identity for those who inhabit the Arden-Arcade suburb.

Accessed February 26, 2019, http://www.malibutimes.com/obituaries/article_383bbc63-e8cc-589e-9df9- 08c9dbd5b4c6.html. 91 Steinberg, Henas, and Lial, 8-10.

Chapter 4

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Arcade area of Sacramento County. Once occupied by the Maidu people, the recorded history of this area, which sits northeast of present-day Sacramento, began with John

Sutter.92 After fleeing debt in Switzerland and scheming his way across the United States,

John Augustus Sutter was the first European to establish a permanent settlement in the

Sacramento region.

Sutter petitioned for Mexican citizenship and a land grant on August 29, 1840, and by June 1841 he received a grant for 44,000 acres, which he called New Helvetia.93

This area encompassed much of present-day Sacramento county and portions of Yuba and Sutter counties. Sutter looked at this region and all those who resided in it as opportunities for gain and development, using the Native American population as his main source of labor.94 Due to discrepancies in Sutter’s land surveys, some of Sutter’s grant boundaries were ambiguous.95 On August 10, 1843, Sutter deeded the land between the American and Feather Rivers to John Sinclair, Hiram Grimes, and Eliab Grimes,

92 Raymond Oliver, Rancho Del Paso: A History of the Land Surrounding McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento ALC Historical Study 82 (McClellan Air Force Base, California: Office of History Sacramento Air Logistics Center, 1983), 1. 93 Steven M. Avella, Sacramento: Indomitable City (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2003), 17-22. 94 Oliver, 1. 95 Avella, 21.

37 presumably unaware that this land did not legally belong to him. This contested deed of land became Rancho Del Paso.96

Rancho Del Paso

John Sinclair, Hiram Grimes, and Eliab Grimes were businessmen who supplied

Sutter’s fort and some of his other endeavors in the region. The deeding of Rancho Del

Paso to the Grimeses and Sinclair was most likely a form of payment for their business dealings with Sutter.97 With the initial deed from Sutter being dubious, Eliab Grimes sought to get a better title to the rancho, so he petitioned the Mexican government for a new land grant for the same area on December 16, 1844. Mexican governor General

Manuel Micheltorena approved Grimes’ request four days later, on the conditions that

Grimes live on and develop the rancho, and that a local judge have the land surveyed more accurately. Hiram Grimes and John Sinclair were not mentioned in the new

Mexican deed to Rancho Del Paso, but they remained partners and lived on the land.98

Sinclair was so well respected in the region that be became Sacramento’s first alcalde, a

96 Oliver, 2. 97 Ibid., 8. 98 Ibid., 8-10.

38 position that encompassed the duties of mayor and judge.99 Sinclair’s life on Rancho Del

Paso continued peacefully until January 24, 1848 when James Marshall discovered gold at the saw mill he was building for Sutter in the Sierra Foothills, near Coloma.100

After the 1848 discovery of gold, the Gold Rush took over life on the rancho.

Many of the Mormon craftsmen that Sinclair hired fled in search of gold, leaving Sinclair dependent on his Native American workers.101 Soon after Sinclair’s homestead began to fall apart because of the Gold Rush, Eliab Grimes died in November 1848, at the age of

69. Hiram Grimes asserted himself as sole heir to Eliab Grimes’ Rancho Del Paso land, but a number of Eliab’s relatives challenged Hiram’s claim in lawsuits that went as far as the United States Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Sinclair sold his portion of the Rancho Del

Paso land to Hiram Grimes in February 1849, for 5,000 dollars, and set out for the eastern

United States, though he passed away on his journey. Hiram Grimes then sold his compiled land to Samuel Norris in August 1849, for 8,000 dollars.102

Norris received a grant from the United States for the entirety of the land that comprised

99 Ibid., 10-11. 100 Ibid., 11. 101 Ibid., 11-12. 102 Ibid., 11-13.

Rancho Del Paso.103 Though, this was not the end of Norris’ legal battles for Rancho Del

Paso. Eliab Grimes’ relatives brought court cases against Norris, arguing that Hiram

Grimes’ sale of the land was illegal, due to their belief that Eliab Grimes’ will was

fraudulent. This litigation went on for eight years, and was heard in the California

Supreme Court, and eventually the United States Supreme Court, where Norris was

deemed the legal owner of Rancho Del Paso.104

After the tedious process of being granted a United States patent for Rancho Del

Paso and the years of legal battles, Norris lost ownership of the rancho. Throughout the

decade long fight for Rancho Del Paso, attorneys James Ben Ali Haggin and Lloyd Tevis

represented Samuel Norris, and though Norris was declared the legal owner of Rancho

Del Paso on April 30, 1860, he was in immense debt to Haggin and Tevis, as well as

others throughout the Sacramento Region.105 Unable to pay Haggin and Tevis for their

services, all of Norris’ land was transferred to the pair by the master in equity of the

circuit court of the United States on May 9,1862, making Tevis and Haggin the sole

owners of Rancho Del Paso. In 1885, Norris attempted to sue Haggin and Tevis for

ownership of Rancho Del Paso, arguing that while he was ill Haggin and Tevis conspired

to take the land from him, though this case was dismissed.106

103 W.A. Anderson, “History of Rancho Del Paso,” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento) January 6, 1914, 5, Accessed February 19, 2019, https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SU19140106.2.79&e=------en--20-- 1--txt-txIN------1. 104 Oliver, 15. 105 Ibid. 106 Anderson, 5.

Haggin Ranch

After acquiring the rancho in 1862, Haggin and Tevis kept the land largely intact.

They rented some portions near the American River to tenants for wheat farming, and grazed cattle and sheep to the north.107 In 1891, Haggin and Tevis incorporated the

Rancho Del Paso Land Company, and they sold Rancho Del Paso to their land company for ten dollars, ending their reign as ranking members of the last great land barons.108

Both men were successful in their many other endeavors, including mining operations, and it was not long before Haggin realized one of his most important passions would be well suited for the land and climate of Rancho Del Paso.109

Haggin’s employees deemed it such, due to the expanse of trees in the area.110 The other area of Rancho Del Paso, near the American River, was deemed “The Bottom,” and was where employees trained the young thoroughbreds.111

107 Oliver, 20. 108 Anderson, 5. 109 Anderson, 5. 110 Oliver, 22. 111 Ibid., 23.

From 1882 until 1891 Haggin raced horses successfully. Though Haggin stopped racing his horses in 1891, he continued to breed and sell his acclaimed bloodlines from

Rancho Del Paso in venues such as New York and England until 1905.112 Due to the fame from Haggin’s racehorses, the area became associated strongly with Haggin, even being referred to as Haggin Ranch, although Lloyd Tevis was still half owner of the land.113

112 Ibid., 23-24. 113 Anderson, 5.

Development of Arden Oaks

Figure 1. “Rancho Del Paso.” Circa 1910. California State Library, California History Room.

Pressure from the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce on Haggin and Tevis to sell

their rancho for community development persuaded the pair to list Rancho Del Paso for

sale at an asking price of two million dollars in 1905. In 1910, the Sacramento Valley

Colonization Company, a subsidiary of the United States Farm Land Company,

purchased the rancho for 1.5 million dollars.114 This sale of Rancho Del Paso to the

Sacramento Valley Colonization Company spawned the development of multiple areas of

Sacramento County, including Carmichael, Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, North Sacramento,

Del Paso Heights, and Arden-Arcade.115

114 Tom Harvey and Nancy Harvey, “History of Arden Oaks,” ardenoaks.org, Accessed February 27, 2019, https://ardenoaks.org/history.; “May Build Its Own Road,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) May 18, 1910, 5, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infowebnewsbankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps/news/document-view. 115 Steven M. Avella, The Good Life: Sacramento’s Consumer Culture (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2009), 100.

In 1910, O. A. Robertson, president of the Sacramento Valley Colonization

Company had the roughly 44,000 acres of Rancho Del Paso surveyed and divided into

quarter sections. These quarter sections were made up of tracts of five, ten, fifteen, and

twenty-acre parcels of land, to which Robertson began to sell to developers.116

Throughout early development of this area, the land was predominately used for farming

citrus, alfalfa, wheat, and other produce, though some of the area, including the land that

the Roush Residence was constructed on, remained undeveloped for some time. The

years following World War I saw a population boom in Sacramento, but the new

development created by this population increase was soon halted by the Great Depression

and the impact of World War II.

In the years following World War II, there was a land rush in the area surrounding

the city of Sacramento. The surplus of jobs created by surrounding air force bases

McClellan and Mather, and private defense firms such as Aerojet, made the area highly

desirable for the service people returning to the United States from arenas of war. This

population influx, combined with white flight from the greater Sacramento area, and

access to newly funded highways which made commuting to the city a realistic option,

created the opportunity for the development of suburban neighborhoods.117 This growth

expanded through already developed areas, such as Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus

116 “Demonstration Farm Selected,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) May 24, 1910, 5, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infoweb-newsbank-com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/apps/news/document- view.; Avella, 80. 117 Ibid., 102.

Heights, and Del Paso Heights, and also created new growth that expanded into the

Arden-Arcade area.118

118 Ibid., 103.

Figure 2. “Romance! In Real Country Living.” The Sacramento Bee. October 6, 1945.119

The land rush on the Arden-Arcade area occurred over the first weekend of

October in 1945, when the Wright and Kimbrough Company opened Arden Park Vista

and Williams and Williams opened Arden Oaks, two suburban real estate developments,

over the same weekend. Developers successfully used advertisements like “Romance! In

Real Country Living,” to entice newcomers to the suburbs of Sacramento by alluding to

the land’s rich history, resources, and access to modern amenities and city life, while still

living a quiet suburban life. Williams and Williams sold 28 of their 50 lots in one

119 “Romance! In Real Country Living,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento), October 6, 1945, 5, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infowebnewsbankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps /news/document-view.

afternoon at an average of 2,350 dollars each.120 Many of the homes within these real

estate developments were mass produced or designed and constructed by the developers,

but this was not the case for the Roush Residence.

In 1952, Robert and Jan Roush purchased lot 73 of the Arden Oaks subdivision

and made arrangements for the house that would be built there. Robert and his family

moved to California in the 1940s. In 1948, Robert founded Roush Bakery Products, a

bread mix company which became nationally known for their multi-grain Hillbilly bread,

in Sacramento.121 Robert hired Jan’s brother-in-law, architect Terry Waters, to design a

custom, functional home that would allow the Roush family to thrive in a nature-oriented

setting.122 Utilizing materials from local California and Sacramento companies, Waters

designed and over-saw construction of the hexagonal, uber-modern residence that has

been generating attention since its completion in 1954.123

The Roush Residence is a part of a suburban Sacramento neighborhood which

was born out of World War II and the resulting Mid-Century suburban movement. From

Sutter’s Fort to the technological advancements of World War II, these events in world

and Sacramento history have worked in tandem to create the unique circumstances in

which the Roush Residence was conceptualized and constructed. Preserving the Roush

120 “Weekend Land Rush Is Staged in Arden Area,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) October 8, 1945, 1, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infowebnewsbankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps/news/document-view. 121 “Robert L. Roush obituary,” The Desert Sun (Palm Springs) December 4, 2011, 29, Accessed February 11, 2019, https://desertsun.newspapers.com/image/195258212/?terms=robert%2Bl%2Broush%2 Bobituary. 122 Steinberg, Henas, and Lial, 6. 123 Ibid., 4.

Residence serves as a way to acknowledge a particular moment in history for the Arden

Oaks community.

Chapter 5

DEVELOPING THE NOMINATION

Methodology

Developing a National Register nomination requires an extensive methodological

approach to research and analyze a resource. The development of the nomination of the

Roush Residence to the National Register of Historic Places is an example of this

process. Interest in this project began in a cultural resources management class, taught by

Bryan Larson, a partner at JRP Historical Consulting, and Mark Beason, a State Historian

II with the Office of Historic Preservation’s Architectural Review and Environmental

Compliance Unit. This class was focused on the National Register of Historic Places, laws concerning preservation, such as the National Historic Preservation Act and the

California Environmental Quality Act, and the processes associated with preservation, such as compiling DPR-523 forms. This class was supplemented with a historic preservation class taught by Dr. Nathan Hallam, coordinator of the North Central

Information Center, which established the history, evolution, and value of historic

preservation throughout the United States.

With the tools to apply these newly acquired skills, the nominator contacted

multiple agencies throughout Sacramento in an effort to find a property to evaluate for a

thesis project. After being in contact with the Office of Historic Preservation and other

organizations, the nominator decided to work with Gretchen Steinberg of SacMod, a non-

profit in Sacramento dedicated to preserving the region’s Mid-Century Modern resources.

The nominator ultimately decided to evaluate the Roush Residence because it represents

49 a period of architecture that is underrepresented in designated historic properties throughout Sacramento. This property is also recognizable for the prominence and recognition it has received within the community, and its inimitable design.

After carefully choosing a resource for evaluation, the nominator met with the property owner, Pat Geyer. It is imperative to receive the property owner’s consent prior to writing a nomination. Geyer provided a tour of the property, and supplied the nominator with recollections, historic photographs, and an original blueprint of the residence, which were extremely useful to the research process. While on site, the nominator took an extensive collection of photographs, which included the full exterior, partial interior, and surroundings of the property.

After meeting with the property owner, it was time to conduct primary research.

The nominator first wanted to establish the parcel’s land use history. In order to do so, the nominator began with the construction of the residence in 1954 and traced the history backward. The construction date was concluded by the nominator using historic photographs of the property’s construction. There is no definitive work of literature concerning Arden-Arcade, so the history needed to be pieced together using various sources. The nominator visited the Sacramento room at the Sacramento Public Library multiple times throughout the research process, pulling county histories and ephemera.

Ephemera, such as informative pamphlets about the Arden school and advertisements for newly developed subdivisions assisted in creating a narrative for the area throughout the

1940s and early 1950s.

The Sacramento Public Library’s online access to the digitized Sacramento Bee was used to establish dates for the development of the Arden Oaks neighborhood, in which the Roush Residence is located. Keyword searches in The Sacramento Bee about the Arden Oaks neighborhood led to the Arden Oaks Neighborhood Association. The nominator contacted the president of this association, who was able to provide a brief history of the area, and another helpful resource, Raymond Oliver’s Rancho Del Paso: A

History of the Land Surrounding McClellan Air Force Base.

Using this information, the nominator made an appointment to conduct research at the Center for Sacramento History. Upon arrival, archivist Kim Hayden divulged that their collection was lacking information on the Arden-Arcade area, and that the only resource they had concerning Rancho Del Paso was Oliver’s work. It is useful to note that throughout the process of writing a National Register nomination, as with other research, one may find that there is no text from which to gather information. It is at this point that the researcher must use other means to pursue information.

Using newspaper articles and information obtained in HIST 186C Sacramento

History, the nominator suspected that much of the Rancho Del Paso land was broken up into parcels for family farms during this time. Using The Sacramento Bee, it was found that Haggin and Tevis sold Rancho Del Paso to the Sacramento Valley Colonization

Company in 1910. Equipped with this information, the nominator went to the Sacramento

County Assessor’s Office to trace the land purchases from the Sacramento Valley

Colonization Company to Robert Roush. After many hours, multiple visits, and assistance from employees, the nominator found that this deed lineage was not

documented. Though, the name O.A. Robertson appeared many times throughout this

search and using The Sacramento Bee the nominator concluded that Robertson was the

president of the Sacramento Valley Colonization Company, and that the Rancho Del Paso

land holdings were listed in his name.

With this information, the nominator went to conduct research at UC Davis’

Shields Library map room. O.A. Robertson’s land holdings were confirmed by a 1927

plat map. Using contemporary literature on Sacramento history, newspaper articles and

advertisements, the nominator concluded that much of this land was used for farming

citrus and alfalfa, but the land that makes up the Arden Oaks neighborhood was not

included in this farmland. In order to confirm this information, the nominator used UC

Davis’ extensive aerial photograph collection to visualize the development of the Arden

Oaks neighborhood. Starting with a set of aerials from 1923 and working forward in the smallest increments available, it was concluded that the land remained undeveloped until the establishment of the Arden Oaks subdivision.

Combining the ephemera, newspaper articles, plat maps, assessor documents, aerial photographs, and photographs of the residence’s construction, the nominator was able to develop the narrative of the land use history that was needed to establish the

Roush Residence’s period of significance, the parcel history, and the history of the development of the Arden Oaks neighborhood. This information is imperative to determining eligibility for listing in the National Register because it determines the period of significance, the history of the property, establishes whether the property is

52 eligible for listing under Criterion A or B, and proposes possible criteria considerations, such as if the house had been moved or if the land was used as a cemetery.

Approaching a National Register Nomination with a clear methodology and research plan is imperative to completing a successful nomination process. If issues arise, such as a lack of documentation as in this case, developing new research questions and adapting the methodology can lead to alternative avenues of information. The previously iterated research process, combined with contemporary literature, and field work allowed for the development and determinations of this National Register Nomination.

Figure 3. Aerial showing development of the Arden Oaks Neighborhood. 1953.124

Figure 4. Aerial showing the completed Roush Residence. 1957. 125

124 Aerial showing development of the Arden Oaks Neighborhood, 1953, UC Davis Library Map Collection. 125 Aerial showing the completed Roush Residence, 1957, UC Davis Library Map Collection.

Chapter 6

EVALUATION OF RESOURCE

In order to be found eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places a resource must be evaluated under a set of rigorous criteria set forth in Bulletin Fifteen of the National Register. These criteria are such that a resource must meet one of the four

National Register Criteria for Evaluation, retain a high level of integrity, and be at least fifty years old. If these initial considerations are met, the resource must be categorized as a building, structure, object, site, or district. Once the resource has been categorized, the nominator must determine which area of significance the resource represents, such as agriculture, architecture, transportation, and education. When establishing the historic context, the nominator should also define a period and level of significance, from which to base their historic context.126

The National Register Criteria for Evaluation specifies which types of resources are eligible for listing in the National Register, and describes the criteria for identifying the significance of the resource.127 The four criteria are delineated as Criterion A,

Criterion B, Criterion C, and Criterion D. Criterion A is used to evaluate resources that are associated with an important event or events that have made a contribution to history at a local, state, or national level. Criterion B encompasses resources that are most closely associated with a historic figure.128 Criterion C represents resources that are eligible for

126 Patrick W. Andrus, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” (District of Columbia: United States Department of the Interior, 1994), 1-10. 127 Ibid., 1. 128 Ibid., 12-16.

listing in the National Register due to their design or construction method. Properties

considered under Criterion C must be those that are an exceptional embodiment of a

certain type of architectural style or represent the work of a master architect.129 Finally,

Criterion D is used to evaluate resources that have the potential to relay information, and

is most often applied to archaeological sites. Criterion D can be applied to buildings,

structures, and objects that can relay vital information, though this is rare.130

After the resource has been evaluated under one or more of the National Register

Criteria for Evaluation, if there are no criteria considerations, and the historic context,

area, level, and period of significance have been established, the integrity of the resource

then needs to be examined. In this case, integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to

convey its significance.”131 For a National Register nomination, there are seven aspects

of integrity to consider.

Location refers to the resources’ relationship with the location of the resource or

the historic event. In most cases, the integrity of location is retained, unless the resource

has been relocated from its original site.132 Design refers to the components that create the structure and aesthetic of the property and is an element that was intentional in the planning and construction of the resource.133 Setting refers not to the resource’s physical

location, but to the environment that makes up the physical location. This can include

natural geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or manmade features such as

129 Ibid., 17. 130 Ibid., 21. 131 Ibid., 44. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid., 44-45.

paths and buildings. Materials are the physical elements that make up the historic

resource. Workmanship refers to the evident craftsmanship of a specific architecture or

culture that constructed the historic resource.134 Feeling refers to the property’s ability to

express an aesthetic that represents a certain period of time.135 Finally, association is the

link between the resource and the historic event or person that lends the resource its

significance.136 In order to be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource

should retain most of the seven aspects of integrity, but it is only imperative that a

resource retain those aspects for which it is significant.

Significance

Integrity

The Roush Residence retains its overall identity and a high amount of historic integrity. The building remains on the site on which it was originally constructed, so the resource retains the location aspect of its integrity. The Roush Residence fully retains its integrity of design. Constructed as a hexagonal, with a unique floor plan, custom three sink bathroom, and fire red, open web, steel beams, the Roush Residence remains today

134 Ibid., 45. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid.

57 as Waters originally designed it. The setting of the resource also remains in-tact.

Originally constructed in the newly developed neighborhood of Arden Oaks, the Roush

Residence remains part of this historic neighborhood. This resource was surrounded with trees and foliage when it was constructed in 1954, to provide some privacy to the residents since the walls are predominately glass, and the trees and foliage are still present and serving the same purpose.

The materials used in the construction of the residence are mostly original, though some of the plate glass has been replaced in kind over the sixty-five years since the construction of the house. The roof of the residence was redone in 2011, though since the roof remains flat, there was no change to the integrity of the building. The identifying stonework, terrazzo marble, redwood siding, and steel beams are original to the 1954 construction. The integrity of the workmanship that crafted the Roush Residence is fully retained. The aesthetic principles of the Mid-Century Modern movement in Sacramento, as well as the aesthetic principles of Waters’ Organic style design are evident. The aspect of feeling for the Roush Residence is also retained. The property is enclosed with tall trees and foliage, creating a feel for nature and accentuating the resource’s unique architecture reminiscent of mid-century America. The Roush Residence does not retain the aspect of association, because it is not applicable to this resource, since the resource is not associated with a historic event or figure.

Overall, the Roush Residence retains six of the seven aspects of integrity. It is most important that the Roush Residence retain its design, materials, workmanship, and setting, none of which have been altered heavily, if at all, from their original state. These

aspects of integrity are the most important in determining the overall integrity of the

property, because the Roush Residence is being nominated to the National Register for its

unique architecture under Criterion C. The Roush Residence retains its identity through

these aspects of integrity.

Evaluation

When evaluating a resource’s eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places it is imperative that the nominator evaluate the property under all four criteria, as a resource may be eligible for listing in the National Register under more than one criterion. The following will evaluate the Roush Residence under each of the

National Register criteria based on its contextual themes developed within this thesis.

The Roush Residence retains strong historical associations with the design themes of the

Mid-Century Modern movement and the cultural themes of the suburbanization movement, which occurred in tandem in the mid-1900s.

This property is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A under any level of significance. Although the Roush Residence was a part of the Mid-

Century Modern movement throughout Sacramento, it is not an important site associated

with the pattern of events. The Mid-Century Modern movement in Sacramento spawned the construction of hundreds of modern tract homes and numerous modernistic commercial and civic buildings. The Roush Residence was not the first, last, or most influential building that was constructed as a result of this movement, and therefore cannot be found eligible for its association with the events of the Mid-Century Modern

Movement in Sacramento.

There is no evidence which suggests that this house is associated with any persons who were influential to local, state, or national history. The Roush family was the first family to occupy the home. Although Robert Roush founded his company, Roush Bakery

Products, in Sacramento in 1948, this did not alter the path of history within the community. Patricia Geyer, a retired educator and the current owner, has been the only other resident of the property since its construction, and therefore this resource is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B.

This nomination concerns the built structure, therefore according to Bulletin

Fifteen of the National Register, this evaluation does not consider the archaeological possibilities of the 1.67 acres on which the Roush Residence rests. There is no evidence to suggest that any important information can be extracted from the Roush Residence itself, therefore this resource is not eligible for listing in the National Register under

Criterion D.

The Roush Residence embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Mid-Century

Modern movement in Sacramento and is the preeminent example of residential Organic style architecture in the Sacramento area.137 This resource represents the work of prominent Organic architect, Terry Waters. Waters pulled on his Taliesin Fellowship with Wright and his apprenticeship with John Lautner to design the Roush Residence with an Organic aesthetic. Though there are numerous Mid-Century Modern residential properties throughout the Sacramento suburbs, this residence is unique due to its architectural style. The Roush Residence stands as an ode to the pure, natural aesthetics

137 Andrus, 17.

representative of Organic architecture, while the other residential homes designed during

this era of architecture are mostly Ranch style or split-level tract homes. The Roush

Residence has received excitement and acclaim for its unique architecture since its

construction in 1954 and deserves to be recognized and preserved. The Roush Residence meets Criterion C of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation because it possesses high artistic value through its expression of the Organic Style aesthetic ideal.

Eligibility

After evaluating all aspects of the Roush Residence, including its period of significance, historic context, level of significance, special considerations, and integrity, under the Criteria for Evaluation set forth in Bulletin Fifteen of the National Register of

Historic Places, the Roush Residence is found eligible for listing in the National Register.

The Roush Residence is being nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places under Criterion C at the local level, with a 1954 period of significance.

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions.

1. Name of Property Historic name: Roush Residence Other names/site number: ______Name of related multiple property listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ______

2. Location Street & number: 1701 Maple Glen Road City or town: Sacramento State: California County: Sacramento

Not For Publication: Vicinity: ______

3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination__ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: ___national ___statewide ___local Applicable National Register Criteria: ___A ___B ___C ___D

Signature of certifying official/Title: Date ______State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.

Signature of commenting official: Date

Title : State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

______

4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) ______

______Signature of the Keeper Date of Action

______

5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) Private: x

Public – Local

Public – State

Public – Federal

Category of Property (Check only one box.)

Building(s) x

District

Site

Structure

Object

Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing ______1______buildings

______sites

______structures

______objects

______1______Total

Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register N/A ______

6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) Domestic: Single Dwelling

Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) Domestic: Single Dwelling

______

7. Description

Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions.) Modern Movement: Organic Style

Materials: (enter categories from instructions.) Principal exterior materials of the property: aggregate concrete, glass, redwood, and stone

Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) ______

Summary Paragraph

Built in 1954 designed by architect Terry Waters, 1701 Maple Glen Road, Sacramento, is an Organic style, 2897 square-foot, one-story, three-bedroom, three-bathroom, hexagonal residence. Waters designed the Roush Residence to exist in harmony with its natural

65 surroundings and relied on the expanses of plate glass walls and the property’s geometric shape to accomplish this. The Roush Residence has a flat, composite roof, with overhanging eaves, is supported by a steel frame, and sits on a concrete foundation. The walls of the house are constructed from a combination of large expanses of plate glass and lightweight aggregate blocks clad in vertical tongue and groove redwood siding and stonework. Keeping in line with the Organic architectural style, which champions functionality and cohesion with the surrounding environment, this house lacks ornamentation, aside from the red, open web steel beams throughout the property. The Roush Residence is in good condition and retains a high amount of historic integrity. ______

Narrative Description

Southern Façade The south facing façade is the primary wall of the property. Below the open web steel beam, there are four large, horizontal, fixed windows. Below the windows, the walls are clad in stonework. To the right of these windows sits the wood-framed, glass front door. Extending outward from the front door, there is a wall clad in vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding, creating an upside down “L” shape at the front of the house, though the angle is slightly larger than 90 degrees. The roof and open web steel beam extend from this wall, creating a covered carport that is supported by thin cylindrical steel supports, and is enclosed by three walls constructed with aggregate blocks, clad in vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding. Following the path to the front door and extending to the left across the south of the house, there is a short stone wall that defines the walkway, which is made up of Italian marble terrazzo.

Western Elevation The western elevation consists of two distinct walls, divided by a protruding piece of stonework. The leftmost wall has a long, horizontal, fixed, wood-framed window directly under the eave, and is clad in vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding. Next to the first horizontal fixed window, there is a two by two combination, wood-framed window, with the two segments at the top that are much thinner than the bottom two. To the right of this combination window, there are two more long, horizontal, fixed, wood-framed windows directly below the eave. To the right of the horizontal, fixed, wood-framed window and the vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding on the western elevation, there is a large piece of protruding stonework that meets in an acute angle and separates the two walls that make up the western elevation of the residence. On the right of the protruding stonework, the wall is constructed completely from plate glass. Sitting to the right of the plate glass wall is a wood-framed glass door. On the right of the door, there is a large horizontal fixed window that sits above an aggregate block wall, clad in stonework.

Northern Elevation The northern elevation of the residence is almost completely inaccessible due to foliage and overgrowth. This wall is diagonal extending from the eastern side of the property and declining toward the western wall. The fixed, wood-framed windows directly below the roofline extend across this wall. Below these windows, the wall is clad in vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding. At the easternmost side of this wall, there is a large piece of stonework that extends from the roofline to the bottom of the wall.

Eastern Elevation The eastern elevation of the property is the most embellished. Made up of three sections of wall, this is the most angular and divided elevation of the property. Beginning with the wall that meets the north elevation and working back toward the façade of the property, the first section of wall has long, horizontal, fixed windows directly below the roofline, followed by a stonework clad wall below. Protruding from under the large overhanging eaves are two decorative red open web steel beams that extend out and meet in a point away from the façade. Continuing to the left, the wall consists of large vertical aluminum-framed plate glass. In the center of this wall, there is a wood-framed double glass door. To the left of this door, there is more aluminum-framed vertical plate glass, which meets a section of vertical wood paneling. Right of center on the wood paneled section of wall, there is a small, wood-framed, fixed window. To the left of this wood paneling, there is a single wood-framed glass door under a small roof covering, encased on the left by a wall of painted aggregate blocks, topped with the horizontal windows below the roofline, similar to those throughout the rest of the property. Extending from the roofline over the large wall of plate glass and vertical wood paneling on the eastern elevation, there is a large extension of roof that acts as a small porch, supported by thin cylindrical steel posts, which covers the Italian marble terrazzo floor that extends outward from the inside of the property. Protruding from the roof line on this angular section of wall, there are three pieces of open web steel beam, also supported by thin, cylindrical steel posts that extend toward one another, meeting near the edge of the porch covering. Cutting away from the wall of painted aggregate block and plate glass, the wall turns to create another sharp angle. Continuing down this wall, toward the southern facing façade, there is a long vertical aluminum-framed plate glass wall. This plate glass extends until it meets the eastern side of the carport, which extends off the southern wall of the residence. The eastern elevation of the carport has a characteristic red, open web steel beam right below the roof line. Directly below, there is a long horizontal gap to mimic the fixed window placement on the rest of the residence below the roofline. Under this gap, the wall is constructed from painted aggregate block.

Other Features Portions of the north and east sides of the property are fenced in with walls clad with vertical, tongue and groove redwood siding facing the street and exposed, painted aggregate block facing the property, which completes the hexagonal, geometric shape of the residence. The red open web steel beams extend from the roofline over the fencing to match the façade of the main house. The entire property is heavily shrouded in trees and

shrubbery to create privacy for the residents. Other defining design elements of this property include the in-ground pool and attached slide located in the back yard, the conical metal fireplace that acts as a center piece of the residence, the unique three sink bathroom, designed specifically for the three Roush daughters, the large portions of interior stonework, the triangular, Italian marble terrazzo showers, and the moveable partition walls.

Alterations The Roush Residence has undergone few alterations since its construction in 1954. Over the past sixty years, pieces of the plate glass that form much of the walls of the house have cracked and have been replaced in kind, though there is no record of exactly which pieces. In 2011, the property was reroofed, but the roof remains flat, retaining its historic integrity. In 2018, an HVAC was installed, along with new piping/cooling system on the roof. Though the new piping is visible, it is not architectural, and could be removed, so the property retains its integrity.

Integrity The Roush Residence retains its overall identity and a high amount of historic integrity. The building remains on the site on which it was originally constructed, so the resource retains the location aspect of its integrity. The Roush Residence fully retains its integrity of design. Constructed as a hexagon, with an unusual floor plan, and incorporating a custom three sink bathroom and fire red open web steel beams, the Roush Residence remains today how Waters originally designed it.

The setting of the resource also remains intact. Originally constructed in the newly developed neighborhood of Arden Oaks, the Roush Residence remains part of the historic neighborhood. This resource was surrounded with trees and foliage when it was constructed in 1954 to provide some privacy to the residents and the trees and foliage are still present and serving the same purpose.

The materials used in the construction of the residence are mostly original, though some of the plate glass has been replaced in kind over the sixty years since the construction of the house. The roof of the residence was redone in 2011, though since the roof remains flat there was no change to the integrity of the building. The identifying stonework, terrazzo marble, redwood siding, and steel beams are original to the 1954 period of significance. The integrity of the workmanship that crafted the Roush Residence is fully retained. The aesthetic principles of the Mid-Century Modern movement in Sacramento, as well as the aesthetic principles of Water’s Organic style design remain evident. The aspect of feeling for the Roush Residence is also retained. The property is enclosed with tall trees and foliage, creating a feel for nature and accentuating the resource’s rare architectural style reminiscent of mid-century America. The Roush Residence does not retain the aspect of association, because it is not applicable to this resource, since the resource is not associated with a historic event or figure.

Overall, the Roush Residence retains six of the seven aspects of integrity. It is most important that the Roush Residence retain its design, materials, workmanship, and setting, none of which have been altered much, if at all, from their original state. ______8. Statement of Significance

Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.)

A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

x C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations (Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.)

A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes

B. Removed from its original location

C. A birthplace or grave

D. A cemetery

E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure

F. A commemorative property

G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years

Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.) Architecture

Period of Significance 1954

Significant Dates N/A

Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.)

N/A

Cultural Affiliation N/A

Architect/Builder Terrance Waters

Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.)

The Roush Residence is categorized as a building and is significant under the theme of architecture, due to its Organic style architecture. The period of significance for the Roush Residence is 1954, because that is the year that the house was constructed and first occupied. The Roush Residence is significant at the local level, because of the exemplary representative example of residential Organic style architecture for the Sacramento area. The Roush Residence is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C because it is the epitome of residential Organic style architecture in the Sacramento area, and it possesses high artistic value through its expression of the Organic Style aesthetic ideal. The unique custom residence was designed by Terry Waters. Waters honed his craft under renowned architects Frank Lloyd Wright and John Lautner. Waters was a Taliesin Fellow, where he studied the Organic style principles of architecture developed by Wright, which eventually guided his design of the Roush Residence.138 ______

Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.)

Criterion C: Design/Construction

The Roush Residence embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern movement in Sacramento and is the preeminent example of residential Organic style architecture in the Sacramento area. Though there are numerous Mid-Century Modern residential properties throughout the Sacramento suburbs, this residence is unique due to its architectural style. The Roush Residence stands as an ode to the pure, natural aesthetics representative of Organic architecture, while the other residential homes designed during this era of architecture are mostly Ranch style or split-level tract homes. The Roush Residence has received excitement and acclaim for its unique architecture since its construction in 1954 and deserves to be recognized and preserved. The Roush Residence meets Criterion C of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation because it possesses high artistic value through its expression of the Organic Style aesthetic ideal.

138 Steinberg, Henas, and Lial, 8-10.; Twombly, 130.

Historic Context

The suburbs of Sacramento have an extensive developmental history which has shaped the cultural and physical aspects of these neighborhoods. The Roush Residence rests on 1.37 acres of land in the Arden Oaks neighborhood of the unincorporated Arden-Arcade area of Sacramento County. Once occupied by the Maidu people, the recorded history of this area, which sits northeast of present-day Sacramento, began with John Sutter.139 After fleeing debt in Switzerland and scheming his way across the United States, John Augustus Sutter was the first European to establish a permanent settlement in the Sacramento region.

Sutter petitioned for Mexican citizenship and a land grant on August 29, 1840, and by June 1841 he received a grant for 44,000 acres, which he called New Helvetia.140 This area encompassed much of present-day Sacramento county and portions of Yuba and Sutter counties. Sutter looked at this region and all those who resided in it as opportunities for gain and development, using the Native American population as his main source of labor.141 Due to discrepancies in Sutter’s land surveys, some of Sutter’s grant boundaries were ambiguous.142 On August 10, 1843, Sutter deeded the land between the American and Feather Rivers to John Sinclair, Hiram Grimes, and Eliab Grimes, presumably unaware that this land did not legally belong to him. This contested deed of land became Rancho Del Paso.143

Rancho Del Paso

John Sinclair, Hiram Grimes, and Eliab Grimes were businessmen who supplied Sutter’s fort and some of his other endeavors in the region. The deeding of Rancho Del Paso to the Grimeses and Sinclair was most likely a form of payment for their business dealings with Sutter.144 With the initial deed from Sutter being dubious, Eliab Grimes sought to get a better title to the rancho, so he petitioned the Mexican government for a new land grant for the same area on December 16, 1844. Mexican governor General Manuel Micheltorena approved Grimes’ request four days later, on the conditions that Grimes live on and develop the rancho, and that a local judge have the land surveyed more accurately. Hiram Grimes and John Sinclair were not mentioned in the new Mexican deed to Rancho Del Paso, but they remained partners and lived on the land.145

139 Raymond Oliver, Rancho Del Paso: A History of the Land Surrounding McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento ALC Historical Study 82 (McClellan Air Force Base, California: Office of History Sacramento Air Logistics Center, 1983), 1. 140 Steven M. Avella, Sacramento: Indomitable City (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2003), 17-22. 141 Oliver, 1. 142 Avella, 21. 143 Oliver, 2. 144 Ibid., 8. 145 Ibid., 8-10.

John Sinclair had the most successful homestead on Rancho Del Paso. Sinclair and his wife Mary had a modest home and barns for their cattle, sheep, and rams. They were also able to successfully grow wheat, a feat at which Sutter had failed. Throughout the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) life on Rancho Del Paso continued unphased, and Sinclair’s business dealings thrived. By 1847 Sinclair had so much business to attend to, that he began to hire Mormon craftsmen that had recently arrived in California. Sinclair was so well respected in the region that be became Sacramento’s first alcalde, a position that encompassed the duties of mayor and judge.146 Sinclair’s life on Rancho Del Paso continued peacefully until January 24, 1848 when James Marshall discovered gold at the saw mill he was building for Sutter in the Sierra Foothills, near Coloma.147

After the 1848 discovery of gold, the Gold Rush took over life on the rancho. Many of the Mormon craftsmen that Sinclair hired fled in search of gold, leaving Sinclair dependent on his Native American workers.148 Soon after Sinclair’s homestead began to fall apart because of the Gold Rush, Eliab Grimes died in November 1848, at the age of 69. Hiram Grimes asserted himself as sole heir to Eliab Grimes’ Rancho Del Paso land, but a number of Eliab’s relatives challenged Hiram’s claim in lawsuits that went as far as the United States Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Sinclair sold his portion of the Rancho Del Paso land to Hiram Grimes in February 1849, for 5,000 dollars, and set out for the eastern United States, though he passed away on his journey. Hiram Grimes then sold his compiled land to Samuel Norris in August 1849, for 8,000 dollars.149

At this point, the land that comprised Rancho Del Paso was being contested in more than one arena. Due to the confusion following the Mexican-American War and the annexation of California in 1850, acquiring a deed for the land from the United States government was an arduous and expensive process. Finally, on May 4, 1858, Samuel Norris received a grant from the United States for the entirety of the land that comprised Rancho Del Paso.150 Though, this was not the end of Norris’ legal battles for Rancho Del Paso. Eliab Grimes’ relatives brought court cases against Norris, arguing that Hiram Grimes’ sale of the land was illegal, due to their belief that Eliab Grimes’ will was fraudulent. This litigation went on for eight years, and was heard in the California Supreme Court, and eventually the United States Supreme Court, where Norris was deemed the legal owner of Rancho Del Paso.151

146 Ibid., 10-11. 147 Ibid., 11. 148 Ibid., 11-12. 149 Ibid., 11-13. 150 W.A. Anderson, “History of Rancho Del Paso,” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento) January 6, 1914, 5, Accessed February 19, 2019, https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SU19140106.2.79&e=------en--20-- 1--txt-txIN------1. 151 Oliver, 15.

After the tedious process of being granted a United States patent for Rancho Del Paso and the years of legal battles, Norris lost ownership of the rancho. Throughout the decade long fight for Rancho Del Paso, attorneys James Ben Ali Haggin and Lloyd Tevis represented Samuel Norris, and though Norris was declared the legal owner of Rancho Del Paso on April 30, 1860, he was in immense debt to Haggin and Tevis, as well as others throughout the Sacramento Region.152 Unable to pay Haggin and Tevis for their services, all of Norris’ land was transferred to the pair by the master in equity of the circuit court of the United States on May 9,1862, making Tevis and Haggin the sole owners of Rancho Del Paso. In 1885, Norris attempted to sue Haggin and Tevis for ownership of Rancho Del Paso, arguing that while he was ill Haggin and Tevis conspired to take the land from him, though this case was dismissed.153

Haggin Ranch

After acquiring the rancho in 1862, Haggin and Tevis kept the land largely intact. They rented some portions near the American River to tenants for wheat farming, and grazed cattle and sheep to the north.154 In 1891, Haggin and Tevis incorporated the Rancho Del Paso Land Company, and they sold Rancho Del Paso to their land company for ten dollars, ending their reign as ranking members of the last great land barons.155 Both men were successful in their many other endeavors, including mining operations, and it was not long before Haggin realized one of his most important passions would be well suited for the land and climate of Rancho Del Paso.156

Shortly after acquiring the rancho, Haggin tapped into his equestrian Kentuckian roots, and began converting much of Rancho Del Paso into land for thoroughbred breeding and training racehorses. The land that comprised Rancho Del Paso, was split between two distinct uses. Near the Southern Pacific rail station, there were houses and barns for Haggin’s employees and horses. Haggin used this depot as a shipping center for selling his prized racehorses. This area came to be known as “The Arcade”, because Haggin’s employees deemed it such, due to the expanse of trees in the area.157 The other area of Rancho Del Paso, near the American River, was deemed “The Bottom,” and was where employees trained the young thoroughbreds.158

From 1882 until 1891 Haggin raced horses successfully. Though Haggin stopped racing his horses in 1891, he continued to breed and sell his acclaimed bloodlines from Rancho Del Paso in venues such as New York and England until 1905.159 Due to the fame from

152 Ibid. 153 Anderson, 5. 154 Oliver, 20. 155 Anderson, 5. 156 Anderson, 5. 157 Oliver, 22. 158 Ibid., 23. 159 Ibid., 23-24.

Haggin’s racehorses, the area became associated strongly with Haggin, even being referred to as Haggin Ranch, although Lloyd Tevis was still half owner of the land.160

Development of Arden Oaks

Pressure from the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce on Haggin and Tevis to sell their rancho for community development persuaded the pair to list Rancho Del Paso for sale at an asking price of two million dollars in 1905. In 1910, the Sacramento Valley Colonization Company, a subsidiary of the United States Farm Land Company, purchased the rancho for 1.5 million dollars.161 This sale of Rancho Del Paso to the Sacramento Valley Colonization Company spawned the development of multiple areas of Sacramento County, including Carmichael, Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, North Sacramento, Del Paso Heights, and Arden-Arcade.162

In 1910, O. A. Robertson, president of the Sacramento Valley Colonization Company had the roughly 44,000 acres of Rancho Del Paso surveyed and divided into quarter sections. These quarter sections were made up of tracts of five, ten, fifteen, and twenty-acre parcels of land, to which Robertson began to sell to developers.163 Throughout early development of this area, the land was predominately used for farming citrus, alfalfa, wheat, and other produce, though some of the area, including the land that the Roush Residence was constructed on, remained undeveloped for some time. The years following World War I saw a population boom in Sacramento, but the new development created by this population increase was soon halted by the Great Depression and the impact of World War II.

In the years following World War II, there was a land rush in the area surrounding the city of Sacramento. The surplus of jobs created by surrounding air force bases McClellan and Mather, and private defense firms such as Aerojet, made the area highly desirable for the service people returning to the United States from arenas of war. This population influx, combined with White Flight from the greater Sacramento area, and access to newly funded highways which made commuting to the city a realistic option, created the opportunity for the development of suburban neighborhoods.164 This growth expanded

160 Anderson, 5. 161 Tom Harvey and Nancy Harvey, “History of Arden Oaks,” ardenoaks.org, Accessed February 27, 2019, https://ardenoaks.org/history.; “May Build Its Own Road,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) May 18, 1910, 5, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infowebnewsbankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps/news/document-view. 162 Steven M. Avella, The Good Life: Sacramento’s Consumer Culture (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2009), 100. 163 “Demonstration Farm Selected,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) May 24, 1910, 5, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infoweb-newsbank-com.www.saclibrarycatalog.org/apps/news/document- view.; Avella, 80. 164 Ibid., 102.

through already developed areas, such as Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, and Del Paso Heights, and also created new growth that expanded into the Arden-Arcade area.165

The land rush on the Arden-Arcade area occurred over the first weekend of October in 1945, when the Wright and Kimbrough Company opened Arden Park Vista and Williams and Williams opened Arden Oaks, two suburban real estate developments, over the same weekend. Developers successfully used advertisements like “Romance! In Real Country Living,” to entice newcomers to the suburbs of Sacramento by alluding to the land’s rich history, resources, and access to modern amenities and city life, while still living a quiet suburban life. Williams and Williams sold 28 of their 50 lots in one afternoon at an average of 2,350 dollars each.166 Many of the homes within these real estate developments were massed produced or designed and constructed by the developers, but this was not the case for the Roush Residence.

In 1952, Robert and Jan Roush purchased lot 73 of the Arden Oaks subdivision and made arrangements for the house that would be built there. Robert and his family moved to California in the 1940s. In 1948, Robert founded Roush Bakery Products, a bread mix company which became nationally known for their multi-grain Hillbilly bread, in Sacramento.167 Robert hired Jan’s brother-in-law, prominent architect Terry Waters, to design a custom, functional home that would allow the Roush family to thrive in a nature- oriented setting.168 Utilizing materials from local California and Sacramento companies, Waters designed and over-saw construction of the hexagonal, uber-modern residence that has been generating attention since its completion in 1954.169 The Roush Residence is a part of a suburban Sacramento neighborhood which was born out of World War II and the resulting Mid-Century suburban movement. These events in world and Sacramento history have worked in tandem to create the unique circumstances in which the Roush Residence was conceptualized and constructed.

165 Ibid., 103. 166 “Weekend Land Rush Is Staged in Arden Area,” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) October 8, 1945, 1, Accessed February 23, 2019, https://0-infowebnewsbankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps/news/document-view. 167 “Robert L. Roush obituary,” The Desert Sun (Palm Springs) December 4, 2011, 29, Accessed February 11, 2019, https://desertsun.newspapers.com/image/195258212/?terms=robert%2Bl%2Broush%2 Bobituary. 168 Steinberg, Henas, and Lial, 6. 169 Ibid., 4.

______Major Bibliographical References

Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)

Andrus, Patrick W. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” District of Columbia: United States Department of the Interior, 1994. Anderson, W.A. “History of Rancho Del Paso,” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento California), January 6, 1914. Accessed February 19, 2019. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/ ?a=d& =SU19140106.2.79&e=------en--20--1--txt-txIN------1. Avella, Steven M. Sacramento: Indomitable City. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2003. ———. The Good Life: Sacramento’s Consumer Culture. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2009. Benson, Virginia O., and Richard Klein. Historic Preservation for Professionals. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 2008. “Claud Beelman.” Los Angeles Conservancy. Accessed February 13, 2019. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/claud-beelman. “Demonstration Farm Selected.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, California) May 24, 1910. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0-infoweb-newsbank-com. www.saclibrarycatalog.org/apps/news/document-view. Forging a Future with a Past: Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California. Sacramento, California: Office of Historic Preservation, 1997). GEI Consulting, Inc. “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results.” City of Sacramento Community Development Department Project no. 1701630. Sacramento, 2017. Harvey, Tom, and Nancy Harvey. “History of Arden Oaks.” ardenoaks.org. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://ardenoaks.org/history. Hata, Nadine Ishitani. The Historic Preservation Movement in California 1940-1976. California: California Department of Parks and Recreation/Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. District of Columbia: United States Department of the Interior, 1997. “John Lautner.” Los Angeles Conservancy. Accessed February 13, 2019. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/john-lautner. John Lautner papers, 1929-2002. The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. Accession no. 2007.M.13. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/cifa2007m13. “May Built Its Own Road.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, California), May 18, 1910. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0-infowebnewsbankcom. www.saclibrary catalog.org/apps/news/document-view.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017. Murtagh, William J., Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. Oliver, Raymond. Rancho Del Paso: A History of the Land Surrounding McClellan Air Force Base., Sacramento ALC Historical Study 82. McClellan Air Force Base, California: Office of History Sacramento Air Logistics Center, 1983. “On Display…The Roush Residence, California’s Most Talked-About Home.” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento, California), June 25, 1954. Page, Max. Why Preservation Matters. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2016. Rains, Albert, and Laurance G. Henderson. With Heritage So Rich. New York, Random House, 1966. “Robert L. Roush obituary.” The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, California), December 4, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2019. https://desertsun.newspapers.com/image/ 195258212/?terms=robert%2Bl%2Broush%2 Bobituary. Sanders, Scott Russel. “The Geography of Somewhere.” Civic Tourism: The Poetry and Politics of Place, by Dan Schilling. Prescott, Arizona: Sharlot Hall Museum Press, 2007. Sprinkle, Jr, John H. Crafting Preservation Criteria: The National Register of Historic Places and American Historic Preservation. New York: Routledge, 2014. Steinberg, Gretchen, Dane Henas, and Karen Lial. “A Celebration of the Roush Residence.” Sacramento Modern. June 2, 2012. Twombly, Robert C. “Organic Living: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin Fellowship and Georgi Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 58, no. 4 (1974-1975). Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000. “Weekend Land Rush Is Staged in Arden Area.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, California), October 8, 1945. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0 infowebnews bankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps /news/document-view. Weinberg, Nathan. Preservation in American Towns and Cities. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1979. ______

Previous documentation on file (NPS):

____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested ____ previously listed in the National Register ____ previously determined eligible by the National Register ____ designated a National Historic Landmark ____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #______recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # ______recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ______

Primary location of additional data: ____ State Historic Preservation Office ____ Other State agency ____ Federal agency __x_ Local government __x_ University _x__ Other Name of repository: Sacramento County Recorder’s Office, Sacramento County Assessor’s Office, Sacramento County Planning Department, Sacramento Room, Sacramento Public Library, California State University, Sacramento, University of California, Davis

______

9. Geographical Data

Acreage of Property 2897 square feet (house) Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates

Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (decimal degrees) Datum if other than WGS84:______(enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: 38.596243 Longitude: -121.373750

Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.)

The boundary of the Roush Residence is defined by the assessor parcel number 281-0352-008-0000.

Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.)

The Roush Residence is located on a 1.37-acre lot in the Arden Oaks Neighborhood of Sacramento, California.

______10. Form Prepared By

name/title: Skylar Ensbury organization: California State University, Sacramento, Public History street & number: 7*** W******* Court city or town: Sacramento state: California zip code: 95628 e-mail: [email protected] telephone: (916) 4**-**** date: February 2019

______

Additional Documentation

Submit the following items with the completed form:

• Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.

• Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.

• Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.)

USGS Map USGS 7.5 Series Topographic Map, Sacramento County, Carmichael Quadrangle Roush Residence indicated in yellow

Sketch Map Sacramento County Clerk’s Office, map book 23, page 10. The Roush Residence is located on parcel 73.

Photographs Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every photograph.

Photo Log

Name of Property: Roush Residence

City or Vicinity: Sacramento

County: Sacramento State: California

Photographer: Skylar Ensbury

Date Photographed: January 2019

Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera:

1 of 11. South facing façade of the Roush Residence, camera facing north.

2 of 11. South facing façade of the residence, camera facing north.

3 of 11. Western facing elevation, camera facing east.

4 of 11. Western facing elevation, camera facing east.

5 of 11. Eastern facing elevation, camera aimed west.

6 of 11. Eastern facing elevation, camera facing west.

7 of 11. Another portion of the eastern facing elevation, camera facing west.

8 of 11. Eastern facing elevation of the carport, camera facing west.

9 of 11. Roush Residence built in pool and slide on the east side of the property, camera facing east.

10 of 11. Conical fire place inside the living room of the Roush Residence, camera facing south.

11 of 11. Google satellite image of the Roush Residence.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Bibliography

Andrus, Patrick W. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” District of Columbia: United States Department of the Interior, 1994.

Anderson, W.A. “History of Rancho Del Paso,” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento), January 6, 1914. Accessed February 19, 2019. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/ ?a=d& =SU19140106.2.79&e=------en--20--1--txt-txIN------1.

Avella, Steven M. Sacramento: Indomitable City. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2003.

———. The Good Life: Sacramento’s Consumer Culture. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2009.

Benson, Virginia O., and Richard Klein. Historic Preservation for Professionals. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 2008.

“Certified Local Government Program.” Office of Historic Preservation. Accessed July 23, 2019. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239.

“Claud Beelman.” Los Angeles Conservancy. Accessed February 13, 2019. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/claud-beelman.

“Demonstration Farm Selected.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento) May 24, 1910. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0-infoweb-newsbank-com. www.saclibrarycatalog.org/apps/news/document-view.

Forging a Future with a Past: Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California. Sacramento, California: Office of Historic Preservation, 1997).

Friedman, Alice T. American Glamour and the Evolution of Modern Architecture. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010.

GEI Consulting, Inc. “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results.” City of Sacramento Community Development Department Project no. 1701630. Sacramento, 2017.

Hammet, Ralph Warner. Architecture in the United States: A Survey of Architectural Styles Since 1776. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976).

Harvey, Tom, and Nancy Harvey. “History of Arden Oaks.” ardenoaks.org. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://ardenoaks.org/history.

Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.

Hata, Nadine Ishitani. The Historic Preservation Movement in California 1940-1976. California: California Department of Parks and Recreation/Office of Historic Preservation, 1992.

How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. District of Columbia: United States Department of the Interior, 1997.

“John Lautner.” Los Angeles Conservancy. Accessed February 13, 2019. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/john-lautner.

John Lautner papers, 1929-2002. The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. Accession no. 2007.M.13. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/cifa2007m13.

Lea, Diane. “America’s Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals.” In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, 1-20. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Lee, Antoinette J. “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation.” In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, 386-404. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

“May Built Its Own Road.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento), May 18, 1910. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0-infowebnewsbankcom. www.saclibrary catalog.org/apps/news/document-view.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017.

Meringolo, Denise D. Museums, Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012.

Murtagh, William J., Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

Oliver, Raymond. Rancho Del Paso: A History of the Land Surrounding McClellan Air Force Base., Sacramento ALC Historical Study 82. McClellan Air Force Base, California: Office of History Sacramento Air Logistics Center, 1983.

“On Display…The Roush Residence, California’s Most Talked-About Home.” The Sacramento Union (Sacramento), June 25, 1954.

“Organic Architecture.” Guggenheim. Accessed April 9, 2019, https://www.guggenheim. org/arts-curriculum/topic/organic-architecture.

Page, Max. Why Preservation Matters. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2016.

Poppeliers, John C. and S. Allen Chambers Jr. What Style is It?: A Guide to American Architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

“Preservation.” City of Sacramento Community Development. Accessed April 10, 2019. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Urban- Design/Preservation.

“Preservation Ordinance.” Preservation Sacramento. Accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.preservationsacramento.org/local-law.

Rains, Albert, and Laurance G. Henderson. With Heritage So Rich. New York, Random House, 1966.

“Robert L. Roush obituary.” The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, California), December 4, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2019. https://desertsun.newspapers.com/image/ 195258212/?terms=robert%2Bl%2Broush%2 Bobituary.

“Romance! In Real Country Living.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento), October 6, 1945. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0-infowebnewsbankcom. www.saclibrary catalog.org/apps /news/document-view.

Roth, Leland M. A Concise History of American Architecture. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

Sanders, Scott Russel. “The Geography of Somewhere.” Civic Tourism: The Poetry and Politics of Place, by Dan Schilling. Prescott, Arizona: Sharlot Hall Museum Press, 2007.

Sprinkle, Jr, John H. Crafting Preservation Criteria: The National Register of Historic Places and American Historic Preservation. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Steinberg, Gretchen, Dane Henas, and Karen Lial. “A Celebration of the Roush Residence.” Sacramento Modern. June 2, 2012.

Stipe, Robert E. “Where Do We Go from Here?” In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, 451-493. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Tafuri, Manfredo. Modern Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1976.

Twombly, Robert C. “Organic Living: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin Fellowship and Georgi Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 58, no. 4 (1974-1975).

Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.

“Weekend Land Rush Is Staged in Arden Area.” The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento), October 8, 1945. Accessed February 23, 2019. https://0 infowebnews bankcom.www.saclibrarycatalog.org /apps /news/document-view.

Weinberg, Nathan. Preservation in American Towns and Cities. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1979.

Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1969.