The Use of Porches in a New Urbanist Community: a Case Study Mary Elizabeth Smallwood

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2007 The Use of Porches in A New Urbanist Community: A Case Study Mary Elizabeth Smallwood

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS, THEATRE, AND DANCE

THE USE OF PORCHES IN A NEW URBANIST COMMUNITY: A CASE STUDY

MARY ELIZABETH WEEMS SMALLWOOD

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Interior Design in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester 2007

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Mary Elizabeth Smallwood defended on October 26, 2007.

______Dr. Lisa Waxman Professor Directing Thesis

______Dr. Jill Pable Committee Member

______Tock Ohazama Committee Member

Approved:

______Eric Wiedegreen, Chair, Department of Interior Design

______Sally McRorie, Dean, College of Visual Arts, Theatre and Dance

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

This Thesis is dedicated to my lovely and wonderful Father, Dr. Henry Clayton Smallwood (1928-1991). You taught me to believe that I could do anything I wanted to do and that there was no handicap that would ever stand in my way. I am forever blessed for your love.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my wonderful parents, Dr. Royce and Mary Lane Hood, my sister, Amanda Smallwood, and all the faculty of the Interior Design Department at Florida State University for their contributions to the success of my education and for helping me build the foundation necessary for a promising career. I would be remiss if I failed to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Rick Navarro, my first major professor, for his constant encouragement and support, while he was on the faculty at Florida State University. Next, to my current major professor, Dr. Lisa Waxman, I thank you for your time and unending support, assistance, and encouragement while I accomplished this thesis. Last, but certainly not least, my heartfelt gratitude goes to the committee members, Dr. Jill Pable and Mr.Tock Ohazama for all their time and involvement in the design decision for my thesis paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….. viii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………. xi

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………... 1

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY……………………………………… 2

DEFINTIONS…………………………………………………………….. 2

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………..…………………... 5

INTRODUCTION…………………….. …………………………. 5

BACKGROUND INFORMATION……………………………… 5

SEARCH TECHNIQUES………………………………………… 6

DEFINITIONS OF NEW URBANISM AND COMMUNITY………….. 6

DEFINING NEW URBANISM………………………….. 6

DEFINING COMMUNITY………………………………. 11

EXAMPLES OF NEW URBANISM COMMUNITIES…………………. 15

BACKGROUND OF SEASIDE, FLORIDA…………….. 15

SEASIDE BUILDING TYPES………………….. 16

CURRENT SEASIDE CHARACTERISTICS…… 22

BACKGROUND OF SOUTHWOOD, FLORIDA………. 25

DEFINITIONS OF PORCHES AND ILLUSTRATIONS……………….. 30

HISTORY OF PORCHES AND ILLUSTRATIONS…… 30

ATTRIBUTES OF CRACKER PEOPLE AND CRACKER

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE………………...... … 38

“CRACKER” PEOPLE………………………………..… 38

“CRACKER” HOUSE………………………….……….. 39

SINGLE PEN…………………………………………….. 42

DOUBLE PEN AND SADDLEBAG……………………. 42

DOG TROT………………………………………………. 44

I- HOUSE………………………………………………… 44

FLORIDA PLANTATION HOUSE……………………… 46

FOUR SQUARE GEORGIAN…………………………… 47

SUMMARY………………………………………………. 48

3. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………… 49

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY…………………………………….. 49

RESEARCH QUESTIONS………………………………………. 49

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY DESIGN……………….. 50

RESEARCH PHASES…………………………………… 50

SITE SELECTION……………………………………….. 50

OBSERVATION SESSIONS…………………………….. 51

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS…………………. 52

4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS ………………………………………………….. 53

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… 53

METHOD………………………………………………………..... 53

RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………… 54

SUMMARY……………………………………………………… 63

5. DISCUSSION ………………………………….……………………………... 64

FUTURE RESEARCH…………………………………………… 70

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….. 71

APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………….. 71

APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………. 72

APPENDIX C……………………………………………………………. 73

APPENDIX D……………………………………………………………. 93

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………. 96

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………… 99

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Laguna West in Sacramento, CA………………………………….… 9

Figure 2.2: The Kentland in Maryland…………………………………………... 10

Figure 2.3: The Windsor in Indian County Florida…………………………….... 10

Figure 2.4: Seaside Property………………………………………………….…. 15

Figure 2.5: Map of Building Types and Key…………………………………..… 17

Figure 2.6: Dreamland Height: Type I…………………………………………... 18

Figure 2.7: The Lyceum: Type II………………………………………………... 18

Figure 2.8: Ruskin Place: Type III…………………………………………….… 19

Figure 2.9: Hudson House: Type IV……………………………………………. 19

Figure 2.10: Honeymoon Cottages: Type V……………………………………… 20

Figure 2.11: House on Savannah Street: Type VI……………………………….. 20

Figure 2.12: House on Butler Street: Type VII…………………………………… 21

Figure 2.13: The Keier Cottage: Type VIII………………………………………. 22

Figure 2.14: The Exterior with Porches………………………………………….. 22

Figure 2.15: The Colors of Seaside………………………………………………. 23

Figure 2.16: Southwood Community Center Swimming Pool …….……………. 26

Figure 2.17: Southwood Golf Course……………………………………………. 27

Figure 2.18: Town Center……………………………………………………….. 27

Figure 2.19: Schools in Southwood……………………………………………… 28

Figure 2.20: Southwood Community Center…………………………………….. 28

Figure 2.21: Southwood Guest Cottages………………………………………… 29

viii

Figure 2.22: The Southwood House………….………………………………….. 29

Figure 2.23: A House in Southwood…………………………………………….. 30

Figure 2.24: Colonial Architecture………………………………………………. 32

Figure 2.25: Greek Revival Architecture………………………………………… 32

Figure 2.26: Gothic Architecture………………………………………………… 33

Figure 2.27: Stick Style Architecture……………………………………………. 33

Figure 2.28: Romanesque Architecture…….…………………………………… 34

Figure 2.29: Shingle Style Architecture………………………………………… 34

Figure 2.30: Bungalow or Craftsman Style Architecture…………………….….. 35

Figure 2.31: Eclectic Revival Style Architecture…………………………….….. 36

Figure 2.32: Modern Style Architecture……………………………………….... 36

Figure 2.33: A Cracker House…………………………………………………... 40

Figure 2.34: Seminole Chickee……………………………………………….… 41

Figure 2.35: Single-Pen House………………………………………………….. 42

Figure 2.36: Double-Pen House………………………………………………… 43

Figure 2.37: Saddlebag House…………………………………………………... 43

Figure 2.38: Dog-Trot…………………………………………………………... 44

Figure 2.39: I-House…………………………………………………………….. 45

Figure 2.40: Florida Plantation House…………………………………………... 46

Figure 2.41: Four Square Georgian……………………………………………... 47

Figure 3.42: Southwood Community………………………………………….… 51

Figure 4.43: Percentages of Homes with Porches…………...………………….. 55

Figure 4.44: Percentages of porch types……………………….…………………. 55

Figure 4.45: Percentage of people using the porch in March of 2007……….….. 56

Figure 4.46: Percentage of people using the porch in April of 2007………….… 57

Figure 4.47: Percentage of people using the porch in July of 2007……………... 57

Figure 4.48: Percentage of people using the porch in August of 2007………..… 58

Figure 4.49: Percentage of furniture types on a porch…………………………... 59

Figure 4.50: Type of Decorations………………..…………………………….… 60

Figure 4.51: Percentage of porches with ceiling fan…………………………..… 60

Figure 4.52: Southwood Playground…………………………………………….. 62

Figure 4.53: Golf Cart in Southwood Golf Course……………………………..... 62

Figure 5.54: Advertisement from Southwood Website………………………….. 66

Figure 5.55: Advertisement from Southwood Website………………………..… 67

Figure 5.56: Advertisement from Southwood Website………………………..… 67

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to examine the role and functionality of porches in a New Urbanist community in Tallahassee, Florida. New Urbanist communities are mixed- used communities, often with town centers, where all aspects of the community, from housing to eateries to retail stores are all within walking distance. The goal of this study was to see how porches, which have traditionally been gathering places, are currently used in contemporary society. In most New Urbanist communities, porches are seen as an essential element of the architectural design. In addition to the study of porches in contemporary society, the literature reviews the historical role of the porch. The community of Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida was selected as the site where the study was conducted. Southwood is a typical New Urbanist community, set up to be walkable, fully accessible, and a self-contained “city” of its own. The community has its own school, restaurants, small downtown area and a community center. The methodology utilized was visual observation. During observation sessions, the data collected for the study included: dates, street names, number of stories in the house, availability of a porch, type of porch, and what activity was occurring on the porch at that specific time. After the data was collected, the assessment was done based upon how often activity was noted on the porch. The results of this study showed that while porches are still popular for aesthetic purposes, there was very little activity on the porches. Clearly, the functionality of porches today does not reflect the past function of the porch. Porches have become more of a design element rather than the functional place they have been in the past.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

New Urbanist communities can be defined as walkable, all-inclusive communities, in which all facets of life are included within close proximity to the residential areas. Many New Urbanist communities include homes with porches, which can be functional assets to the home in terms of allowing people to congregate and enjoy the outdoors. This thesis is a case study, which explores the use of porches in the New Urbanist community of Southwood. The Southwood community is a 3,330 acre property, located in Tallahassee, Florida. This community includes housing types that represent a contemporary version of the southern Cracker style homes, which typically include porches. This study will include observations of the porches to note how often, and under what conditions, they are used by residents.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the use of porches in the New Urbanist community of Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida. This thesis will examine the function of the porches and their potential contribution to family and community life.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The study will explore the connection between the functions of porches of the past as well as the evolution of porch use over time. Likewise, it will also examine the role of the porch in New Urbanist communities,

DEFINITIONS

Bungalow or Craftsman Style Architecture: It was built in the middle 1900s, the porch of this architectural style is described as a heavy covered shaded porch that is supported rails and thick posts (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Colonial Architecture: A French colonial architecture in late 17th and 18th century (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Community: A community is a group of people living in the same neighborhood and under the same management (Scott, 2002). Cracker House: A wood framed house developed in the early nineteenth century (Haase, 1992). Dog Trot: This house is added with an extra room separated from the original structure by an exterior hallway or dog-trot surrounded with a porch (Haase, 1992). Double Pen: A house with two double rooms with its own fireplace and chimney with front porch (Haase, 1992). Eclectic Revival Architecture: This architecture copied the style such as the colonial styles, the porch in this style is not an important element of the house (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Florida Plantation House: A two story house with a stairway in the center, the front and rear rooms has fireplaces with chimney along the exterior walls, and the porch is located on the front and back of the house (Haase, 1992).

Four Square Georgian: A one story house with an enclosed walkway in the middle of the structure, and each room has it own fireplace (Haase, 1992). Greek Revival Architecture: This house has a porch covered by a gabled roof, on top of columns that were used in the mid 19th century (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Gothic Architecture: This house is stylized with porches that were very well decorated and many elements of decorations (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). I-House: A two-story Cracker house with front and back porch with center stairway; it was the first two story house built in the Cracker period (Haase, 1992). Modern Style Architecture: This style was built in 1935 to present, the house is built horizontally whether its one or two stories high, and it put emphasis on the structure and deemphasized the decorative patterns (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). New Urbanism: New Urbanism is a philosophy and community design idea that began in 1980s and was formalized in the 1990s that focused on walkable and safe communities for people (Scott, 2002). Place attachment: Place attachment is a positive emotional bond that develops between individuals or groups and their environment (Mesch and Manor, 1998, p. 504). Romanesque Architecture: Architecture made with a heavy brick material giving a medieval look in the late 19th century (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Saddle Bag: This house is similar to double pen; the room was built along with the wall with the chimney (Haase, 1992). Single Pen: The first Cracker house with only one room and a front porch (Haase, 1992). Shingle Style Architecture: This architecture is used in the late 1880s and 1900s, and is designed with wood shingles surrounding the home to give it an unusual exterior (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). Sociofugal: Sociofugal discourages social interaction (Coley et. al, 1997). Sociopetal space: Sociopetal promotes social interactions, such as angling towards each other, with shade to encourage people to interact (Coley et. al, 1997).

Stick Style Architecture: This house has a two or three stories; porches were made of very fine, detailed wood framing (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006).

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Throughout time, many different styles of homes have included porches. These homes, whether past or present, have often utilized the porch as a central gathering location or a focal point for the family. A growing number of modern day communities, such as Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida are labeled as “New Urbanist” communities and feature porches as part of the architectural design. New Urbanist communities are designed with many different aspects of daily life within walking distance of the homes. One does not have to travel a great distance to gain access to any number of schools, shops, banks, or restaurants.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This review of literature will focus on the research surrounding the design of homes, with special attention to porches, in New Urbanist communities. The review of literature will be organized into the following sections: (a) a definition of New Urbanism and the concept of community; (b) examples of New Urbanist communities; (c) characteristics of the Seaside community; (d) characteristics of the Southwood community; (e) definitions and illustrations of various porches; (f) attributes of the Cracker people and Cracker architectural styles.

SEARCH TECHNIQUES

Many different types of sources were used for this review, including research articles, various textbooks, and other secondary sources. Many computer databases through the Florida State University library were used such as Avery Architectural Index, Eric, WebLuis and JSTOR. The keywords used in this search include Cracker, interior design, porches, community, and New Urbanism. The Internet outside University parameters was also used, and included such search engines as Yahoo and AOL.

DEFINITION OF NEW URBANISM AND COMMUNITY

Defining New Urbanism

New Urbanism is a philosophy of community design that began in 1980s, was formalized in the 1990s, and focused on designing walkable, safe communities for people from all walks of life. New Urbanist communities are also called Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) when they are developed in Greenfield areas, defined as a piece of undeveloped land. Robert Davis, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (a husband and wife team) were considered the first New Urbanists. In the 1980’s the concept of New Urbanism was used to build projects such as Charleston Place in Boca Raton, Florida. It was the first development designed by Duany and Plater- Zyberk (DPZ). Charleston Place is known to have been influential in the design of Seaside, Florida. In 1982, the town of Seaside saw its first houses built, and within a few years, Seaside became one of the most publicized New Urbanist developments, and a model for future community planning (Scott, 2002).

New Urbanist communities are designed to be pedestrian-friendly, walkable communities. These communities are mixed-use and provide a variety of residential options including apartments, storefronts, single family, and multiple family homes. These communities make life easier for people with children, the elderly, and people who just do not want to drive automobiles. The close proximity of buildings and the increased population density of the area make it easy connects to homes, shops, and businesses (Scott, 2002). Since World War II, people and developments have been sprawling outward into the suburbs (New Urbanism, 2006). Houses, shopping malls, parking lots and other types of buildings have sprung up throughout the suburbs as well. One of the goals of New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TND) is to fight sprawl by creating cohesive communities. The Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) recommends guidelines to design these communities. It is important to have an open area to serve as the town center and focal point of the neighborhood to encourage connections within the community. There should be a distinguishable beginning and end to the neighborhood (New Urbanism, 2006). The principles of New Urbanism were written in the Charter of New Urbanism that developed between 1993 and 1996. The Charter passed these principles after a yearly meeting of their “Congress.” There are three principles of New Urbanism that are divided into different categories. The first principle is to find the Region (metropolis, city and town). This means that the people involved in the New Urbanism project must first select their location and where to put their community (Scott, 2002). By defining a Region, it makes it easier to accommodate people with jobs and homes so they do not have to drive long distances. The Region should be “…designed according to similar New Urbanism principles” (Katz, 1994, p. xi). In other words, the community should be diverse and function as a comfortable place for all people and be designed so people can easily navigate the neighborhood (Katz, 1994). New Urbanist communities should have a clearly defined town center. These towns should have clear boundaries and edges because they can help people have a better sense of place (Scott, 2002). The region, as defined in the context of New Urbanism, should have its own assortment of different types of buildings with different functions,

such as, shops, restaurants, houses, grocery stores, schools and other such buildings. These communities can be classified as “mixed use” (Katz, 1994). The second principle of New Urbanism is called the Neighborhood. This principle is characterized as a neighborhood with a central location that is walkable for almost everyone in the community. The public place should be in the center of the neighborhood (Katz, 1994). The recommended size for a neighborhood is about a quarter of a mile from the center to the outside edge and should be able to be reached within a five-minute walk. All the stores, schools, churches, and other public buildings should also all be within that five-minute walk. This district is basically the location where most of the public movement takes place. The corridors are what connect the neighborhoods to their districts (Scott, 2002). The final phase or principle is the block, the street, and the building. This concept discusses how suburban streets created after World War II do not feel walkable or inviting. New Urbanism streets are made to be secure and relaxed for the residents and visitors. The buildings should have openness for people to feel more welcome. The buildings should have different styles and serve many different purposes. New Urbanist communities are also designed to encourage diversity, attracting a variety of people and buildings to the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are also built to be visually pleasing and create a sense of “home” or comfort for residents (New Urbanism, 2006). The streets also should be safe and convenient for motor vehicles, as well as pedestrians, bikers and anyone else who uses those streets. New Urbanist neighborhoods should use alternative transportation such as trains and light rail, rather than using public highways and streets (New Urbanism, 2006). Another important aspect of New Urbanism is its use of connectivity to ease traffic congestion and make it easier for people who choose to walk instead of use a vehicle. New Urbanism promotes a high quality of life for its residents and encourages healthier lifestyles with more walking and less stress caused by driving. It promotes friendliness between neighbors, more openness, and freedom for residents. It also helps residents save gas, all the while making the area feel less congested and, at the same time, helps the neighborhood appear more aesthetic (New Urbanism, 2006).

Some critics say that New Urbanism helps businesses earn more profit because it allows an increase in their sales. This occurs because of all the customers who walk into and out of their shops. However, this may also depend on the type of shop. A clothing store or coffee shop would fare better than a feed store because of the community being more urban versus rural. It also allows the businesses to be a bigger part of the community by being more involved with its neighbors and business partners. Additionally, the “close proximity” of the businesses allows for a greater customer base, and repeat customers which in turn brings in more profit (New Urbanism, 2006). Examples of New Urbanism communities include Laguna West in Sacramento County, California, which was established around 1990. This is a town of hundred acres, which includes many different types of civic, commercial and high/medium density housing (see Figure 2.1). In the middle of the community, a sixty-five acre-lake separates the housing from the commercial area (Katz, 1994).

Figure 2.1. Laguna West in Sacramento, CA (revistaurbanismo.uchile.cl/n5/images/Fig10mawro.jpg, 2006)

Another example is Kentland in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which was established in 1988. This is a 356-acre community designed by Duany and Plater-Zyberk (DPZ). This community includes six neighborhoods with residential, office, cultural and retail areas (Katz, 1994). Kentland is an upscale mixture of elegant town homes and single- family houses of different sizes and styles (see Figure 2.2) (Shaw, 2006).

Figure 2.2. The Kentland in Maryland (www.savethebay.org, 2006)

The last example is the Windsor in Indian River County, Florida established in 1989 (see Figure 2.3). Windsor is a 416-acre community near Florida’s Atlantic Coast and the Indian River. DPZ designed this community with “narrow streets and wide boulevards” (Katz, 1994, p. 61). There is also a golf course, but membership is automatic if you live there (Katz, 1994).

Figure 2.3. The Windsor in Indian County Florida (www.verobeachgolfhomes.com)

The Congress for New Urbanism advocates neighborhoods that respect the environment and connect people. New Urbanist communities are designed to reduce urban sprawl by creating safer and more walkable communities that encourages people to live healthier lives and exist in a more tight-knit community.

Defining Community

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “community” as “1. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. 2. A group of people having common interests” (2001). This section of the paper will discuss people and their attachment to their communities, specifically, why people become attached to their communities, various forms of attachment, what causes a community to grow, the cultural aspects of communities, and the aspects of community that contribute to attachment. Place attachment is defined as “a positive emotional bond that develops between individuals or groups and their environment” (Mesch and Manor, 1998, p.504). The idea is to understand in general what place attachment means in relation to the people of that community. Basically, any persons that are emotionally connected to their community experience place attachment. There are two theoretical perspectives that explain community attachment. The first is the community of limited liability, which discussed the idea that if a person voluntarily participates in their community and their needs are not met, then they will likely leave the neighborhood. The factors involved here are economic and social. If the person’s needs are met socially and economically, then they will most likely stay in the neighborhood. The second theory is the liberated community model, which explains that people are able to move more because of the social changes in our modern society. This has caused more freedom from the limitations of their space. This theory expects that most of the relationships of people in this community are not local and therefore there are no ties to the neighborhood they live in (Mesch and Manor, 1998).

Another aspect of community attachment is the idea that homeowners are more likely to be more attached to their neighborhood and be more invested in their community because of their large financial investment in the community. Renters are not as likely to be attached because their situation is temporary. Also people who have young children are more attached to their neighborhood, usually because the children become involved with and play with other neighborhood children and usually attend school in the area as well. By the same token, when people get older, they are less able to move around a lot, and are therefore more bound to their neighborhood. People who live in neighborhoods longer and have made friends and social ties are more likely to know a lot about the neighborhood and are more likely to stay. This article also explains that if people have family living their neighborhood, there is more likely to be more social contact with others in the neighborhood (Mesch and Manor, 1998). The cultural definition of place attachment is a relationship between a person and his/her environment. There are six ways that people can be connected to their land. Family history and historical ties often connect people to their land. Often people who have suffered damage to their homes are more attached to their land because they realize what has been lost. This idea is more about the linking of people and the memory of their home. People can be tied to their environment due to their financial investment in the neighborhood because of an inheritance or other means of financial gain. Owning land is still considered a status symbol. Sometimes people have religious beliefs that cause them to attach themselves to a certain location. People also make journeys to live somewhere they believe is a religious or spiritual destination for them. And lastly, people can hear by word of mouth or through stories about certain places that fascinate them and therefore they get attached to these places, albeit they may never have been there (Low, 1992). Stability is also an important factor in determining people’s mobility. People who move often may have less stability because they have no attachment to their community. According to Feldman (1990), over twenty percent of Americans move every year, which is a very high rate for Western countries. As Americans, we are not as rooted or grounded in the idea of “home” as some other countries and the result is less stability in terms of establishing roots in a community. People also move a lot when their household changes demand it. For example, a family of two people may decide to have children, and end up

with five, so they eventually need more space, and they move into a house with more room. However, after these children are grown up and leave, the parents may again move because they need less space (Feldman, 1990). A bond with a home contains a psychological component. People tend to take for granted their comfort and security in their home, but this comfort unconsciously attaches them to their home or place. This causes people to also unconsciously take care of their space and place. Home activities also allow people to confirm their own sense of self (Feldman, 1990). Another idea about psychological bonds to our homes is the idea of settlement identity. Harold Proshansky (1978) talks about how people can be attached to multiple places at one time, “due to their unique physical experiences with that particular environment” (Feldman, 1990, p. 189). This involves their personal belief system, their feelings, future goals and personal preferences (Feldman, 1990). According Coley, Kuo and Sullivan (1997), there is a direct correlation between people’s environment and their behavior. Since the role of families and the community plays a large role in a person’s physical environment, the presence of family and friends seems to have a positive influence on a person’s behavior. “Stressors such as noise or pollution, overcrowding or unsafe neighborhoods all adversely affect a person’s interactions” (Coley, et. al, 1997, p.489). There are two ways of categorizing spaces that encourage or discourage social interaction. Sociopetal spaces actually promote social interaction and may include elements such as benches angled towards each other with shade to encourage people to interact. The opposite type of space called sociofugal actually discourages any social interaction (Coley et. al, 1997). Spaces can be defined as “defensible” and are important because they provide protection for people and their families, which provide a better quality of life. These spaces encourage people to feel more power in their community, which in turn allows them to be better community members (Coley et. al, 1997). The semiprivate social space allows people to be more protective of their environment, whether it is a large house or a small apartment building. In many places, if parents cannot watch their children, it could present a danger to the families. In some

large apartment buildings, people do not have views of walkways or streets and the elevators do not provide adequate means of getting to know neighbors. This leads to decreased social interactions in some communities (Coley et. al, 1997). Natural elements are an important aspect of allowing communities to interact socially. The presence of trees, flowers, and grass may be just as important as architecture in encouraging social interaction. People’s perceptions are influenced by natural elements as well and Coley explains that, “People feel less crowded, even in highly populated areas, if there are more trees and grass” (1997, p. 472). In multiple family housing, people who are able to look out their windows and see trees, are more satisfied with their housing situation than people who looked out and saw no natural elements. People have different reasons to be attached to their communities and there are many diverse influences on people’s behaviors in their communities. People who live in loud or overcrowded neighborhoods are more dissatisfied with their living situations. People who are more involved with their neighbors, enjoy nature, or enjoy where they live are more satisfied with their communities. People become attached to their homes and communities because there is something that binds them to it, such as families, friends, financial investment, or just being involved in their neighborhood. The two communities discussed in this thesis are the New Urbanist communities of Seaside, Florida and Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida. Seaside and Southwood exemplify the attributes of New Urbanism by being cohesive communities that are walkable, encourage residents to be active participants in the community, and are accessible to all residents with ease. The next two sections of the review of literature will focus on architectural style and mostly importantly, porches in Seaside and in Southwood.

EXAMPLES OF NEW URBANIST COMMUNITIES

Background of Seaside, Florida

In 1946, J.S. Smolian purchased eighty acres of land off the coast of the Florida Panhandle for eight thousand dollars. Smolian and his family vacationed on the Gulf Coast every summer. Despite Smolian’s intentions to develop a summer camp in this location, he never developed the land (see Figure 2.4). After Smolian’s death, over thirty years after the purchase of this land, his grandson inherited the property. Smolian’s grandson, Robert Davis had previous experience developing land (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.4. Seaside Property (Sexton, p. 112)

Davis recalled the architecture of the original small wooden Florida homes where he spent the summers of his youth and attempted to recreate these houses. The simple cottages included many windows and large porches shaded by the roofs’ overhang. In order to prevent flooding, the houses were not level with the ground, but rather a few feet above the ground. Davis planned to use this architecture from his past as the basis of his new development (Brooke, 1995). He wanted to build a community based upon traditional vernacular architecture (Sexton, 1995).

Davis searched for architects to carry out his plans. He chose a husband and wife team, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) (Sexton, 1995). Robert Davis met Leon Krier, an urban theoretician from London who proposed a theory on classic town planning. Krier stated that a town of eighty acres was the perfect size for a town in which everything was within walking distance. Davis was encouraged by Krier’s theory and asked him to aid in the master plan of his community (Nesmith, 2003). From 1978 to 1983, Davis, DPZ, and Krier created the master plan for the new community called Seaside. This master plan and zoning code dictated the architectural guidelines for the three hundred and fifty private buildings to be located in the community (Sachner, 1986). The goal of the plan was to create “a low-rise, high density town characterized by deep porches, picket fences, and public amenities set into a natural landscape of sea grass and scrub oak” (Sachner, 1986, p. 92). The strict code stated that each home must be located a few feet above the ground, in order to allow air circulation. In addition, the exterior colors of the houses had to be pastel with acceptable opposing trim. The code required windows to be square or vertical rectangles with real, working shutters and metal or wood shake roofs. It stipulated that exterior landscaping had to consist of sand or scrub with a white picket fence. The fence patterns could not repeat on any street (Brooke, 1995). After Davis finalized the master plan and after the completion of the master plan and zoning code, construction began on the first Seaside neighborhood on Tupelo Street. This street marked the beginning of a New Urbanist community with three hundred-fifty homes and an additional three hundred structures such as offices, shops, and apartments (Katz, 1994).

Seaside Building Types

Seaside consists of eight different building types. The types are divided according to location, category (i.e. single family homes, townhouses, commercial, and other buildings), spatial requirements, and architectural inspiration. Original architects

Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk created the urban code, defining the eight building types (Sexton, 1995). This code also dictates the locations of each building type, stating which types may be built on which lots (see Figure 2.5) (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.5. Map of Building Type and Key (Sexton, p. 105)

Type I buildings are located along Seaside’s Central Square on Route C-30A. These three-to-five story structures utilize party walls and provide a covered external passageway supported by columns (Brooke, 1995). Type I incorporates both residential and commercial spaces with the lower levels being retail and upper level offices and residences (see Figure 2.6). The idea for these buildings derives from the old Southern main street (Sexton, 1995).

Figure 2.6. Dreamland Height: Type I, Seaside’s first commercial building (Katz, p. 12)

Type II buildings also use party walls, but these structures all employ parallel balconies and cornices (Mohney and Easterling, 1991). These four story buildings include offices, apartments, and retail space, surrounded by large courtyards. Smaller structures are visible behind the larger buildings. The codes for Type II buildings are very strict, regulating the types of arcades and the main outer forms. Architects gathered the model for Type II from New Orleans’s Vieux Carre (see Figure 2.7) (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.7. The Lyceum: Type II (Brooke, p. 51)

The code describes Type III structures as townhouses with few limits other than the maximum height of thirty-six feet (Sexton, 1995). They consist of workshops and small stores on the first level with residences above (Brooke, 1995). Each residence has a similar balcony lined up with the balconies of the other townhouses (see Figure 2.8). These buildings separated by party walls are located behind the Center Square and Ruskin Place. Jackson Square in New Orleans inspired this architecture (Sexton, 1995).

Figure 2.8. Ruskin Place: Type III (Sexton, p. 135)

Large “urban villas” constitute the next type of Seaside buildings (Sexton, 1995, p. 105). This type contains apartment buildings, private homes, and bed-and-breakfasts, all located on Seaside Avenue. The detached buildings have vast porches running the entire façade on the front of the street (see Figure 2.9). The prototypes for Type IV structures are the classic Greek revival home, prevalent in the antebellum South (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.9. Hudson House: Type IV (Nesmith, p. 118)

Residential lots along Route 30-A comprise Type V buildings. These homes are grouped together and occupy large lots of land; few restrictions exist for these houses (Sexton, 1995). California bungalow courts and honeymoon cottages inspired this type of residential home (see Figure 2.10) (Sexton, 1995).

Figure 2.10. Honeymoon Cottages: Type V (Mohney & Easterling, p. 9)

Type VI residences are divided into two separate sections: Type VI and VIa. Type VI homes have one and a half stories with the second story in the roof pitch, with a maximum height of twenty-two feet and a covered porch. On the other hand, Type VIa houses has a total of thirty feet in height with two complete stories (Sexton, 1995). Both types, located perpendicular to Route 30-A, resemble traditional Southern bungalows (see Figure 2.11). These residential homes on the north-south streets offer possible coastal views (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.11. House on Savannah Street: Type VI (Brooke, p. 53)

The “side-yard single house” of Type VII is another kind of residential housing (Sexton, 1995, 105). However, these homes run along Seaside’s east-west streets with no potential beach views. The houses are set almost directly on the street and the codes dictate very small setbacks (see Figure 2.12). The Charleston single-family homes with small side yards provide the archetype for Type VII homes (Brooke, 1995). The porch surrounds this type of single-family house.

Figure 2.12. House on Butler Street:Type VII (Brooke, p. 100)

The building code gives Type VIII, the final type of structures, more freedom than other types. These residential homes are taller than their counterparts with two full stories, and all sides of the homes possess limited setbacks (see Figure 2.13). Because of this increased height, Type VIII homes receive more visual focus than other surrounding houses. The locations of such homes are on Tupelo Circle, Smolian Circle, and important corner lots (Sexton, 1995). The porch is located on the side of the house and is elevated in order to give the residents are more extensive view of their surroundings.

Figure 2.13. The Krier Cottage: Type VIII (Katz, p. 16)

Current Seaside Characteristics

Seaside homes represent an integration of many different architectural styles, including not only Florida Cracker, but also Victorian, Greek Revival, Arts and Crafts, Modern, Postmodern and Neoclassical (Bressi, 2002). The homes represent a combination of many different styles, each built according to human proportions (Nesmith, 2003). However, Seaside’s codes require the homes to contain many elements which originated in Cracker houses. For instance, each Seaside home must have a front porch (Brooke, 1995).

Figure 2.14. The Exterior with porches (Seaside, 2004)

The front porch is the most significant design element of Seaside homes. Unlike the porches of original Cracker homes, these porches are meant to promote communication among neighbors rather than to simply provide shade (see Figure 2.14). They connect the more private home with the exterior public space (Sexton, 1995). In order to maintain architectural honesty, Seaside codes mandate the types of materials can be used in construction. The codes limit materials to those which were used before 1940 (Mohney and Easterling, 1991). Architect Duany based this code on the argument that since 1940 people have been able to manipulate materials and change their appearance. Using earlier materials, such as wood, symbolizes a sense of honesty, since materials look like what they are. Duany and other Seaside architects preserve the sense of history and honesty that Seaside promotes by using such materials. For example, wooden siding is a preferred material for the exterior of homes. The code does not permit the use of aluminum or vinyl siding, which has a similar appearance to wood siding, because these materials are inherently dishonest. The code calls for each house to have a white picket fence, which is different from the fences of the other houses on the street (Brooke, 1995). White fences lining a street of pastel homes invoke the feeling of a vacation at the beach, Davis’ vision for Seaside. Pale colors, such as pale pink, purple, yellow, blue, green and peach are often used in Seaside (see Figure 2.15) (McCloud, 2003). Although different than original Florida Cracker houses, these current Seaside residence colors create a feeling of comfort associated with Florida and Cracker homes.

Figure 2.15. The Colors of Seaside (Katz, p. 13)

Seaside’s codes dictate roof material and form as well. Approved roofs represent Florida vernacular architecture and close resemble the roofs characteristic of original Cracker houses. The roofs of Seaside’s homes are high-pitched with large overhangs (Brooke, 1995). These roof styles are chosen because they are the same as the historical Cracker homes which block the sun, permit the run-off of rain, and allow for ventilation. Many early Seaside homes possess tin roofs because of their low cost and their resemblance to local architecture. However, some residents dislike the appearance of these roofs claiming they appear too cheap (Brooke, 1995). The code allows the resident to choose the roofing material from metal shingles, wood shake, and various metal sheets. Regardless of the early complaints against the tin roofs, most residents choose a tin roof for their home because of its durability (Sexton, 1995). Cracker style architecture is gaining popularity because of the aversion many homeowners have towards contemporary suburban construction (Kim, 2003). This design invokes a feeling of a calm, uncomplicated time, which is the goal of Seaside. Large shady porches and uncomplicated architecture represent the simplicity of earlier times. Cracker recalls Florida’s history and denotes a sense of comfort, while at the same time offering a sense of security and family. While most aspects of Seaside’s community are positive, critics have differing points of view on the pros and cons of New Urbanist living. Some argue that New Urbanist lifestyles can be expensive, thereby eliminating certain economic levels and not allowing for a wide range of incomes to co-exist. Diversity is important in a community and perhaps a community such as Seaside does not allow for diversity because of the high cost of living.

SOUTHWOOD IN TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

Background of Southwood

Southwood is a residential and commercial community located in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. Tallahassee is home to the three universities Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and Tallahassee Community College. Southwood is designed as a New Urbanist community that also has cultural attractions, such as museums, sporting events and many other recreational activities in the surrounding area. The history of Southwood begins with George W. Ward who originally owned the Southwood House. When he passed away, his son George T. Ward inherited the land. George T. married Sarah Jane Chaires, who also inherited properties that were later joined with the Southwood properties. Ward and Chaires had a daughter named Mattie who received the land after her parents’ death. In the 1930s a fire ripped through the original house and destroyed it. Some years later, Mattie’s grandson George Henderson relocated his family back to the site of the original Southwood House and rebuilt it. The six ionic columns that were added to the home were not part of the original structure. In 1948, the St. Joe Company purchased the land that is now called Southwood (Welcome to Southwood, 2006). Today, Southwood is managed and designed by the St. Joe Company. It was designed to reflect a mixture of culture and styles. The developers used Southern style and charm to blend it with the culture of the city of Tallahassee. The neighborhood was designed with these goals in mind as well as the goal of creating a tight-knit community and opportunities for social interaction (Welcome to Southwood, 2006). Southwood consists of 3,300 acres of land and the houses in this community are built in the Southern Cracker style. This Southern neighborhood community is full of families of all ages and walks of life. It is considered a New Urbanist or neo-traditional neighborhood. Southwood had been designed to include lakes and ponds. Since this is a New Urbanism community, it is a mixed-use community, and there are restaurants,

schools, banks, and stores within walking distance and/or a short drive. There are tennis courts, swimming pools, and other activities that enable all residents of Southwood (young and old) to lead active, healthy lifestyles. Because there is ample acreage in Southwood, there are many areas filled with trees and plants. The Southwood publication, Welcome to Southwood (2006) states, [this community is one where] “Laughter resonates from wide, welcoming porches, where neighbors are becoming friends.”

Figure 2.16. Southwood Community Center Swimming Pool (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

In the community, Southwood also offers a special program for the residents called the Art of Living, where residents can join together along with an Activity Director and learn a new skill or something new and fun to do (see Figure 2.16). The directors of the programs plan fun activities and educational activities for residents of all ages. This creates a sense of togetherness which is a large component of a New Urbanist community (Welcome to Southwood, 2006). There is also a golf course in the middle of the community, which attracts many members; both young and old (see Figure 2.17). At the golf course, there is also a pro- shop, a member’s lounge and a restaurant. The Southwood Golf Course first opened in November 2002. A few months later in July 2003, the Community Center opened. In the fall of 2003, the Southwood Golf Club and the Southwood’s Village opened. Southwood

also has its own Town Center, which opened in the fall of 2005 and includes restaurants, a professional offices and also a YMCA gym (see Figure 2.18).

Figure 2.17. Southwood Golf Course (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

Figure 2.18. Town Center (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

There are three different schools within walking distance of Southwood: The Florida State University Developmental Research School for kindergarten through high school (see Figure 2.19), the Creative Child Learning Center for children who are six weeks through Pre K, and the John Paul II Catholic High School for grades nine through twelve. Southwood is also designed to have schools in the community to keep

Figure 2.19. Schools in Southwood (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

children safe and close to home (Welcome to Southwood, 2006). Southwood also designed a Central Park and many small lakes on over 1000 acres of land. There are many additional lakes, ponds and green landscapes, as well as a twelve-mile walking and bike trail (Welcome to Southwood, 2006). The Southwood Community Center is a place where residents can meet to interact and get to know one another better (see Figure 2.20). The Community Center consists of

Figure 2.20. Southwood Community Center (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

wide, covered open porches with a cupola on top. The community center is designed in a Southwestern style, which is influenced by the Cracker architectural style. The center has a private club for residents with an event lawn, playgrounds for children, locker rooms at pool sites and a catering kitchen that residents can use as a place to entertain large groups of people.

Southwood also welcomes visitors by having guest cottages for those who are seeking to live in Southwood (see Figure 2.21). The guest cottages have features of the

Figure 2.21. Southwood Guest Cottages (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

Cracker period which includes porches and gable roofs. Visitors can play golf and conduct business while they are in the neighborhood. The guest cottages have covered porches, kitchens, and unique Southern antique furnishings, reminiscent of the Cracker period. Southwood also designed a Welcome Center called the Southwood House, which gives prospective buyers or visitors’ information about the community (see Figure 2.22). This house is the same one the Henderson family rebuilt after the fire, which was designed the way the original house was. This Southwood House is actually an old house that was built in 1865 and has been renovated and to serve as the welcome center. It was designed to help the community to be more welcoming and to promote the concept of Southwood and other New Urbanist communities.

Figure 2.22. The Southwood House (Welcome to Southwood, 2006)

Figure 2.23. House in Southwood (http://www.shsrealty.com, 2007)

The houses in Southwood incorporated many different styles and architectural elements (see Figure 2.23). Most of the houses have gabled roofs, hipped roofline, and covered porches and some of the houses are similar to the houses seen in Seaside. Most of the houses have porches that overlook the street. The porches are an important element in Southwood as a manner of communication in the New Urbanist community, just as the porches in Seaside Florida. Some of the houses have porches in the front and a covered porch in the back of the house. The porch encourages social interaction with neighbors in Southwood.

DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATION OF PORCHES

History of Porches and Illustrations

The porches have been popular as an architectural feature throughout the world for hundreds of years and were a very dominant feature in the Cracker architectural style.

In Presenting Porches, Renee Kahn and Ellen Meagher (1990) described the concept of a porch and said the porch, “…can be traced back to the overhanging rock shelter of prehistoric times (p.1). The word ‘porch’ is derived from the Latin word ‘porticus’ and the Greek word “portio” both of which signify the columned entry to a Classical Temple” (Kahn and Meagher, 1990, p.1). Through the years, porches have developed in different cultures, sometimes disappearing and then reappearing in architecture again. The porch has been essential in separating inside and outside spaces providing a freedom of space away from the chaos of the indoors. Porches can also be a place to talk, tell stories with friends, swing, read, eat or do anything that is relaxing (Donlon, 2001). In Cracker homes, porches were a focal point of the social life of the communities. According to Keillor (1990), “The porch promotes grace and comfort. It promotes good conversation simply by virtue of the fact that on a porch there is no need for it…” (p. 6). Porches are way to promote socialization and friendship. People can observe their surroundings, watch as the neighbors walk by, socialize with friends or even have a relaxing afternoon all to oneself. In C.M. Deasy’s (1985) book Designing Places for People, he described some factors in the design of the porch that enhance the home. These include increased communication, allowing the front door to be visible from the street, giving the house a space for people to sit and talk, and giving the house a space for safely watching children play (as cited in McDonald, 2005). These attributes can help foster friendships with other neighbors. Many European immigrants did not use porches in their architectural design because they may not have been important elements in their architecture. African slaves built the first porches that were seen in America, bringing the design over from their “shotgun houses” in West Africa (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). These porches were useful in America because of climate (warmer here than in Europe) and cultural need.

Figure 2.24. Colonial Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006) Many types of porches are found in different architectural styles. For example, in colonial architecture (see Figure 2.24) (mid to late 17th and 18th centuries), the French colonial house in the South used the gallery, a type of veranda that was covered by an overhang.

Figure 2.25. Greek revival Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006)

The Spanish Colonial house had heavy walls of brick and stone. The porches of these houses were usually balconies allowing for shade and cooling (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). Another example of a type of porch is called Greek Revival Architecture (used in the mid 19th century) (see Figure 2.25). A gabled roof on top of columns covered Greek

Revival Architecture’s porch. Some of the homes may have had a second story balcony as well. Similarly, the Gothic Architectural style used porches that were very well decorated and had many different elements of decoration (rails, lattice, brackets, etc.)

Figure 2.26. Gothic Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006)

(see Figure 2.26). It was during this time that American architecture began to see the importance of the front porch (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). In Stick Style Architecture, the porches were made of very fine, detailed wood framing. The porches were sometimes located around the entire outside of the house, even on the second and or third levels of the house (see Figure 2.27) (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006).

Figure 2.27. Stick Style Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006)

During the Romanesque Architecture period (late 19th century), houses were made of heavy brick material giving it a medieval look (see Figure 2.28). These houses were almost in the style of castles with big arches. Porches were not very popular in these

Figure 2.28. Romanesque Architecture (http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/romanesque.htm, 2007)

homes but were sometimes used as a short entryway or as a second story balcony. However, they were still not an important part of this architecture (The Evolution of the American Front Porch, 2006). From 1880-1900, the architecture style called Shingle Style was popular. Its architecture had wood shingles surrounding the home to give it an unusual exterior. It was usually found on the coast and also on the seaside shores (see Figure 2.29). The

Figure 2.29. Shingle Style Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006)

porch provided the home with an additional wing. The posts are covered with stones or shingles and the handrails are also made out of stone (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). The Bungalow or Craftsman Style Architecture in the middle 1900s came from the “bungle” style houses in India (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). It is similar to the Shingle Style by the natural blending of the surroundings (see Figure 2.30). The porch in this time was very important to the architecture. The porch in this architectural style is described as a heavy covered shaded porch that is supported by rails and thick posts. This was influenced by the contemporary architectural styles at this time (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006).

Figure 2.30. Bungalow or Craftsman Style Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Craftsman , 2007)

In the late 1890s until the 1940s, the Eclectic Revival Architecture style was popular in the United States until the Great Depression. This architecture style copied the early ideas such as the Colonial and Spanish Colonial styles (see Figure 2.31). The porch in this style was most likely not an important element of the house. If the porch was used for this

Figure 2.31. Eclectic Revival Style Architecture (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006)

style, it was described to be pushed to the back or to the side of the house (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006). The last style is called the Modern Style Architecture from 1935 to present. This style of architecture did not use a previous historical pattern but created a new style (see Figure 2.32). The house was built horizontally whether it was one or two stories high and put emphasis on the structure and deemphasized the decorative patterns (The Evolution of American Front Porch, 2006).

Figure 2.32. ’Modern’ Style Architecture (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~twp/architecture/modern/, 2007)

According to landscape architect Andrew Jackson Downing, “…a porch strengthens or conveys expression of purpose because instead of leaving the entrance door bare…it serves both as a note of preparation and an effectual shelter and protection to the entrance” (Downing, 2001, p. 375). Downing said that the porch is a connection between the landscape of the house and the house itself. He also wanted people to connect the porch to “nature” by saying that while sitting on a porch people can enjoy many natural elements, such as the summer sun, a cool breeze. This represents the American ideal of “family,” and the idea that the porch is useful in gathering loved ones close. Two good examples of the importance of porches can be found in Seaside, Florida and in the Southwood Community in Tallahassee, Florida. In Seaside, every house is required to have a porch, but in Southwood, porches are not a requirement. Porches in these communities are added with the goal of increasing communication with neighbors and for the betterment of the community in general. The thinking behind adding porches to many New Urbanist communities is that the porch can join people together by allowing people to get more involved in their community and neighborhood, simply by sitting on the porch and greeting passersby. The idea is that it can help people get to know their neighbors and the neighborhood by interacting with those people in it. Donlon supports this theory:

“Porches, front and back and side and other, are powerfully constructed ‘places’, limially situated between indoors and out, where people must work to reconcile the demands of a family, the norms of a community, and the desires of individuals… to create an individualized space for themselves” (2001, p. 375).

Porches are critical in joining together families, neighbors, friends, and in turn, the community and provide a safe place for people to come together, to allow children to play, for fellowship and shared experiences. Shared experiences allow communities to be more cohesive, more safe, and for people to become more productive individuals in that community. According to A.J. Downing, “The front porch will disappear if the nature is

unappealing” (Downing, 2001, p.375). Communication and socializing on porches will not take place if the porch itself does not appeal to the inhabitants of the house. Porches must be constructed to require the attention of the residents as a place of comfort and a hub of social interaction (Downing, 2001). According to a book titled A Pattern Language, “Balconies and porches which are less than six feet deep are hardly ever used.” (Alexander, 1977, p.782). One can say that if a porch is designed to be less than six feet deep, there may not be enough room for a group to congregate and is too narrow for face to face discussions. In the interest of being cost-effective, some home builders choose to lessen porch size, but this may not allow the porch to be functional, thereby making it somewhat ineffectual (Alexander, 1977). The next sections will delve into the concepts of the Cracker architectural design and the Cracker people.

ATTRIBUTES OF CRACKER PEOPLE AND CRACKER ARCHITECTURAL STYLE

The architecture of Seaside, Florida and the Southwood community in Tallahassee, Florida is derived heavily from Cracker style architecture. Cracker style architecture and the Cracker people have an interesting history.

“Cracker” People

The term “Cracker” signifies more than simply an architectural style; Cracker referred to an entire culture that typically represented white, lower income southerners.

People often used the word Cracker interchangeably with other labels such as “redneck” and “white trash”. Despite its negative and often racist connotation, the word Cracker is based in history. The term originated as early as the sixteenth century when it appeared in William Shakespeare’s King John. Shakespeare wrote “What cracker is this same that deafs our ears?” (Shakespeare's King John, Act II, Scene I as cited in Tonyan, 1997). The term did not gain popularity in America until the late eighteenth century. During this time, much division between the North and the South existed. The term Yankee described Northerners, and Cracker described Southerners (McWhiney, 1988). The word Cracker gained popularity in North Florida and Southern Georgia in the early nineteenth century (Haase, 1992). Many possible origins of the word Cracker existed. Shakespeare’s use of the term supposedly derived from a Celtic word, referring to someone who talks constantly but does not understand what he is saying (Tonyan, 1997). Another possible explanation for the origin of Cracker came from North Florida cattle drivers. The cattle hunters cracked their leather whips, making a very loud sound. Thus the term Cracker evolved (Burt, 1990). Yet another possible explanation dealt with the food of Southern farmers. The farmers cracked corn in order to make corn meal, a staple of their diet (Haase, 1992). Although these origins do not explain how the word came to be associated with Florida, the term “Cracker” most often refers to the modest people and architecture of the rural areas in the Florida Panhandle and Northern Florida (Tonyan, 1997). After the Civil War, the population of Florida grew a great deal, increasing from 140,000 in 1860 to 270,000 in 1880 (Burt, 1990). This large population boom brought a new wave of settlers who cleared the land and built modest homes for themselves.

“Cracker” House

Cracker houses developed as wood frame structures in the early nineteenth century. They were small, hand-built simple homes without much ornamentation (Haase,

1992). These homes were mainly functional structures, lacking in much complex decoration. Farmers who migrated to Southern Georgia and Northern Florida began building Cracker homes because the hot climate and geography dictated certain necessary

Figure 2.33. A Cracker House (McWhiney, p. 235)

features like shady porches and cross ventilation (Valle, 1998). Similarly, a steeply pitched, gabled tin roof allowed the heavy Florida rains to drain away from the house (see Figure 2.33). Cracker homes evolved from a Seminole hut, known as the chickee. The Seminole chickee was a primitive shelter lifted three feet off the ground to protect against the damp. Each hut consisted of an open room, which was roughly ten feet by twenty feet (see Figure 2.34). Although the chickees did not have walls, they did provide a thatched roof to shelter against weather conditions (Haase, 1992). The first Cracker homes mirrored these early shelters with a few minimal adjustments.

Figure 2.34. Seminole Chickee (Haase, p. 28)

Like the Seminoles, early Crackers built on high, dry patches of land in order to prevent flooding. They cleared the land by cutting down pine trees, and then used these trees to form the wooden structure. The Cracker families first kept the pine logs round, instead of squaring them off, because of their need for immediate housing. The Crackers cut a notch at the end of each log in order to be able to stack the logs on top of each other. They filled the cracks between the logs with clay to form a barrier against the outside. They placed the top logs at a steep angle in order to make a gabled roof. The families placed palm fronds above the top logs to create a temporary roof until they constructed the roof shingles from cedar or cypress logs. These single-pen houses, or earliest Cracker homes, consisted of only one room (Haase, 1992). Early Cracker homes were constructed as mainly functional spaces, whereby each element of the house had a purpose. For instance, the small windows allowed for ventilation, while the windows’ cloth coverings protected against the weather and insects. Shutters often protected the exterior of the windows. The orientation of the Cracker house served to protect the exterior walls from excess moisture. By placing the house on a north-south axis, three sides of the house (the eastern, southern, and the western sides) received more sun and stayed dry. The north side provided the most logical location for the fireplace and chimney, since it was the one wall that did not get any sunlight. The

main difference between the Seminole chickee and the Cracker house was the large outer porches on the front and back facades of the Cracker homes (Haase, 1992).

Single Pen

The first Cracker homes were single pen. These houses consisted of one main room, which served all the necessary functions for the family (Haase, 1992). The houses utilized a few windows and a door (Old House Web, 2004). There was a single fireplace in the house with a stone chimney alone one side (McWhiney, 1988). Florida pioneers built these houses out of stacked logs and lifted the house off the ground two to three feet (see Figure 2.35). Like all Cracker homes, single pen houses contained a large covered porch to allow for air to block the hot sun (Old House Web, 2004).

Figure 2.35. Single-Pen House (Haase, p. 19)

Double Pen and Saddlebag

With time, Southerners began to outgrow the basic single pen house. They needed more space and rather than rebuild, they chose to construct an additional room onto their preexisting home. Thus, the single pen house evolved into the double-pen and

the saddlebag. By adding another room with its own fireplace and chimney, they created a double-pen house (see Figure 2.36). This house had a symmetrical plan, containing two

Figure 2.36. Double-Pen House (Haase, p. 20) rooms, each with its own fireplace. Each door had a separate entry door in addition to one interior door connecting the two rooms. The saddlebag is very similar to the double pen; however, the additional room was built along the wall with the chimney making the original fireplace the only one located in the house. The Double-pen and the Saddlebag house has a covered porch on the front of the building of the exterior (see Figure 2.37) (Haase, 1992).

Figure 2.37. Saddlebag (Haase, p. 20)

Dog-trot

Enlarging the single house also resulted in the dog-trot home. Crackers added an extra room separated from the original structure by an exterior hallway or dog-trot (Haase, 1992). The term dog-trot signified the covered corridor which provided shelter against winter weather for the family’s dogs (Northby South Website, 2005). The

Figure 2.38. Dog-Trot (Haase, p. 20)

pioneers covered the two rooms and breezeway with one single roof (McWhiney, 1988). The dog-trot was the most prevalent house during this period and has a covered center porch with a porch surrounding the back and the front with supporting piers (see Figure 2.38).

I-House

After the end of the Seminole Indian Wars in the mid-nineteenth century, farmers felt comfortable planting more lucrative crops such as tobacco, sugarcane, and cotton.

The new railroads crossing Florida allowed the farmers to distribute their products and increase revenue. By this time, the typical Cracker family had grown in size. The larger family warranted a larger house, and the money gained from the new crops allowed the family to either construct a new, larger house or to build additions to their existing home (Haase, 1992). Thus, the first two-story Cracker house or I-House evolved. This house had already been a popular style of farmhouse in the Midwest. Like all Cracker homes, the I- House was also a wood frame structure with large, shady porches. It resembled the dog- trot, but the hallway was no longer open to the exterior. It included stairs that led up to bedroom spaces. Each individual room contained its own fireplace with a chimney along the outer walls. I-Houses included separate cooking and eating spaces located behind the main house (see Figure 2.39). This different location prevented fire from spreading to the main house and also helped protect the main house from the warmth of the kitchen (Haase, 1992). A covered porch is located on the front of the I-House, and there is also a back covered porch located on the back of the house.

Figure 2.39. I-House (Haase p. 21)

Florida Plantation Houses

Unlike other Southern plantation houses, which are based on a Classic Greek Revival style, Florida plantation homes evolved from Cracker houses (Haase, 1992). By adding more rooms to the basic I-House structure, one could create a Florida Plantation house. Like the I-House, this particular type of Cracker house had two stories with a stairway in the center of the house. Similarly, the front and rear rooms of a Florida plantation house contained fireplaces with chimneys along the exterior walls (see Figure 2.40). The porches are similar to the I-house. The placement of the fireplace allowed heat to radiate outside the home, in order to prevent the house from becoming too warm (Haase, 1992).

Figure 2.40. Florida Plantation House (Haase, p. 22)

Four-Square Georgian

The final type of Cracker house evolved soon after the Civil War. The Four- Square Georgian changed the appearance from the original Cracker house, although it still maintained some of the characteristics of the first Cracker houses. Shady porches were still an important element of Four-Square Georgian homes. Also, these homes still possessed a wood frame. The Four-Square Georgian followed a symmetrical plan: one story with an enclosed walkway in the middle of the structure. Each room had its own

Figure 2.41. Four-Square Georgian (Haase, p. 23)

fireplace; however, each fireplace shared a chimney with the other one on the wall behind it. The roof of a Four-Square differed from the other styles of Cracker homes (see Figure 2.41). Instead of the steeply pitched, gabled roof characteristic of Cracker homes, the Four-Square Georgian possessed a pitched roof whose form mirrored the shape of a pyramid. These homes were more luxurious than other Cracker homes (Haase, 1992).

The next section will delve into the methodology of Southwood community in Tallahassee, Florida. It will explain the purpose of the study, the justification of the study, and other observations.

Summary

New Urbanism is a style of community that centers on convenience and walkability. Many homes that are present in New Urbanist communities are set close together and usually are their own self-sufficient communities. Most New Urbanist communities have their own grocery stores, schools, restaurants, entertainment, thus allowing residents to rarely have to venture outside the community. A new community, Southwood located in Tallahassee, Florida also has similar features. It is a self-sustaining community, with a golf course, schools, restaurants, and a community center to enhance community gatherings. Most homes in Southwood have porches, albeit some are not front porches. The designs of the homes are similar in structure, although there is not a strict enforced code dealing with the architecture. One aspect that is common in New Urbanist communities is porches. From their onset, porches were used as a gathering place for people in times before central air conditioning was used to cool houses. The porches were cooler since they were shaded, and therefore provided a respite from the harsh heat. This led to porches becoming a place for social interaction, which led to porches becoming a large focus for different styles of houses such as the Cracker house. The Cracker house, which originated from a Seminole chickee house, were found in North Florida and Georgia, and were typically built by “Cracker” people, who were lower income whites. The future use of the porch has changed over time with the invention of air conditioning. However, the desire for a porch on the home is still seen in many communities. How the porch is used as society and technology changes is the topic of this research.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary question to be answered in this study is: Do porches in New Urbanist communities (specifically Southwood) contribute to the enjoyment of the homes and enhance the connection to community? Several supporting questions will assist in answering the primary question:

1. What percentages of Southwood homes have porches? 2. How often do homeowners use their porches? 3. What type and what percentage of modifications do people commonly make to their porches? 4. What contribution does the porch make to the lifestyle of the residents? 5. What are the activities that take place on porches?

6. How often do homeowners interact with neighbors from the porch? 7. Are there other public areas of the community where residents interact with one another?

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY DESIGN

Research Phases

The gathering of data and information will be accomplished in five phases. Prior to this study, human subject approval was obtained from the Florida State University (see Appendix A). The first phase included the physical gathering of information, such as books, articles and other materials that assisted in providing background information. The second phase included the selection of the New Urbanist site to be used in this study. The third phase included visual observation and note-taking at the site. I visited the site, determined the percentage of porches available in the community, and observed the activities taking place on the porches, as well as any modifications made to the porch. In the fourth phase I observed the activities taking place in the common areas and public spaces in the community. The fifth phase included the analysis of all data gathered and the synthesis of this information.

Site Selection

The community of Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida was selected as the site for the purposes of this study. Southwood includes 3,300 acres and is located on the Capital

Circle in Southeast Tallahassee. It is a relatively new community with construction beginning in 2003 (see Figure 3.42) (see Appendix B).

Figure 3.42. Southwood Community (www.joe.com)

Observation Sessions

Visual observations were conducted in a number of sessions over a four-month period so that the function and use of porches could be analyzed during different seasons. No interaction with residents was necessary since the observations were strictly visual. The observations notes were recorded on the Porch Feature Checklist (PFC). The PFC included space to record the street number and the street name, number of stories in the house, availability of a porch, approximately porch square footage, the furniture on the porch, whether people are using the porch, any decorative elements on the porch, and the availability of a ceiling fan or other information that seems noteworthy (see Appendix C). Observations were conducted at different times of day including morning, midday and early evening. Observation took place over four months during two seasons, spring and summer (March, April, July, and August). These months were chosen because they were the most convenient. Each observation session started with the notation of date and time, and then recording of information regarding the use of the porch.

In addition to observation sessions on the porch, the public spaces in the community were also observed to better understand the interaction of residents in the community. The city center, public parks and walkways, community center and pool area were also observed. Although the primary research questions did not relate to the public spaces, it was added to better understand where and when neighbors were interacting.

Assumption and Limitations

This results of this study have been based primarily on the research I conducted using the techniques of observations. The outcome of the research was determined using qualitative methods of evaluation. I have personally observed the environment and based the analysis on the responses given. It was assumed that the observations are an accurate representation of activities that occur on a regular basis.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

New Urbanist communities such as Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida are well- known for being a small town within themselves. Even though the community is located in Tallahassee, which is a college town, a capital city and a hub for economic growth, Southwood is nestled away from the chaos of downtown Tallahassee. It is surrounded by natural scenery, giving it a clean and luxurious feel. Southwood itself is self-sufficient in many ways. It has its own restaurants, churches, a golf course, school, and even a downtown area.

METHOD

In order to draw conclusions about the role of porches in this community, visual observations were conducted during the months of March through April, and then July through August, 2007. This gave an advantage of viewing and comparing the use of porches during two different seasons, spring and summer. One hundred forty six different houses were randomly observed over the four month for a total of 1,403 observations. During these sessions, the street name was noted, a description and approximation of the size of the porch was given, as well as the location of the porch (front or back, and whether a balcony was present). Another aspect observed was the presence of furniture and/or decorations, whether there was a backyard, or a ceiling fan on the porch. Finally, the number of people (if any) on the porch, and

their activities were noted. Utilizing the above criteria, observations were made as to how often and how much the porches on these homes were actually being used (see Appendix C). Aside from the above visual observations, observations were also conducted throughout the community to gain insight as to how people in the community, on the whole, spends their time (see Appendix D). After driving throughout the neighborhood, observations were made about the different locations in which the community came together, and what, if any, activities they engaged in, and what type of community atmosphere was present. Again, no actual contact was needed for these visual observations.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

These seven research questions will be answered separately below:

1. What percentages of Southwood homes have porches?

Ninety seven percent of Southwood homes have porches, while three percent do not. Ninety six percent have front porches; 19% have back porches (three percent of those being screened in back porches) (see Figure 4.43). Seventeen percent have a balcony on the second story of the home and 1% have screened in balconies. Based on these figures, one can conclude that porches are an integral element of the design of the homes in Southwood, whereas according to the builders, balconies are not as important to the function and design of the homes. Also, back porches are not as common element of the design, whereas front porches were seen much more often (see Figure 4.44). Out of 146 homes only 25% of the homes had porches over approximately 900 square feet. Although most of the porches were less than

900 square feet, even the larger porches were longer and narrower in size, therefore not being conducive to a social gathering-type setting.

No 3%

Yes 97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% n= 146 Figure 4.43. Percentage of homes with porches

Balcony Screened 1%

Balcony 17%

Back Screened Porch 3%

Back Porch 19%

No Front Porch 3%

Front Porch 96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

n= 146

Figure 4.44. Percentage of porch types.

2. How often do homeowners use their porches?

After 1,403 observations of homes, there were 10 occasions were there were people utilizing the porch. More specifically, on two non-consecutive days in late March, there were three different homes with people that were utilizing their porch, participating in various activities. On four non- consecutive days in April, there were six different homes with people utilizing their porch in some fashion. They were sitting, during the observation session. In late summer (July and August) there was only one home in July that had someone using their porch for, and none in August. (see Figure 4.45, 4.46, 4.47, and 4.48).

100% 100% 80% 80% Yes 4% Yes 4% 60% 60% No 96% No 96% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 3/21/2007 3/21/2007

n= 44 n= 69

Figure 4.45. Percentage of people using the porch in March of 2007.

100% 80% 100% Yes 3% 60% 80% No 97% Yes 1% 40% 60% No 99% 20% 40% 0% 20% 4/2/2007 0% 4/8/2007

n= 122 n= 146

100% 100% 80% 80% Yes 0% Yes 1% 60% 60% No 100% No 97% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 4/16/2007 4/18/2007

n= 146 n= 146

Figure 4.46. Percentage of people using the porch in April of 2007.

100% 100% 80% 80% Yes 0% Yes 1% 60% 60% No 99% No 99% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 7/20/2007 7/6/2007

n= 146 n= 146

Figure 4.47. Percentage of people using the porch in July of 2007.

100% 100% 80% 80% Yes 0% Yes 0% 60% 60% No 99% No 99% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 8/3/2007 8/10/2007

n= 146 n= 146

100% 80% Yes 0% 60% No 99% 40% 20% 0% 8/26/2007

n= 146 Figure 4.48. Percentage of people using the porch in August of 2007.

3. The types and frequency of design modifications commonly made to the porches. Based on visual observation, most of the modifications made to the porches were of decorative quality, such as the addition of porch furniture like rocking chairs, sofas, side tables, and swinging chairs. Children’s furniture, mainly furniture for sitting or for children to play with was also seen. From these findings, 22% of homes had no furniture at all, 44% had only chairs on the porch, 38% had side tables, 27% had rocking chairs, 17% had sofas, 3% had some kind of children’s furniture, 3% had swinging chairs, 5% had some kind of tables, and there were only 1% of homes with lamps, shelves, stools and benches. Also, 21% of homes had ceilings fan on the porch. Another type of modification observed was the seasonal decoration of porches. At Easter, some homes had decorated the porches for the holiday. Therefore, one could

assume that during different holidays and seasons, porches would sometimes be decorated to reflect the interest of the homeowners (see Figure 4.45, 4.46, 4.47).

Bench 1%

Stools 1%

Shelves 1%

Lamp 1%

Table 5%

Swinging Chairs 3%

Kids Furniture 3%

Sofas 17%

Rocking Chairs 27%

Side Table 38%

Chairs 44%

No Furniture 22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

n= 146 Figure 4.49. Percentage of furniture types on a porch

Misc. 15%

Easter 3%

Flags 2%

Plants/Wreath 54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% n=146 Figure 4.50. Types of Decorations

No 79%

Yes 21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% n=146

Figure 4.51. Percentage of porches with ceiling fan

4. What contribution does the porch make to the lifestyle of the residents? Overall, following a total of 1,403 observations of houses over four months, only ten people were seen using the porch. March and April saw the highest use with three people using the porch in March and six in April. During the summer months, when the weather was hotter, there was only one person on their porch. One can attribute the lack of people on their porches in the summer months to the heat and uncomfortable temperatures. These findings would indicate the actual use of the porches is minimal. However, the scope of this study did not address feelings and attitudes towards the presence of a porch. It is possible that people still have very positive feelings about owning a home with a porch (see Figure 4.45, 4.46, 4.47, and 4.48).

5. What are the activities that take place on porches? Based on visual observation, porches were rarely used. Only ten people were seen on the porch during a total of 1,403 observations. However, when the porches were being used, the activities included activities such as sitting in chairs or rocking chairs, or children playing on the porch. For the most part, people were more active in the streets (such as walking or running) or on the playgrounds in the community center, versus on their own porches (see Appendix D and question seven below).

6. How often do homeowners interact with neighbors from the porch? There was no interaction seen on the porches in Southwood during these observations session. People socialized and gathered at the parks and playgrounds, but there was no interaction between people on the porch and their neighbors.

7. Are there other public areas of the community where residents interact with one another? People were seen walking around the Grove Park lake area, as well as running, walking and biking around the neighborhood. There is also a community center with a pool which, during the summer months, was quite crowded. Also, in the springtime, people ate outside in the downtown Southwood area. There is also a golf course at Southwood, which was used on a regular basis as well (see Appendix D). There were, however, two locations that attracted many people from all over the community. One of those locations was the Southwood community center, which was where the playground, pools and other activities were located (see Figure 5.52). Based on this, one can conclude that children are an

Figure 4.52. Southwood Playground (http://www.southwoodfl.com)

Figure 4.53. Golf Cart in Southwood Golf Course (http://www.southwoodfl.com)

integral part of this community, and therefore the activities of this community are heavily centered on taking care of and entertaining the children. The other location that seemed to attract a lot of people was the golf course (see Figure 5.53). While golf is a sport, it is also a very social game, which allows for much interaction between players and usually a more festive atmosphere. One can conclude from this that adults in this community enjoy the physical

activity and their social interaction, associated with golfing, residents also enjoyed walking around the lake and riding bicycles.

Summary

Findings showed that the porches in Southwood were rarely used. Although the Florida climate might be a contributing factor to this finding during the summer months, March and April, very pleasant months in Tallahassee, still saw very little activity on the porches. Porches in Southwood were often decorated with a variety of plants and other objects and usually had some type of furniture including rocking chairs, swings, and children’s furniture. Size also appeared to be another factor. The porches that are longer and narrower may not encourage for social interaction due to the shape and the distance for one end to the other. During the springtime, there were more activities taking place, not just on the porches, but also within the community itself. During the summer months, the community center serviced a number of residents in large part because of the public swimming pool located there. During special events, such as Halloween and Christmas, porches may see increased use due to residents being more sociable around the holidays. Trick or treating is also a very large event, which allows for porch decorating and interaction with children of the community. While community togetherness is apparent at the playgrounds and community centers, the porches were not found to contribute to that kind of congregation.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to examine the current status and importance of porches in modern homes in New Urbanist communities. The New Urbanist community of Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida was selected as a site for this case study. Historically, porches were utilized as the central gathering place of the home, where residents of the home and neighbors congregated to socialize and take advantage of more pleasant temperatures and breezes outside. This led to porches being a vital element in the design of homes such as the Cracker style houses in the South. Porches were widely used because they served an important function for residents and enabled greater interaction and greater community participation, which was important in order for a community to thrive. The concept of New Urbanism first received widespread attention with the development of Seaside, Florida, where developers decided to build a community that looked to the cohesive communities of the early twentieth century for design inspiration. In 1993, several architects formed the Congress for New Urbanism which sought to create more livable communities through good design (www.cnu.org). The tenets of New Urbanism included providing a town center, offering mixed-use development, designing to accommodate pedestrians, providing a clear sense of neighborhood, designing with consideration for local vernacular architecture, and providing a variety of housing types to encourage diversity. The designers of Seaside followed the tenets described above and decided to use Southern Cracker style architecture, which was common in rural areas surrounding Seaside, for inspiration. Part of the design of these homes included the addition of porches added to encourage community interaction and socializing.

Another community where New Urbanism principles were used as a basis for the design of the community is Southwood in Tallahassee, Florida. This community was built with the ideals of community cohesiveness in mind. In typical New Urbanist style, Southwood is a self-contained community, with all the modern conveniences and luxuries available within walking or short driving distance. The community has its own town center, restaurants, schools, and even a central gathering place called the Community Center, which has a pool and playgrounds. Like Seaside, approximately 96 percent of the homes in Southwood have some sort of porch, whether front porch, back porch or balcony. The methodology used for this study was visual observations. These visual observations were conducted during a span of four months, during March, April, July, and August of 2007. The goal was to get a more visually accurate sense of how porches were being used, if at all. Over that four month period, during times of normal weather conditions, observations were conducted by driving down various streets in the community of Southwood. During those sessions, 146 houses were observed for a total of 1,403 separate observations. Findings showed that of those 146 houses, 140 homes had a front porch. These porches were typically decorated with various types of furniture, seasonal decorations, and often included children’s toys. During these observations, the researcher observed the people using the porches and recorded how they were being used. Between March and April, nine homes were observed with people utilizing their porches. In July, there was only one home with the porch being used and no one was seen on any porch during the August observation sessions. Therefore, during the 1,403 separate observations, only ten people were found to be utilizing their porches. There can be various reasons why the number of people on the porches was so low. The weather may be a contributing factor to the porch being used more in March and April, which are spring months, versus July and August which are summer months. People are most likely to use the porch when the weather is more pleasant, such as in early spring and perhaps even late fall. Considering Florida has very harsh summer temperatures and usually heavy rainfall as well, it is easy to conclude that people are more apt to want to be inside during the heat of summer. Even though some

porches had decorations of some kind, these enhancements did not appear to cause these porches to be used more frequently. One could assume that a well-decorated porch would lead people to use it more often, but observations showed that the decoration or lack thereof, was not associated with the residents to be on their porches any more than people with little or no decorations present. This research raised questions regarding the motivation for adding porches to homes in Southwood. While most of the homes have porches, a very small percentage of them are actually being used. Perhaps people derive aesthetic pleasure from having a porch, although they are not used, like they were in the early twentieth century. For example, Southwood’s advertising pictures of their homes and rental properties (such as those on their website (http://www.joe.com)) would lead one to assume that the porch is the central focus of the home, and people use their porches regularly. However, from my observation this is far from the truth. While the occasional resident is on their porch during pleasant months, the majority of residents in Southwood do not utilize their porch as much as the advertisements would lead people to believe. For example, in figure 5.54 and 5.55, one can see a family gathering on a porch in Southwood, along with people on bicycles, others walking and also a couple having a picnic. However, during the visual observations conducted, this scene was never a reality. At any given time of the day, one or all of these occurrences could be happening, but the advertisement is misleading by leading people to believe that all these activities are done on a regular basis. In figure 5.56, the picture depicts the water slide in their community center with many families and children in the water. This is more accurate according to my visual observation. The Community Center seems to be more useful as a gathering place rather than the porches.

Figure 5.54. Advertisement from Southwood website. (www.joe.com)

Figure 5.55. Advertisement from Southwood website. (www.joe.com)

Figure 5.56. Advertisement from Southwood website. (www.joe.com)

Back in the peak of porch popularity, people were more likely to be home for longer periods of time. Historically, weather was not a deciding factor as to when and if people used their porches because there were limited recreational activities to do in the house, and without central air conditioning, the porches often remained the coolest, breeziest spot of the house. Women stayed home to raise children and take care of their families which meant there were people home during the day. People gathered on porches

to socialize, catch up on community news and children gathered to play. Many of these people likely formed attachments to these porches. In our more fast-paced, consumerist, air-conditional society, gathering places have moved indoors. Television, internet and video games have replaced community socializing with a more individual focus. Children are more likely to play indoors on the computer than be outside. In Southwood, the Community Center was a more likely place to find children playing. The Community Center was clearly more of a gathering place than individual porches. Porches can be used in different ways. In Southwood, porches seem to be used more for decoration and enhancement of the appearance and style of the home. Residents may enjoy the architecture of the porch, but do not utilize it regularly. Size also seems to be a factor worth mentioning. Most of the porches were longer and narrower, and most of the porches were 100-200 square feet in size. The size and shape are not conducive to allowing for gathering or interactions. The distance between people would have been too much to efficiently communicate without raising one’s voice. Bigger porches that are not as narrow and more square in shape would have allowed for more people to set up furniture that would allow closer face-to-face interaction, versus the longer, narrow porches that would only really allow for two people standing or sitting next to each other to communicate. I chose to study New Urbanism and porches because I expected that porches would be used more often because of the design of the New Urbanist communities. By nature, they are meant to be accessible, thereby allowing for greater interaction within the community. I originally envisioned porches to be a focal point for this community interaction. Although New Urbanist communities like Southwood are attempting to return to a simpler style of community, with greater interface between residents, it seems that our lifestyles have changed with time spent inside or in specifically designated recreation areas, often in organized activities. Through my research, I have found that people gathered and socialized on porches during the nineteenth and early twentieth century with Cracker houses and had a tight-knit community that was important and beneficial to everyone involved. The porches were used more often as a central gathering spot for this tight-knit community to

gather and socialize. Today, that appeal has evolved into something more individual- centered, and therefore, leads porches to have more of an architectural appeal, rather than a functional appeal. However, regardless of the lack of functional appeal of porches, there is a slow process of bringing back the porch in the modern design of new homes. Perhaps people have a nostalgic connection to porches because of their memories of their grandparents’ homes. This has lead people to build homes with porches in order to connect with fond memories of the past. According to an article in USA Today, “Porches are on the verge of becoming as common as they were in your grandmother’s day; More than half (53%) of the 1.6 million new single-family homes built in the USA last year, included them…construction of homes with porches jumped 36% from 2001 to 2005” (Yuhas, 2006, p. 6D). This reiterates the notion that porches are trying to re-emergence in modern homes. From my observation, it appears that the people of Southwood enjoy their porches more for the architectural value rather than the functional value. There is continual construction being done in Southwood. Most likely, porches will continue to be a much- desired aspect of the homes built there. Porches seem to add a vintage or antique feel to the homes there. Florida weather is a contributing factor to the porches being used more or less. In the spring season, when the weather is more pleasant, more people were found on their porches. Although this study did not take place in the fall, it is likely the frequency of use will go up during that season as well. In the future, I do not anticipate people will use their porches as much as they were historically because technology will be expanding and people will be out of the homes more than they used to be. Although Southwood may not represent all New Urbanist communities, with the onset of technology replacing face-to-face interaction, this trend of more indoor activity will most likely continue. People connect more technologically, such as through email, instant messaging, text messaging, and therefore there is less time for outdoor interaction than in the past. Perhaps in the future, porches will be adapted to include more enclosed space with air conditioning, televisions and other modern conveniences. Possibly, porches will become larger and wider spaces, and will evolve into a brand-new architecture style, yet to be discovered.

Porches, in their peak of utilization, were an asset to the home, not only structurally, but socially. Families and community members gathered on porches to socialize and connect. Nowadays, porches have become ornamental by nature, more of a decoration piece than an actual, functional place. While technology is one culprit, overall, our society has become less engaged with face-to-face interaction with neighbors and is perhaps somewhat more withdrawn than we (society as a whole) used to be. Perhaps porches will evolve over time enabling people to be more social again, to gather as communities and unite with a feel of neighborly togetherness.

Future Research

This area of research might benefit from further study. Possible topics for future research include conducting a similar study in a different New Urbanist neighborhood as findings from Southwood clearly can not be generalized to all New Urbanist communities. Interviews with residents of New Urbanist communities to better understand how they use their porches and the perceived value of the porch to the home would also be informative. This study was conducted in the Spring and Summer. Additional studies could explore the neighborhood and similar neighborhoods during other seasons. Exploring the use of the porch during holidays and special events might also lead to better understanding of the value of the porch to the residents.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burt, A. (1990). The Tropic of Cracker. Florida: The University Press of Florida.

Bressi, T. ed. (2002). The Seaside Debate: A Critique Of the New Urbanism. The Seaside Institute: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

Brooke, S. (1995). Seaside. Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company.

Coley, R., Kuo, F., Sullivan, W. (1997). Where does community grow? The Social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468-494.

Donlon, J. H. (2001). Swinging in Place, Porch Life in Southern Culture. Chapel Hill and London: The University Of North Carolina Press.

Downing, A. J (2001). A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening. New York: C.M. Saxton and Company.

Feldman, R. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society. Environment and Behavior, 22(2), 183-229.

Haase, R. W., (1992). Classic Cracker: Florida’s Wood Frame Vernacular Architecture. Sarasota: Pineapple Press, Inc.

Kahn, R. & Meagher, E (1990). Preserving porches. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Katz, P. (1994). The New Urbanism, Toward an Architecture of Community. McGraw Hill, Inc.

Keillor, G. (1990). Lake Wobegon Summer, 1956. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.allreaders.com/topics/Info_34922.asp.

Kim, Q. S. (2003, Jan. 16). House Hunters Warm to Folksy Florida Style. The Wall Street Journal, Real Estate Journal. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004, from http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/regionalnews/20030116-kim.html.

Low, S. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind: Place attachment in the plaza. In Place Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman and Setha Low. New York: Plenum Place.

Mesch, G. & Manor, O. (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception and Local Attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 504-519.

McCloud, K. (2003). Choosing Colors: An Expert Choice of the Best Colors to Use in Your Home. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.

McDonald, M. (2005). The Space Between: Appreciating the Porch/Verandah. Graduate Research Paper, Florida State University.

McWhiney, G. (1988). Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Mohney, D. & Easterling, K. (1991). Seaside. Making town in America. Princeton Architectural Press.

Nesmith, E. L. (2003). Seaside Style. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

New Urbanism (2006). New Urbanism Creating Sustainable Communities. http://www.newurbanism.org/. 2006 October 20.

Northby South Website. (2005. Jan. 06). In Search of the Dogtrot House. http://northbysouth.kenyon.edu/2002/Space/Evans%20Dogtrot%20page.htm

Sachner, P. M. (1986). Small Pleasures. Architectural Record Houses, 1986, 92.

Seaside. (2004. Sept. 08). Seaside, Florida. http://www.seasidefl.com.

Sexton, R. (1995). Parallel utopias: the quest for community: the Sea Ranch, California, Seaside, Florida. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Scott, J. “An Overview of New Urbanism in South Florida.” CNU Florida, Congress for the New Urbanism Florida Chapter. (2002). http://www.cnuflorida.org/nu_florida/south_florida.htm. 2005 Jan 18.

Shaw, K. “Walking West Laurel Volksmarch - Maryland, USA.” About Walking. 2006. http://walking.about.com/od/trailusaeast/a/blwa010999.htm. 2006 Aug 21.

The Evolution of the American Front Porch. The study of an American Culture Object. (2006). http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/cook/first.htm. 30 October 2006.

The Old House Web. (2004. Sept. 08). Cracker Farmhouses: 1840-1920: Practical style makes a comfortable comeback in the 21st century. http://www.oldhouseweb.com/stories/Detailed/12106.shtml.

Tonyan, R. (1997). “Cracking up Cracker Myths,” Reprint from Halifax Magazine. http://www.homepages.rootsweb.com/~fcc/main/what’s_a_cracker.htm.

Valle, E. (1998). Florida Vernacular Architecture. Dictionary: HomeStyle Publishing.

Welcome to Southwood. St. Joe Company. (2006). http://www.joe.com/web/TownsAndHomes/SouthWood/TownOverview.html. 30 October 2006.

Yuhas, M.T. (2006. Sept. 08). “Moving back to front porch does a body good; A neighborly tradition catches on. USA Today, Life. Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007, from http://www.lexisnesix.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mary Elizabeth Weems Smallwood was born on March 4, 1983 in Panama City, Florida. In 1993, she moved with her family to DeLand, Florida and graduated from DeLand High School in 2001. Smallwood received an Associate of Arts from Daytona Beach Community College in Daytona Beach, Florida, 2002 and Bachelor of Science in Interior Design from Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, 2004. In December 2007, she graduated from Florida State University with a Masters of Fine Arts in Interior Design. Smallwood has persevered to overcome a congenital, bilateral, profound hearing loss since birth. She is currently employed by Design & More, Tallahassee, Florida, and is in training for the practice of residential interior design. Her interests lie in residential interior design, and she hopes to one day practice interior design in the Southeast. Smallwood currently resides in Tallahassee, Florida.