The Use of Porches in a New Urbanist Community: a Case Study Mary Elizabeth Smallwood
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 By 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. ii 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. iv 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 v 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 vi 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 ix 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 x 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