CAI,IF'ORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NOR'THlUDGE
FIVE CALIFORNIA WOMEN ARCHITECTS !\ IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
A thesis submitt:ed in partial satisfaction of tht.~ reguirement.s for the degree of Master of Arts in
Art
by
Helen Morgan
J'une 1979 The Thesis of Helen Moraan is aooroved:
Mary Kenan Breazeal~
Dr. Donald Strona br .-nolores Yonker,---- Committee Chairman
California State University, Northridge
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I take this opportunity to thank the members of my committP-e, Dr. Dolores Yonker, Mary Kenon Breazeale, and
Dr. Donald Strong, for their generous help in the completion of this thesis. A special word of appreciation is due Dr. Yonker, committee chairperson and graduate advisor.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGN.ENTS ...... iii
LIST OF PLATES AND SOURCES vi
ABSTRACT xii
Part I
INTRODUCTION
:A HISTOIUCAL SURVEY OF WOJI.'lEN IN ARCHITECTURE (1800-1940)
Chapter
1. WOMEN'S DESIGN OF DOMESTIC SPACE (1820-1870) ...... • 2
2. OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN IN ARCHITECTURE (1860-1940) ...... 19
Part II
FIVE CALIFORNIA WOr>lEN ARCHITECTS (1900-1960)
3. JULIA MORGAN (1872-1957) 36
4. HAZEL WOOD WATERI~N (1865-1948) 54
5. LILIAN RICE (1888-1932) 70
6. EDLA MUIR (1906-1971) . 90
7. LUTAH MARIA RIGGS (1895-) 102
Epilogue
WOMEN'S SEARCH FOR PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 113
iv Page BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 131 APPENDIX 137
v LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
1. Catherine Beecher, floor plan and elevation for a Gothic Cottage, 1848.
Source: Catherine Beecher, A Treatise for Domestic Economv for theuse of- Young Ladies at Hcirii.~--ro-ew--Yo£k---:-Ifa rper I 1841), p. 269...... • • • 6
2. Catherine Beecher, floor plan and elevation for a Greek Cottage, 1848.
Source: Catherine Beecher, A Treatise for Domestic Economy for the use oT-~ Young-tadies a·t Hom·e(i~ewYork:--Harper, 7 1841) 1 P• 271. • • o • • o • . . 3. Catherine Beecher, floor plan, 1869.
Source: Catherine Beecher, The American Woman' s Home (New York: J. B-~-FOrd;---- 1869), p. 27. • • . . ••. 10
4. Catherine Beecher, A Movable Screen, 1869.
Source: Cathering Beecher, The American Woman's Home (New York: J. B-.-Ford, 1869), p. 28-29 ..•..•..••••• . . 12 5. Harriet Morrison Irwin, Plan for a hexagonal building, 1869.
Source: Madelaine Stern, We the Women (New York: Shulte Publishing Company, 1963), p. 84. • .•. 13
6. Margaret Hicks, A Workman's Cottage, 1878.
Source: Gwendolyn Wright, "On the Fringe of the Profession: Women in American Architecture, .. The Architect, ed. Spiro Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977}, p. 282. . •.••••.•••. '23
vi Plate Page
7. Sophia Hayden, The Woman's Building, 1893.
Source: Madelaine Stern,· We the Women (New York: Shulte Publishing Company, 1963), p. 285 ..•....•.•••. • • • 25 8. Eleanor Raymond, A Modern House in Massachusetts, 1933.
Source: "Eleanor Raymond," Architectural Forum (November, 1933), p. 413 ••••• . . 33
9. Julia Morgan, St. John~s Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, 1909.
Source: Richard W. Longstreth, Julia Morgan--Architect (Berkeley: Architectural Heritage Association, 1977) , p. 31. • • • , 44
10. Figure 1: Julia Morgan, La Cuesta Encantada, San Simeon, 1920-1937.
Source: Richard W. Longstreth, Julia ~organ::-Architect (Berkeley: Architectural Heritage Association, 1977), p. 33. • ., 46
Figure 2: Julia Morgan, YWCA, Oakland, 1913-1914.
Source: Longstreth, Julia Morgan- Architect, p. 29.
11. Julia Morgan, Interior, YWCA, Oakland, 1913.,..1914.
Source: Susana Torre, ed., Women in Aloerican Architecture:. A Historic and Contemporary Perspect.i ve (New York-:- Watson-Guphill Publications, 1977), 49 p. 83 ••• ,. •••••••• fl ...... ' 12. Julia Morgan, Asilomar, 1913.
Source: Harriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects i.n California," AIA Journal, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977T, p. 38 •.•••••••••• 50
vii Plate Page
13. Julia Morgan, Berkeley Women's City Club, Berkeley, 1929-1930.
Source: Richard W. Longstreth, Julia Morgan--Architect (Berkeley: Architectural Heritage Ass-ociation, 1977), p. 25. . . • 52
14. Hazel Wood Waterman, The Alice Lee Residence, San Diego, 1905.
Source: AIA Guide to San Diego (San Diego Chapter of the American Association of Architects, 1977), p. 40 .•.• 56
15. Hazel Wood Waterman, The Estudillo House, San Diego, 1909.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscripts Collection, Box file: Hazel Wood Waterman Collection. . • • 59
16. Hazel Wood Waterman, The Wednesday Club, San Diego, 1910.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscripts Collection, Box file: Hazel Wood Waterman Collection .. . . 62 17. Hazel Wood Waterman, contemporary view of The Wednesday Club, San Diego, 1910. Source: Helen Morgan...... 63 18. Hazel Wood Waterman, The Children's Home, Administration Building, Balboa Park, San Diego, 1912.
Source: The San Di~go Historical Society Library and Manuscripts Collection, Box file: Hazel Wood Waterman Collection .• 65
19. Irving Gill, Gilman Hall Bishop's School, La Jolla, California, 1916.
Source: Esther McCoy, Five California Architects (New York: Reinhold Book CO'r'poration, 1960), p. 82. • • • • • . • • • 68
viii Plate ~qge
20. Lilian Rice, view of town center, Rancho Santa Fe, 1922.
Source: Helen Morgan. " ~ . . . . 73 21. Lilian Rice, Rancho Santa Fe Inn, 1922.
Source: Helen Morgan...... ~ - 74 22. Lilian Rice, sketch, Home of Mary A. Campbell, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. • • • . 76
23. Lilian Rice, sketch, Proposed Residence for Mrs. Francis Rush, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. • . . • . 77
24. Lilian Rice, floor plan, Residence of Mr. Barton Millard, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. • . . • • 78
25, Lilian Rice, sketch and floor plan, Home for Mr. S. H. Carse, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. • • . • • 79
26. Lilian Rice, sketch and floor plan, Home for Mr. D. L. Fairchild, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society J:..:i.brary and Manuscript Collection. . . • • • 80
27. Lilian Rice, floor plan, residence, Rancho Santa Fe.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. • • • • • 81
28. Lilian Rice, townhouses, Rancho Santa Fe, 1923.
Source: David Gebhard and Robert Winter, A Guide to Architecture in Southern
ix Plate Page
California (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1965), p. 71. . . 82 29. Lilian Rice, ZLAC Rowing Club, Mission Bay, California, 1932.
Source: Helen Morgan...... ~ .. 84 30. Lilian Rice, ZLAC Rowing Club, Mission Bay, California, 1932.
Source: Helen Morgan. 85
31. Lilian Rice, interior, ZLAC Rowing Club, Mission Bay, California, 1932.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. . . . . 87
32. Lilian Rice, Robinson House, La Jolla, California, 1929.
Source: The San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscript Collection. . . . • . 88
33. Edla Muir, elevation, Edla Muir Residence, Brentwood, California, 1935.
Source: University of California at Santa Barbara, Museum, Edla Muir 93 Collection...... 0 • •
34. Edla Muir, floor plan, Edla Muir Residence, Brentwood, California, 1935.
Source: University of California at Santa Barbara, Museum, Edla Muir Collection. . . • . . . 94
35. Figure 1: John Byers and Edla Muir, Chase House, Azusa, California, 1936.
Figure 2: John Byers and Edla Muir, Ilsey House, Los Angeles, California, 1937.
Source: David Gebhard and Harriet von Breton, L.A. in the Thirties 1931-1941 (JJos Angeles: Peregrine· Smith, Inc. , 1975), p. 124. • • • • ••••..•
X Plate Vage
36. Edla Muir, John Rex Residence, Los Angeles, 1949.
Source: Harriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in · California," AIA Journal, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977) , p. 4 0--.- 99 37. Lutah Maria Riggs, Lutah Maria Riggs Residence, Montecito, California, 1926. Source: Helen Morgan...... 100 38. Lutah Maria Riggs, Erving House, Montecito, California, 1953.
Source: David Gebhard and Robert Winter, A Guide to Architecture in Southern California (Los-Angeles: Los ·Angeles County Mus-eum of Art, 1965), p. 115 ..• • • 107 39. Lutah Maria Riggs, Vedanta Temple, Montecito, California, 1956.
Source: Helen Morgan...... ~ 110
xi ABSTRACT
FIVE CALIFORNIA WOMEN ARCHITECTS
IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
by
Helen Morgan
Master of Arts in Art
This paper proposes to put the careers of five
California women architects into historical perspective and to add new information to that already published about women in architecture.
Until the late nineteenth century, the design of domestic architecture was traditionally accepted as a man's profession. Therefore, any reference to the matter of housekeeping efficiency was not an important cri te:r:ion for the architect.
Women expressed little interest in the development of domestic architecture until the 1820's when changing social concE tions stimulated a deman.J. for solutions to housekeeping problems. The arrangein<:mt. of the :i.ntr:Jrior
xii and eventually the design of the entire dwelling came und.er
close scrutiny. By the late 1800's, some women wished to pursue this interest to the point where they demanded
formal training. Unfortunately many universities with architectural departments refused to admit them.
At the beginning of the t:went:ie·th century, i.:wo important events in California contribu-ted to the emergence of women as architects. 'rhe Depart.ment of Architecture at the Unive:rsi ty of California at Berkeley encouraged women to enroll, and the population movement westward increased the demand for domestic building.
As a result, five women, Julia Morgan, Hazel Y./ood
Waterman, Lilian Rice, Edla Muir and Lut.ah Maria Riggs realized successful careers and made significant contri butions to architectural design in California.
After World War II, more women entered the profes sion of architecture and together they raised questions about their status in the field. In order to clarify their historic contributions and assure their future recognition, they co;nbined efforts to inform and educate both men and women. Women architects were no longer content with the traditional view of architecture as a man's profession.
xiii Part I
INTRODUCTION
A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF
WOMEN IN ARCHITECTURE
1800-1940
1 Chapter 1
WOMEN'S DESIGN OF DOMESTIC SPACE (1820-1870)
The nineteenth century architect designed many of his buildings by systematically following a traditional pattern of aesthetics. The most influential architectural critic of the time, John Ruskin, wrote The Seven Lamps of
Architecture, and in the first chapter, "The Lamp of Sacri- fice," clearly separated building and architecture.
It is very necessary, in the outset of all inquiry, to distinguish carefully between Architecture and Building .
. architecture concerns itself only with those characters of an edifice which are above and beyond its common use.l
With this judgment in mind, the architect rarely questioned the needs of the woman who was ultimately to spend most of her time and energy trying to efficiently run her household. With the further development of mass housing programs for the middle class, this inadequacy was still not remedied, and few women challenged the situation.
lJohn Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture (London: J. M. Dent &-Sons Ltd., 1907), pp. 7-9.
2 3
As the nineteenth century progressed, housewives began to take more than a casual interest in their home environment. Their new attitude created a demand for change, and, as a result, women eventually became inter- ested in all phases of domestic architecture. As early as the 1820's, small handbooks were published to educate young women in the practical handling of a smooth household.
Three such publications; Letters to Young Ladies, 1823;
The Young Ladies' Prien~, 1837; and The Young Ladies' Home,
1839, originated in the East, and became popular reading for young \\?Omen throughout the United States. 2
For a young woman in any situation in life to be ignorant of the various business that belongs to good housekeeping, is as great a deficiency as it would be in a merchant not to understand accounts, or the roasLer of a vessel not to be acquainted with nav·:Lgation. If a womnn does not know how the various work of a house should be done, she might as well know nothing· r for t.hat. is her express vocation; and it matters not ho-v1 much learning, or how many accomplishments, she may have, if she is wanting in that which is ·to fit he:c for her pecul iar calling.
Whether rich or poor, young or old, married or single, a woman is always liable to be called to the performance of every kind of domestic dut.y! as well as to be placed at the head of a £an:d.ly; and nothing short of a practical knowledge of the details of housekeeping can ever make those duties easy, or render her competent to direct ot-hers in the performance of them.3
2 Dor1s' C o 1 e, F rom T1p1 . ' t o Skyscraper: J_J.st.T. t.·ory o--f
Women in Architecture (Boston: i press, 1973) 1 p. 28~---
3Eliza. Ware Rotch 1 The Young Ladies Friend (Boston:
.Araerican Stationers Company, 1873) 1 p. 231. 4
Although this early development was significant, it took the efforts of many outspoken young women to convince the female population of their right to protest their domestic environment. In time, this protest led to positive inter- vention into the standard domestic building practices of the day.
One of the strongest advocates of women in archi- tecture was Catherine Beecher, 1800-1878. Since the early nineteenth century, Hiss Beecher was known to have been interested in establishing housekeeping as a professional role for women. While traveling and lecturing extensively throughout the Hidwest and New England, she strongly urged further education for women. She felt that professional skills should be learned in order to have complete control over a technically efficient household. nHousekeeping would be on par with male businesses, but only if the proper methods were demonstrated and houses properly organized." 4 Aware of her influence, Catherine Beecher published three successful books on the subject. Within them, she firmly stated her theories and provided detailed designs for a new domestic setting.
Published in 1841, her first book, Treatise on
Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies at 1-!_om~, '\vas
4 Gwendolyn Wright, "On the Fring·e of the Profes sion: Women in American Architecture, 11 'rhe Arc hi teet, ed. Spiro Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press, i977), p. 2 85. 5 l
immediately successful. Later, because of its increased popularity, the publication was used as a school textbook.
In the introduction to h.er treatise, Catherine
Beecher outlined
. five particulars, to which attention should be given in building a house; namely, economy of labor, economy of money, ec9nomy of health, economy of comfort, and good taste. ::;
For the first time, she attempted to incorporate her ideas in the practical design of a middle income home. She supplied her readers with two exterior facades, a simple
Greek Revival and a Gothic design, both preferably painted white. (Plates l & 2) These choices are important i.n relationship to her earlier strict Christian upbringing and also in relationshi~ to the architectural building trends of Europe at the time; for, by the middle of the nineteenth century, Gothic had been internationally established as an expression of faith.
By 1851, John Ruskin had publicly concluded that
Christian architecture was superior to that of pagan. He went on to suggest that the Gothic style of architecture epitomized Christian values. The Gothic style, infinitely varied in character, never repeated itself and therefore allowed the purity of the architect's or workman's sub- conscious to be expressed. Consequently, its completed
5catherine Beecher, Treatise on Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies at Home (New York: Harper, l1T5oJ, P. 2 5 s . 6
l==-.:-'·=1·------~------1 •• l:J :JIJ iJJ ;::.::;1!::: ci' T"cct..
=--d.l " = a r 0 0 qJk.
Plate 1: Catherine Beecher, floor plan and elevation for a Gothic Cottage, 1848. 7
- fttl -jj-j-jj:tJ !0 2!7 jiJ - -- ~r.a!c pf Pect.
Plate 2: Catherine Beecher, floor plan and elevation for a Greek Cottage, 1848. 8
design would manifest truth. " .•• in all living
Christian architecture the love of variety e~ists • • • this frankness being joined, for the most part, with depth
of religious feeling .•
It was not only the exterior facade that Catherine
Beecher was interested in. The function of her interior
· plan depended on the simple arrangement of a perfect
square. "P~ square," she declared, ". . . enclosed more
rooms, at less expense, than any other shape; while it has
less surface exposed to the external cold, and can be most
easily vJarmed and ventilated." 7 In her first major attempt
~t design, Beecher's only example of innov~tive interior
disposition was the parlor which could be changed into a
bedroom at night. With this one exception, hei' plan was
most traditional in its design. The parlor and dining
room were arranged on either side of a central staircase;
the kitchen and tiny bedrooms were located in the back.
By 1865, Catherine Beecher had settled on a single
facade for her homes. In the article "How to Redeem
Women's Profession from Dishonor," she illustrated a Gothic
Cottage full of mechanical equipment for the professional
6John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, III (London: J. Wiley, 1864), pp. 168-171~
?Beecher, p. 259. 9
housewife. 8 Although her Gothic exterior was no'lt7 entirely
in keeping "Vlith the developing architectural trends, her
use of mechanical equipment would surely have been frowned
upon by Ruskin and his idealis·tic contemporaries. However 1 the influence of industrialization was strong in the United
States, and again, with the strengthening middle class came
a demand for labor saving devices.
The American Woman's Home, published in 1869, and written with her sister the novelist, Harriet Beecher
Stowe, is considered Catherine Beecherts most important publication. In this volume, her house plan was fully expressed:
In the following drawings are presented modes of economizing time, labor and expense by the close packing of conveniences. By such me·thods, small and economical houses can be made to secure most of the comforts and many of the refinements of large and expensive ones.9
This time, her building facade was presented as a simple design left free to express individual preferences. The parlor was designed for dual purposes, again becoming a flexible space which could be used for gracious company entertainment or for everyday practical needs. (Plate 3)
This space, ordinarily used only for company, was organized
8catherine Beecher, "How to Redeem Women's Profes sion From Dishonor," Harpers New Monthly Magazine, 31 {1865), pp. 714-724.
9catherine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, The American Woman's Home (New York:. J. B. Ford, 1869), p-:---25. 10
43 X 25 10 F'EET INSIDE FRO!rl FLOOR TO CE!t:/Nt:
I I I I
I 'I <~ DRAWING ROOM N : N : 25 X 16 <( : Q.~ I
. •I I I I <(~ N • 25Xl6 N I ~ ! IL~ l 1 I I I !
Plate 3: Catherine Beecher, floor plan for the American Woman's Home, 1869. 11
for practical living by means of a movable screen.
{Plate 4) This screen was decorative on one side and gave
the parlor a cheerful comfortable appearance. The other
side contained recessed compartments used for a variety of
sewing or bedroom needs.
The mechanical conveniences of this home were all
located at the center of the house; the heating and venti-
lating systems and the kitchen with its workspace were
centrally located for easy access. The kitchen was
arranged with shelves and cupboards located for total
efficiency.
Catherine Beecher was one of the first known advo-
cates of women's liberation from disorganized, clumsy
housekeeping. However, many other working women, some of
them architects, were responsible for the most advanced
thinking about the domestic environment.
In 1869, Harriet Morrison Irwin was the first wornar>
to patent an architectural innovation for a dwelling.
(Pl_ate 5) In a document signed ambiguously H. M. Irwin,
she proposed ". an entire revolution in the method of building a house."
My invention consists of a dwelling house or other building, hexagonal in form, and enclosing a space separated into hexagonal and lozenge-shaped rooms, ••. also of a chimney-stack, arranged at the junction of the walls of the adjacent hexagonal rooms, and containing flues communicating with the fireplaces in the several rooms.
The objects of my invention are the economizing of space, and building-materials, the obtaining of 12
0
Plate 4: Catherine Beecher, a movable screen for the American Woman's Home, 1869. 13
C07J.J"b'U~~O.t7 g/".du.bbf~ ../)174'-s'V/d.' mk.7ka'.&,r ~.4-, /J't1'0
Plate 5: Harriet Invin, elevation and floor plan for a hexagonal building, 1869. 14
economical heating mediums, thorough lighting and ventilation and facilities for inexperisive orna~ menta·tion.l 6
On West Fifth Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina,
~Uss Irwin realized her plan by building a two-story frame house with a central tower, a mansard roof, an arched porch and hexagonal apartments. She continued to build, and, after this first attempt, she constructed at least two other dwellings along more conventional standards. With no formal training behind her, Harriet Irwin set an example
~vhich would prove to be decisive in the history of women in Rrchitecture. The fact that she not only designed, but patented and built her house, was indicative of the progress women were beginning to make.
The Influence of Utopianism --c>n-Domestic Architecture
One other factor influenced women's involvement with domestic architecture. In the nineteenth century, new attitudes about the family and community living were expressed, and with the rise of industrialization came overcrowded cities and poorly constructed tenements.
Utopian thought flourished and its literature, both fie- tional and expository, became popular. This literature in
10Hadelaine Stern, We the Women (New York: Shulte Publishing Company, 1963), p. 58. 15
turn inspired active movements toward idealistic living and a return to the simple rural life.
Utopian philosophy spread throughout France and
England. Communes, experimenting with a variety of religious and secular systems, developed across the United
States. Communities were established by the Morovians,
Shakers, Rappites, Perfectionists of Oneida and others.
Only a few of these cooperatives lasted however, and only one, the Perfectionists, established in Oneida, New York, by John H~~phry Noyes, still exists today. 11
In his essays "Unto this Last" published in
Cornhill Hagazine and later republished in a volume under that same title, John Ruskin blended his ideology on design with a vision of an ideal society which would b~ responsive to the needs of its individual members:
First--that there should be training schools for youth established, at Government cost, and under Government discipline, over the whole country; that every child born in the country should, at the parents' wish, be permitted to pass through them;
. . • that there should be established, also en tirely under Government regulations, manufactories and workshops, for the production and sale of every necessary of life, and for the exercise of every useful art •
. that any man, or woman, or boy, or girl, out of employmen·t, should be at once received at the nearest Government school, and set to such
1 1noris Cole, From Tipi to Skyscraper: History of Women in Architecture (Boston: i press, 1973), p. 40. 16
work as it appeared, on trial, they were fit for, at a fixed rate of wag~s determinable every year:
• . . and lastly-·-that for ·the old and des·ti tute, comfort and home should be provided; which pro vision, when misfortune had been by the working of such a system shifted from guilt, would be honourable instead of disgraceful to the receiver.l2
Ruskin wanted to put his beliefs in a just society into practice by establishing the St. George's Guild, a commune dedicated towards the simple life and the culti- vation of the land and basic human values. The power of_ enlightenment that this society would produce would then permeate all capitalistic societies, an economic system
Ruskin violently opposed. Machinery was to be totally banned by the Guild in all areas in which human effort could produce finer precision or exercise for the body. 1 3
The desire for communal living also made its impact on women in the United States. Under the direction of
Martha McWhirter in 1866, a group of thirty celibate women formed one of the most unique community efforts in the
United States known as the Woman's Commonwealth in Belton,
12John Ruskin, Unto This Last (London: University Tutorial Press Ltd. [n.d.]), pp. 1-7. 13 In 1871, Ruskin launched his project with a personal donation of 7000 pounds. By 1874, he had collec ted only 200 more pounds and in 1875, three acres of moor land and eight cottages were donated to his cause. In spite of his well-planned intentions however, the scheme failed and the corr~unity, frustrated in its efforts to be self-sufficient, dispersed. Gillian Naylor, The Arts and Crafts Movement (Cambridge, The MIT Press), pp. 32-94. 17
Texas. Although they began with separat8 houses, sharing
domestic work, they eventually moved into a com.rnunal struc,_
ture which they designed to simplify domestic work and
emphasize their interdependence upon one another. For the next twenty years they continued to add to this original
structure, and in 1886 they converted their residence into
a hotel.
Since the group favored extreme simplicity the facades of the buildings were unpretentious. The interiors were planned for interaction during work and leisure. Each room had several uses; each one opened into an adjoining space or an outdoor area. • • • The women formula-ted these designs through group discussions, investigation of efficient methods and client preferences elsewhere •••. 14
Having purchased a full city block, the Commonwealth expanded after the main structure was converted. r!~he women then built ano-ther structure directly across from the hotel for their own living space. This second building had two floors and consisted of workspaces, a dining room, kitchen-pantry and sitting room. Other bedrooms were separate and arranged around the gardens in groups of two to six. 1 5
14Gwendolyn Wright, "The Hodel Domestic Environ ment: Icon or Opt.ion," ~vomen in American: Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, ed. Susana ·Torre (New York: Watson-Guphill Publications, 1977), p. 31.
15rbid. 18
As a successful venture, the harmony of this tiny community must have been apparent to its visitors for it was always filled with travelers and townspeople. Chapter 2
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WO~ffiN IN ARCHITECTURE
(1860-1940)
The strongest impact women made in archi tec·ture came after the close of the 1850's. With formal recog- nition and new educational opportunities, their contri- butions became noteworthy and their reputations v.rere given . a chance to develop.
Articles offering pros and cons about women in architecture began appearing in publications as early as
1857 when Calvert Vaux, an early partner of Fredrick Law
Olmstead, presented a limited case for v-1omen in his book
Villas and Cottages.
There can be no doubt that the study of domestic architecture is well suited to a feminine taste, for if we even allow the objections . . • such as the necessity of their climbing ladders, mingling with the mechanics and laborers during the progress of the works ••• we must, nevertheless, see at once that there is nothing in the world, excep-t want of inclination and opportunity, to prevent many of them from being thoroughly expert in archi tec·tux·al drawing, Of from designing excellent furniture .••• "
E. c. Gardner, a popular writer and architectural theorist, also backed the women's cause in 1875 by writing,
lcalvert Vaux, Villas and Cottages (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1857), p. 236.
19 20
'I'he world is gone woefully astray • • • vain and sick and useless, all because homes and house keeping are on a false basis. I can see no way out of the wilderness till some saintly woman who knows the suffering and the need of humanity shall ••• place domestic architecture in the sight of all as the essen·tial foundation of a sound social sys·tem. 2
The American Archit.~ct and Building News also took a stand on women in archi tec·ture when they published an editorial in 1876 which stated, "'I'he knowledge of the requirements of houses which women acquire by living in them is of great importance to architects"; however, the article went on to qualify the issue when they wrote,
First, the planning of houses, at least so far as the convenience of their arrangement is concerned, though a very necessary part of an architect's duty, is not architecture at all; and the ability to arrange a house conveniently does not in the least make an architect. There are thousands of people who can adjust the plans of houses to their own perfect satisfaction and convenience, and those of others, but who are not architects . • • • Second, the knowledge of convenience in the arrangements of a house is not born into women, any more than into men. In fact, by the time they have thoroughly learned housekeeping, it is too late for them to learn architecture.3
In this statement, the importance of functional knowledge in domestic architecture was dismissed as a non~ professional concern. Women who chose to become architects
2Gwendolyn Wright, "On the Fringe of the Profes sion: Women in American Architecture," The Architect, ed. Spiro Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press,1977), p. 282. 3Editorial, The American Architect an:d Building ~e\vs, 1 (September 30, 1876)., 313. 21
began to recognize this kind of attitude, and, as a result, they made substantial efforts both personally and profes sionally to overcome prejudice.
It is important to note that education had much to do with women's progress in the field of architecture.
Before the 1860's there were few architectural schools available to students who wanted both university studies and architectural training. However, with the development of architectural departments within the universities, aspiring architects could receive their education with increased sta·tus through established schools. Many of these departments emerged with the development of the
:Norrill Land-Grant Act of 1862. By 1868 the Architecture
Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened for both men and women, and by 1871 departments at
Cornell University and the University of Illinois followed suit. Unfortunately, women were discriminated against in many other universities, for although the University of
Pennsylvania in 1890 and George Washington University in
1893 had developed excellent departments, they would not admit women. Columbia University excluded women as a matter of policy for a quarter of a century after it~· department was founded in 1881. Harvard did not receive women until the 1940's, and Pennsylvania, when they finally opened their enrollment, allowed women to participate only 2 ..?
through a quota syst.em similar to the minority sy:.:;tems that many universities rely on today.4
Women with formal educational opportunities more thoroughly understood their position in the profession.
They formed stronger alliances with each other and contri- buted to the architectural profession's recognition of a growing moral obligation to the industrial population of the cities. As the upper middle class population deserted the cities for suburban living, the poor construction of
·the tenements for the working class showed a distinct lack of interest by the profession.
In 1878 Hargaret Hicks was the first woman graduate from Cornell's architectural school. Her student project, a workman's cottage, was illustrated as a tiny replica of those suburban houses being designed by her contemporaries.
(Plate 6) It was accep·ted for publication by the Ame:r:_!.~
Architect and Building News on April 13, 1878. Although this first design was not relevant to crowded city life,
MargaretHicks had a firm belief that "her professional training should not be the private property of a single class, 115 and she went on to design tenement housing for the growing nuw~er of immigrants in New York City.
4Louise Bethune, "Women and Architecture," The Inland Architect and News Record, 17, No. 2 (!1arch,'""T891), ~------
5wright, p. 239. 23
Plate 6: Margaret Hicks, a Workman's Cottage, 1878. 24
In the 1880's, the first major recognition of a woman's building came when plans were formulated for the
1893 World's Columbian Exposition.
By drawing the most accomplished artists and sculptors to Chicago and appointing the most noted architects to design buildings within a strict Beaux-Arts tradition, the fair had become a land mark in architectural history. It was also the setting for the most extraordinary and influential event of the cent:ury for women architects: The Woman' s Building·. 6
Thirteen women from around the country sent designs to be judged, and on March 25, 1891, the winners were announced. Sophia Hayden was awarded the first prize of one thousand dollars plus the execution of her design.
(Plate 7) The second prize was given to Miss Lois L. Howe, of Boston, and the .third to Iv'J.iss Laura Hayes, of Chicago. 7
Sophia Hayden was twenty two years old at the time and the first woman to graduate from a full four year program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She had never before supervised any of the actual building of her designs. Her style for the Woman's Building was a combination of Classical and Italian Rennaissance; because of the smallness of the structure, she stressed long
6Judith Paine, "Pioneer Women Architects," Women in American b.r~hi tecture: A Historic and Contemporary Per ~ective, ed. Susana Torre (New York: Watson-Guphill Publications, 1977), pp. 56-57. 7 o. S. Mosley, Picturesque Chicago and a Guide to the World's Fair (Hartford: The Religious Herald, 1893), p. 203. 25
Plate 7: Sophia Hayden, the Woman•s Building at the Chicago World's Fair, 1893. 26
horizontal lines. The long central gallery was fronted by a corridor patterned with a series of Roman arches on simple Ionic columns; these arches were then repeated as windows in the large additions on either side of the central building. The second story windows were spaced equally with the lower corridor arches, while in the center, the entrance was treated with a triangular pedi ment and frieze supported on coupled pilasters in a modi fied Corinthian order. The third story was a small addition on top of the main structure; its side exi t.s led to roof gardens located on top of the end pavilions.
Within the interior of the Woman's Building, the four hundred foot wide lobby opened into a large rotunda which reached to the full height of the building and was lit by clerestory windows and a skylight. 8 . Subordinate to the main hall was a series of small connected rooms created for sales, educational materials, inventions and scientific information. Smaller rooms on the second floor were designed to be assembly rooms, a library, committee rooms and dormitories for women visiting the fair.
Although Miss Hayden's design was originally met with enthusiasm, the Board of Lady Managers continually tried to incorporate into her building many bits of design, whether they harmonized with her plans or not. Compared 27
with the other buildings, the sum appropriated for The
Woman's Building was small, $200,000. Yet the Board of
Lady 11anagers insisted that mo:re conmlittee rooms and a
third floor be added, introducing the novel feature of a
roof garden. Sophia Hayden was expected to solve a mos·t
difficult architectural problem: the design of a small,
inexpensive building that would include a general and
retrospective display of women's work, a library, an
assembly-room, parlors and committee-rooms, a model
hospital and a kindergarten. 9
Perhaps these problems and the extra pressure she
felt from the critics led to the physical breakdown she
suffered after the completion of the building. The
response to her design was positive if somewhat indecisive,
and she was judged primarily for the femininity of her
style rather than her professional design.
The exhibition jury awarded Hayden the artist's medal for delicacy of style, artistic taste, and . geniality and elegance of the interior hall.lO
A well known architect Henery Van Brunt remarked,
It is eminently proper that the exposition of woman's work should be housed in a building in which certain delicacy and elegance of general treatmen·t . • . a finer scale of detail, and a certain quality of sentiment, which might be designated, in no derogatory sense, as graceful
9rbid., p. 204
lOMadelaine Stern, We the Women (New York: Shulte Publishing Company, 1963), p. 78. 28
timidity or gentleness, combined however with evident technical knowledge, at once differenti ate it from its colossal neighbors, and reveal the sex of its author.ll
Althouth Sophia Hayden went on in 1894 to prepare plans
for a memorial building projected by the National Women's
Club organization, she never completed another building,
She eventually married and found work in Boston as an
interior decorator.
Louise Blanchard Bethune, 1865-1913, was perhaps
the most acknowledged woman architect in the late 1800's.
Concurrent with Sophia Hayden's design for the Woman's
Building project, Miss Bethune denounced the competition as
most objectionable. She raised serious questions about the
competition stating that,
The proportion of remuneration to the architect of Woman's Building is about three-tenths of the aver age rate paid already appointed architects for nearly similar service. It is an unfortunate precedent to establish just now, and it may take years to live down its effects.l2
After she graduated from high school in 1874, Louise
Bethune studied to prepare herself for the recently opened
architectural course at Cornell University. However, at
the age of twenty she accepted an offer to become a drafts man in the office of Richard Waite.l3
llrbid., p. 75.
1 2Louise Bethune, "~vomen in Architecture," The Inlahd A:cchi tec'c and News Record, 17, No. 2 (Harch, '"""18-91) , 20 ..
13stern, p. 67. 29
While working as an apprentice between ·the years
of 1876 and 1885, Louise Blanchard met her future husband,
Robert Bethune. After five years of working together, they
combined talents in order to open an office in Buffalo,
New York. Bethune was convinced ·that her own archi tect.ural
efforts were as successful as any man's and she did not
shun the practical questions of functional construction.
Her determination proved successful, and the firm of R. A.
and L. Bethune received commission after commission. 14
Between the years of 1885 and 1888, Louise Bethune
became an active member of several different professional organizations. In 1885, she joined the Western Association of Architects. The next year she helped to organize the
Buffalo Society of Architects which then merged into the
New York State Association of Architects and still later became the Buffalo Chapter of the American Insti tut.e of
Architects. In 1888, Louise Bethune was the first woman associate to be admitted into the American Institute of
Architects. 15
Across the country, women's architectural associ- ations began to flourish, providing women with new information about jobs, techniques, and building materials.
By 1915, a small group of women students at two mid--vlestern
14 I b"-~d., p. 6 7.
15Ibid. 30
universities ;founded a local women's architectural associ-:-
ati.on. In 1922, these same women from Washington Dniver-
sity in St. Louis, and the University of Minnesota held
a convention in St. Louis, establishing the national
organization Alpha lUpha Gamma. Four or.igina.l chC~pters
were crea.ted: Al?ha, in St. Louis; Beta, in Minnesota;
Ganrrna, in Texas; and Delta, at the University of California
at Berkeley. Their organization eventually developed ten
student chapters and seven alumnae groups. In 1948, it
reorganized to become the Association of Women in Archi
tec·ture.l6
At the turn of the century, more and more women
began to form partnerships with one another, establishing
their own firms and reinforcing each other's professional
position. Florence Luscomb and Ida Annah Ryan, both
. graduates from MIT, became partners in 1909 in Waltham,
Massachusetts. Their partnership lasted until World War I,
when Miss Luscomb became a "full-time activist".
Her training in protest began early. In 1892, when she was only five, her mother took her to a women's suffrage convention. She still remew.bers beir:,g moved· by a Susan B. Anthony speech.l7
In 1913, two more MIT graduates, Lois Howe, the second
place winner for the Woman's Building in 1891, and Eleanor
16"women in Architecture," Architectural Forum, 127, No. 3 (September, 1972), 51. 17"Personality: Miss Luscomb Takes a Stand," Time (April 26, 1971), 20. 31
Manning es-tablished a practice toget.her. Later, d:1ey ~veJ~e
joined by a ·third partner a.nd fello1t1 gxaduate, Hary Almy.
These three women were particularly interested in low
income housing and in 1924 they contract~ed ·to dssi9n and
build a Cincinnati suburb known as the National Ex~nplar
in Tm·m Plcmning . 18 In Chicago, a local organization, 'I'he
Woman's Architectural Club, was established, and, in the
spring of 1928, they exhibited work in the so:cond Woman's
World Fair. These professional organizations provided
great assistance to women architects; it was often only
through the clubs that public recognition of their work was achieved. 1 9
An enthusiastic supporter of women in architecture during the early 1900's was Henry Atherton Frost, a distinguished professor at Harvard University. In 1917,
Frost was responsible for the development of one of the most important schools of architecture for women in the
East, The Cambridge School of Architecture and Landsc·ape
Architecture.
An early graduate of_ the Cambridge school, Eleanor
Raymond, became Frost's partner from 1919-1935, and '"as
lBMary Otis Stevens, "Struggle for Place: Women in Architeci:ure 1920·~·1960, 11 V/omen in Architecture; A Histori cal and Con·cer:tpo.rary Perspecti'..re, ed. Susana Torre (New York:- ~~7ats-on::.:::Guphil.l PubliCations, 1977), p. 89,
19Ibid. well known in the East for her creative use of building mat.eJ~·tals and systems. Between the yea:c·s of 1940 and 1948, she built three technically innovative houses for the saJne client., AJitelia Peabody. The plywood house, the masonite house and the sun house all stand out as major contri- butions to the advancement of architectural knowled•:re at 2 t .. "'at.!.1 ... t-'Lmc.# l. .. -. 0 In 1933, the Architectural Forum proclaimed one of her houses as the first modern house in Massa- ehnsetts. (Plate 8)
In what is probably the first modern house in Ivlassachusetts, Eleanor Raymond of the firm of Frost & :Raymond has designed a house that demonstrates particularly well one of the frequently sounded virtues of the style--the adaptability of the house to the landscape, as a setting and for the opportunity which its terraces and open areas give the occupants to enjoy the landscape. Depa.1~ting from the usual construction methods, l\Uss Raymond has built ·the house of matched roughsawn cedar boarding, the joints being sealed for water-proofness.21
Although the Cambridge School was incorporated and able to certificate its graduating students, the govern ment requested that all architectural schools be affiliated with a university. Just before this, Frost had been in contact with the President of Smith College, Willian Allen
20noris Cole, "Some Professional Roles," Women in Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Per~pecfive;ed. Ifusan:a·--Torre (New York: watson-Guphill Publicatio:riS,- 1977), p. 107
2111 Eleanor Raymond.," Architectural Forum (November, 1933) 1 413 • 33
Plate 8: Eleanor Raymond, a modern house in Massachusetts, 1933. 34
Neilson, who had expressed an interest in combining the two schools. In 1938 Smith College, Graduate School of
Architecture and Landscape Architecture, formerly the
Cambridge School, was founded. Unfortunately, in 1939,
President Neilson retired and the new board dissolved the association claiming that the earlier debts incurred by the
Cambridge School were overwhelming. In 1942, with the advent of World War II, the school was finally disbanded. 22
World War II affected women's progress in architec- ture substantially until the 1960's. At that time, with
the increased reputation of West coast architecture, women
from both the East and West combined efforts with renewed
enthusiasm.
22Gwendolyn Wright, "On the Fringe of the Profes sion: Women in American Architecture," The Architect, ed. Spiro Kost:of (Nevl York: Oxford University Press, 19-77) , p. 282. Part II
FIVE CALIFOHNIA WOMEN ARCHITECTS
1.900-1960
35 Chapter 3
JULIA MORGAN
In California, a number of specific events occurred to give women new opportunities in the architectural pro- fession. With the completion of the transcontinental railroad there was a continuous population movemen'c west- ward. Jobs were abundant for, with the promise of ample space and a warm climate, the population more than tripled from 1900-1920.
As David Gebhard so aptly put it in his intro- duction to the ArcDitecture in California exhibition,
'I'he styles and forms that developed from the impact of ·the pioneer spirit with remembered past images and the confrontation with existing cultural roots of western idioms such as Spanish Colonial, Adobe, Mission, Oriental and even Pueblo Indian styles, resulted in a prodigious outpouring of architec tural expressions. Added to this was unlimited materials and a friendly climate that unleashed a performance of bravado and fanciful flights of invention that were exciting diverse, beautiful and sometimes loco • .
From San Francisco's false-fronted rows o£ continuous architecture . • . to the elegant simplicity of designs by Bernard Maybeck, Greene and Greene, Irving Gill and others, the impact has been dazzling and influential. California architecture became an ingenious expression of a way of life. The climate, the open space challenged men to adapt structures to indoor--outdoor living. Hillside sites were
36 37
developed into split-level dwellings, houses were focused dramatically on views, sun and air. Th8 design had to be flexible, adaptable, suitable to the climate and the use.l
Architects not only developed a new approach to the exterior design of houses but were also innovative in dealing with interior space, often breaking down the barriers separating the two.
At a purely visual level their work before 1914 is unified by conspicuous spatial innovations lurking behind apparently disunifying variety of romantic stylings . • This superficial variety does indicate an important underlying sociological unity, since it demonstrates that the architects were working with the artistic preferences of their upper middle class suburban patrons, and not--as was so often the case in the less relaxed intellectual atmosphere of Europe--against them.
The abstract European st:y.le . . • far from embracing all things and all men, embraced only the upper strata of the European intelligent- . 2 s~a, •••
Perhaps this attitude toward the design of domestic housing in California helps to explain why, in California, the first women were more hospitably received into the architectural field than at any other time or place.
Another contributing factor was the opening of the
Architectural Department at the University of California at
lnavid Gehbard and Robert Winter, A Guide to Archi-· tecture in Southern California (Los Angeles-: Los Angeles County .rvi,J.--:-seum of Art, 1965), p. 11.
2Reyner Banham, The Architecture of th~_We~l:_:. T'?~ered En""{i.:'!='o:r..m:ent (London: 'l'he Archi tect.ural Press, 1969), pp. 93-94. 38
Berkeley. When it opened in 1904, under the direction of
John Galen Howard, it was the only university in the nation that welcomed women students. Even before its official op~ning, one important woman architect, Julia Morgan, graduated from the Department of Engineering.
One of the earliest and most significant women architects on the West Coast was Julia Morgan, 1872-1957.
Throughout California, more than 800 buildings have been attributed to this prolific and yet very private architect.
Julia Morgan was born in the San Francisco Bay area in 1872; she attended and graduated from Oakland High
School in 1890, then immediately applied to the School of
Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley.
During the next four years, she also met for informal se1rrinars at the home of the well known Bay area archi teet,
Bernard Maybeck.3
Through her association with Maybeck, Morgan became familiar with the Bay Area Tradition with which she is so often associated and which was at that time reputably established by a group including Ernest Coxhead, A. C.
Scheinfurth, Willis Polk and A. Page Brown. Morgan developed a close relationship with Bernard Maybeck and in
3rn 1890, Bernard Maybeck was teaching drawing, not architecture, at Berkeley. It was not until 1894 that he was accepted as a professor of architecture there. Esther McCoy, Pive California Architects (Nev..• York: Reinhold Book Corporation, 1960}, p. 5. 39
1894, with his encouragement, she beca.me one of Berkeley's first woman graduates. For the next year she worked exclusively with Maybeck. However, she quickly left for
Paris when she heard that the Ecole des Beaux Arts was opening its examinations to women. 4
In Paris, Morgan first joined the atelier of Marcel de Monclos. While studying there, she gained favorable criticism from Jean Louis Pascal, the 1866 Grand Prix winner, but failed in her first efforts to pass the accept~ ance exams. In 1889, Julia changed to the atelier of
Bernard Chaussmiche, the 1890's Prix de Rome winner. She worked intensely at this time, and after she attended the atelier during the day, she took additional drawing classes at night. In order to save on expenses she shared her apartment, which was close to the Beaux Arts, with her brother Avery. Finally on November 9th, with the rank of thir·teenth ou·t of 392, Julia Morgan was accepted as the first woman to gain admission to the Ecole de Beaux Arts.5
During her first t\vo years of work at the school,
Morgan achieved medals in mathen1atics, architecture and design. In lmgust, 1900, she was admitted to the First
Class and in the following ·two years won two medals and
------· 4Archib::!cturv_1 Dr::n.,Tings by Julia Morgan; Beaux A.rts Assi9nra·e:r-:·ts--::l1~.d -6t11er Bu.ildings (Califori·da: The Oakland-1Ylus"e1-iin-;-;; a:n1:1ary I -:r§·nn , p. 11.
5 Ibid. 40
eight mentions. In 1902, she received her Certificate d'Etude while working as an architect for Chaussmiche, completing at least one corrrrnission for him, a building at
Fountainbleau. Later that same year she returned to
Oakland, California, where she went to work doing drafting for John Galen Howard. Her jobs then includc:d the campus
Greek Theater and the Memorial Mining Building, but her contribution to these designs remains a debatable issue.
The ultimate construction of the Memorial Mining Building was nevertheless a significant factor in the career of
Morgan, but the final design was a source of some political maneuvering and may have affected her relationship with both Bernard Maybeck and John Howard.6
The Memorial Mining Building was donated to the campus by Hrs. Phoebe Apperson Hearst. Originally, in
1896, Bernard Maybeck drew up the preliminary plans for
Mrs. Hearst. Although she was satisfied with his design,
Maybeck was convinced that this was the time, before construction of the building, to develop a master building plan for the entire campus. Fredrick Law Olmstead had planned the landscape of the 124 acre campus but left the positioning of the buildings to chance. As a result of
Maybeck's urging, Mrs. Hearst agreed to sponsor an inter~ national competition, donating- $100,000, enough t.o build
6 rbid. 41
two new structures. However, Emile Bernard, the winner, refused to leave ;France and consequently John Ga,len Howaxd of New York was invited to supervise the campus developmen~
Howard, who disagreed wi-th Maybeck' s o.riginal design, then took over the completion of the Memorial lvtining Building.
The resulting plan for the exterior was a combination o£
Renaissance and Mediterranean. The interior space was left open to the full two-story height of the structure, culminating in a glass dome reinforced with steel arches.
The building was not completed until 1907, and by this ·t:.Lme
Julia Morgan had left Howard's ~nployment and started her own architectural practice. Her relationship to Maybeck at this time is not known; however, she did not work with him again until 1927, coincidentally the same year Howard resigned his position at Berkeley.?
In 1904, Julia Morgan started her own architecturdl practice in San Francisco and by 1906 had moved her office into the Merchant's Exchange Building on California Street.
For a, time, between 1907 and 1910, she shared a partnership with Ira Hoover who was previously head draftsman in
Howard's office. In 1910, aft.er Hoover returned to the
East Coast to continue his practice, Morgan decided to work alone. As her professional reputation was established; she operated her office as an atelier complete with rare
'"! 'McCoy, pp. 9-10. 42
books and periodicals. Although it was her practice to always deal directly with the clients personally, her staff, ilicluding Thaddeus Joy, Walter Steilberg, Ja.rnes
SeFeaver, Bjarne Dahl, Ed Hussey, Camille Solon, and others, shared measurably in her successes.B
Three factors were of major importance to the success of Julia Morgan's career: first, the support of
William Randolph Hearst and his philanthropist mother,
Phoebe Apperson Hearsti second, the coincidence of a large part of Morgan's practice with the development of East Bay suburb conunu.nities creating a new demand for middle class housing; and third, the rapidly growing and respected position of v1omen i.nvolved in community affairs. In fact,
Horganis first known commission was from Mills College, t'le11 not.ed for its establishment of women's educat:ion on
In 1904, El Campanile was designed by Julia Morgan for Mills College. The design of El Campanile is s·trongly
:remin.tscent of Maybeck's Men's Faculty Club built in 1900 in Berkeley. Morgan's use of the Mission Revival style was
0 ~sara Boutelle, "Julia .Morgan," Women i~_!:.0~EJ.:.C::.~l_£': :.1\.rchi.tect~ure: J:,;. Historical and Conternpor.a:i:.. 'i--l3'e·csJ2:.::52!:=}-'-:£, -ecr:·-1fus-~ma -·;_rc; rre -TNe~Y 0r k; \":"la. tson :. Gur)EiTr·· P-li.1)i j_ c (it. i 0 n s r l977}, p. 87,
9n.ichard Y.l. Longstreth, .Tulia f..1organ--·Architect (Be:r~keJ.ey ~ 1\rchi tectural Heri ta5Je --Ass~6ci-;iTion, -1~9'77T-;-·p. 6. 43
possibly influenced by the proliferation of this sa-me mode
at the California Midwinter Exhibition in Golden Gate Park,
1894, which in turn was influenced by A. Page Brown's
building a·t the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in
1893. Morgan's use of reinforced concrete for the building
structure of El Campanile was unconnnon among her contempor-
aries in Oakland, although not unconnnon in San Francisco,
It was in San Francisco that Ernest Ransome constructed the
first reinforced concrete building in the United States.lO
Two years later Julia J.~organ designed the Mills
Library and soon after, she was given the commission to
rebuild the structurally damaged Fairmont Hotel, The
Fairmont had buckled in the San Francisco fire before it
had ever been opened to the public. Morgan was then
commissioned to do the completion designs for the interior
of the Merchants Exchange, now the Chartered Bank of London,
and following this she received numerous orders for resi--
dential, commercial and institutional buildings.
In 1908, Morgan designed the St. J.ohn'.s Presbyterian
Church in Berkeley. (Plate 9} From the exterior., this
building is residential in appearance and fits neatly into
10 rn the 1880 1 s, reinforced concrete was used .for utilitarian structures. After the 1906 San Francisco earth quake it \vas used for schools, churches and conunercial buildings. David Gebhard and others, A Guide t.o Architec ture in San Francisco and Northern California (2d ed; Sanfa Ba.rbara:---peregrine SmiUl~-J:ric., 1976), p. 16. 44
Plate 9: Julia Morgan, St. John's Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California, 1909. its surroundings. It has an overall appearance ot the typical craftsman style of the Bay are~ and her interior plan looks strongly similar to Maybeck's earlier design, in
1905, of the Alt Clubhouse in Mill Valley. With a budget of less than t.wo dollars per square foot, Julia Mm..·g·an designed a structure that was free of unnecessary detail~
As a result, most of her time v.ras spent in refining the arrangement of the exposed stud framing.ll
The importance of Phoebe Apperson Hearst to Julia
Morgan's career has often been debated. After she o~ened her own practice in San Francisco, Morgan was given the job of building an addition to the Hearst Hacienda in Pleasan ton. Her success with this design led eventually to further conunissions for the Hearst family. These culmi nated in the famous San Simeon, begun in 1913 and continued through the 1930's. (Plate 10, Figure 1}
It is often difficult to recognize the simplicity and privacy of such a woman as Julia Morgan when her best known work is the Hearst Castle at San Simeon, La Cuesta
Encantada. With little indication of the reinforced concrete structure, the buildings at San Simeon overwhelm the viewer with rich and heavy ornamentation. The original design, however, revealed a much simpler version of the r ...
Plate 10: Fig. 1. (above) Julia Horgan, La Cuesta Encantada, San Simeon, California, 1920-1937.
Fig. 2. (right) Julia Morgan, YWCA, Oakland, California, 1913-1914. 47
building plan. Three simple bungalows were planned ·to be
in front of a towering main house but unfortunately the
plans did not stop there. Frmn its beginning in 1920 un·til
1937 when construction stopped, Hearst continually intro
duced changes and additions. 12
There were numerous reactions to the building of
La Cuesta Encantada. Rumors circulated that it was a
reconstruction of a real European castle disassembled and
shipped to the United States. Whatever the assumption, the
result resembles a storybook fantasy, while it architec-
turally reveals a powerful and cohesive solution to years
of work and rework by Julia Morgan.l3
The proliferation of women's clubs and institutions
resulted in some of Morgan·' s finest architectural designs.
Asilomar, the seaside conference center begun by Morgan in
1913 .for the YWCA, was a pet project of Hearst's; however,
the XWCA of Oakland, built in 1915, was the first of a national chain of commissions built by Morgan for the
Women's Social Service Organization. (Plate 12) She also designed the simple redwood Saratoga Foothill Club in 1915 and the elaborate reinforced concrete Berkeley Women's Club
13John Beach, "Julia .JI.1organ--An Architect From Oakland,'' .ll~rchitectural Drawings by Julia :Norgan:: Beaux Arts Assiqr'ii:nents and-Other Buildings (California; The·-·. Oakland :Nuseilln-;-Ja"lluar)1;.-f976) , p. 1 ~ in 1929. Additional projects came in from wo:,1.len' s hospi .... tals and retirement homes, and Morgan later served as consulting architect for the organizations' hospitality houses built during World War I.14
Like many architects of her tilne, Norgan • s style was decidedly eclectic. Sometimes she combined the easy
Mediterranean style with the Bay area Craftsman tradition, and other times she blended the Beaux Arts Classical tra~ di tion with modern technical advancements of ferroconcret.e,
The Oakland YWCA, built in 1915, combines massive structural appeal with the open Mediterranean style. (Plate 10,
Figure 2) Her plan is vaguely reminiscent of John Galen
Howard's Memorial Mining Building showing the same interior courtyard appeal and the open skylight. high above, (Plate
11) Here the similarity ends however, for Morgan's design shows a sophisticated simplicity that. Howard's plan cannot match. Taking her design one step further, Morgan combined these structural elements with the superb detailing of the
Cra:f;tsman tradition, making the Oakland YWCA one of the most sophisticated examples of her architectural talent.
Further indications of her subtle abilities as an architect are recognizable in the reinforced concrete, six~
-----~--·-- 14sara Boutelle, ''Julia Morgan,'' ·women in American Architectu~e: -~~Historic a.nd Conte:mpora~y-:t~rspective, ed. Susana Torre (New York: Watson-Guphill Publications, 1977), P· 82. 49
Plate 11: . J'ulia Morgan, interior view, .Y'~l\, .Oakland, California, 1913~1914. 50
Plate 12: Julia Mo:t'gan, Asilomar, .S'an Francisco, 1913. 51
story, Berkeley City Woman's Club, built in 1929. (Plate
13) In his introduction to an exhibition of Julia Morgan's work at the Oakland Museum in January, 1976, John Beach pointed out that her use of Medieval imagery, a.t that time limited to religious and educational establishments, made her building a visual statement of the similarity of aims between the women's movement and those more venerable institutions.l5 This is perhaps the closest Morgan ever came in making a commitment to the efforts of women toward more education and professional mobility.
Although Morgan was influenced by some of the same des!gn sources which interested the Coxhead/Maybeck group, it was in her employment of this visual material that she dif;fered from the Bay Tradition designers. In her case, she used the local wooden vernacular to help blend her residential designs with the surrounding areas. Many of her houses are almost indistinguishable from the humble buildings that clearly inspired them, but her plans were meticulously worked out. She was always concerned with her client's individual needs and she designed houses for all kinds of people.
If Morgan's side-entranced house designs in city and suburbs seem derived from the same general plan, it is not obvious in the finished product. The
15Beach, p. 6. 52
Plate 13: Berkeley Women • s Ci.ty Club, ..Berkeley, .California, 1929-1930. 53
interiors, consisting downstairs of entry hall and kitchen and pantry placed behind them, were varied in size and character so as to accommodate both the Piedmont Tycoon and the middle class Berkeley or Oakland professiona1.l6
Julia Morgan revealed an eye for simple clarity, but she was not limited to any one approach. Her ability as an architect made her as comfortable designing co~~er cial buildings as she was designing residential projects.
With the strength to persevere, even when her clients' demands were at odds with her own, Morgan's eclectic nature served to combine a formidable knowledge of archi- tectural style with an ability to utilize modern engi- neering techniques.
16Boutelle. Chapter 4
HAZEL WOOD WATERMAN
Hazel Wood Waterman, 1865-1948, is another very significant early California woman architect. From 1882 until 1883 she was a student of design at the University of California at Berkeley. Although she later became an excellent landscape painter, married and had three children, her earlier training in design was to play an important part in her eventual interest in architecture. At the turn of the century, Waterman and her husband commissioned Irving Gill, then a young San Diego architect, to design and build a small house for them. It was during this period in her life, working closely with Gill on his design .for her house, that Waterman, with sensitivity and a knowledge of the Arts, found an interest she later pursued as a full-time career.l In 1904, after the death of her husband, Waterman, like many other women architects, followed her interest by enrolling in a correspondence course to learn architectural drawing. 'I'hrough course work and Gill's encouragement,
!Harriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California," AIA Journal, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977), 39.
54 55
Hazel Waterman's skill developed quickly to a professional level. Later it was again Irving Gill's support that gave her the opportunity to utilize her talent; at first he hired her to do architectural drafting at home, and then he hired her as a full-time employee of his firm, Hebbard and Gill. 2 The Alice Lee House, completed in 1905, in San Diego, is now recognized as the first house Waterman designed. (Plate 14) The object of some controversy, the Lee House was earlier attributed to Irving Gill alone. Esther McCoy, noted authority on California architects, specifically mentibns in her book, Five California Archi- tects, published in 1960, that Gill adopted a totally new system of construction for the interior and exterior walls. He used one by four-inch studs, four inches apart, over which he placed diagonal lathing and plaster. Three inches -thick, the finished walls tested equal to standard con- struction using two by four-inch studs, sixteen inches 3 apart. It is important to realize that McCoy also. goes on \ to state that the design of the Lee House showed a definite change from Gill's original approach however. Accurately describing the house, she states that,
2 Ibid~ 3Esther McCoy, Five California Architects (New York; Reinhold Book Corporation, 1960), p. 67. 56
. Plate 14: Hazel Wood W'atex;man and Irving Gill, the Alice Lee· res'idence ,· San Di~go, .california, 19 0 5. 57 •
The exterior was entirely of stucco, the lorm more compact: and the roof lower: in :pitch .• ~ • He was moving toward the adobe forms of the mission builders who had neither the time nor the tools to be other than frank.4
Before the Lee House, Gill's structures were all hulf.,.., timber and shingle construction. Although he occasionally used both designs between the years 1906 and 1912, his perspective on design had definitely changed.5 In an article by Harriet Rochlin in the 1977 issue of the AIA
Journal, Nr. Waldo Dean Waterman, son of Hazel Waterman, attributed the design to his mother by stating,
Miss Lee was a friend of my mother. She asked Gill to allow my mother to carry out the whole job, and just let him supervise the job and be architect in fact, with my mother doing t.he work. 6
Clearly, the Alice Lee House was important to both
Waterman and Gill. The reflected influence of the Mission style would define both of their future careers in their approach to architectural design. Because Waterman thoroughly absorbed Gill's style, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between his architecture and her own, and yet her employment of his style did not detract from her abilities as an architect. Hazel Waterman's strongest architectural concern was the ultimate function of her buildings.
6n.ochlin, p. 39, 58
Consistent with the influence of the California
Missions, she moved a step beyond mere style with her 1910
Estudillo House restoration. (Plate 15) Totally absorbed with the ramifications of doing a restorationr she sub merged herself in learning authentic Mexican architectural
techniques.
The Estudillo House was originally built sometime
between 1825 and 1829 for Captain Jose Estudillo, commander of the San Diego Presidio. The house was occupied by various members of the family until 1887 when Salvador
Estudillo, its last owner, moved to Los Angeles. In 1905
it was bought by the John D. Spreckles Company. Wanting
to encourage tourism in San Diego, Mr. William Clayton, the general manager, then hired vJaterrnan to proceed with
the restoration in 1910.7 Waterman recorded the condition of the house when she began her work. She said that, "l?art of both wings have crumbled away . . • even the foundation. The front part of the building remained but part of its roof had fallen in."8
Originally a U-shaped plan of thirteen rooms, the
Estudillo House had a tile floor that was later changed to ------7"La Casa de Estudillo" (Sacramento: The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, January, 1977).
BHazel Wood Waterman, 11 Restoration of a Landrnark" (a typed manuscrip-t of the restorat.ion procedures, Box file; Hazel vJood Waterman Collection, San Diego Historical Society Library and Manuscripts Collection. [p. 4]). Plate 15: Hazel Wood Waterman, The Estudillo House, San Diego, California, 1909. 60
wood planking. Hazel Waterman restored the wood plankin9
and went on to have authentically made adobe bricks and
roof tiles fired at the building site. She also recorded
specific ingredients for the clay mixture and details on
the hand molding of the roof tiles. The timber she used was clear cedar, willow and rough redwood. Although she mentioned in her notes that "there was no evidence that
there had been a veranda," Waterman included a deep one
around the inner courtyard, which she then had supported by beams of rough timber tied with rawhide thongs. 11 The
front of the restored Estudillo House, faci~g the Plaza is
110 feet long," the "inner court is 75 feet square and
1 opened to the south. ' 9
After completion of the restoration, nu.rnerous articles praising Waterman's work appeared in magazines and newspapers, and on March 8, 1910, an architectural
exhibition in the Barker Bros. Annex in Los Angeles featured many of her restoration plans. The restoration, now a state monument in Old Town, San Diego, is reputed to be one of the finest in the State of California,
The escalated growth of women's involvement in
community affairs was an important factor in the architec
tural success of Hazel Wood Waterman. One of her noted commissions was the building ·she designed for the Wednesday
-~----- 9rbid. [p. 41. 61 l
Club in San Diego. (Plate 16) Built in 1913, the club is located at 540 Ivy Lane and is still being used for its original purpose, to house the: club's activities and visiting members. Waterman used the Spanish J.lission style to design this small building with its solid white exterio~
It is a one-story structure with an additional half~story built over the meeting hall. The low pitched roof is capped with red tile, and pergola elements, now completely covered with Bouganvilla vine, flank the side entrances.
(J?late 17) Wide double doors provide the main entrance into the building while inside, sitting rooms are provided off to each side. Wide simple arches soften the effect of unadorned walls which separate the si tt.ing rooms from· the main hall. Immediate attention however, is focused on a large deep fireplace, framed by the same ,.,ide arch and faced with dark blue enameled tiles. The first floor includes three sitting rooms, a hall, a stage and the large kitchen. Behind the kitchen a staircase leads up to the second floor and down to what is now being used as living quarters by the caretakers. Except for light. filtering in from the kitchen and sitting rooms, the large meeting hall's only illumination comes from four small and very high windows. This last element, the lighting, vias very typical of many buildings at the time but was in direct contradiction to Irving Gill's usual approach.
Gill's buildings were n invariably bright" for he ,.;as Plate 16: Hazel Wood Waterman, The Wednesday Club, San Diego, California, 1910. 63
Plate 17: Hazel Wood Waterman, contemporary view of The Wednesday Club, San Diego, California, 1910. 64
directly influenced by the Chic~go School. "Sullivan's three-division window, with fixed glass in the center and an operati,ng pane on each sidef was typical o.:J; Gill's design.nlO
From 1912 to 1925, Hazel Waterman worked on a series of buildings in Balboa Park, San Diego. 'I'he Admin.,.. istration Building for the Children's Home, nmv unfortun~ ately destroyed, was designed by Waterman vlith a severe unornamented cubic facade with deeply arched windows.
(Plate 18} This massive structure was created to provide the concentrated interior coolness of the California
Missions. It is also an excellent example of \i'Jaterman' s total concern for function. On file at the San Diego
Historical Society there is a detailed description of this building.
Cement plaster of rough wavy finish and light tawny color covers the construction of reinforced brick. The front facade has a vestibule sur rounded by a bold archway whose deep shadow emphasizes the main entrance. . . . There are five loggias in the building, their arched openings affording strong contrasts of light and shade, both dramatic and restful. A develop ment of Hediterranean architecture and California requirements, the loggias are out-of-door living rooms. In the patio· there are two exterior stairways leading from the girls' playground, of which the patio is a part, to the halls of the second floor. They will function as fire-escapes in time of need. • • • Especially is the interior
lOEsther McCoy, Five Cal·ifornia Archi t·e·ct.s (New York: Reinhold Book Corporation, 1960), p. 67. - Plate 18: Hazel Wood Waterman, the administrative building for The Childrens Home, San Diego, California, 1912.
CN U1 66 attractive. Entering through the front vestibule, one is in a hall flooded with soft, warm light. There is a feeling of sunshine brought within, and a consciousness of ready access to the front out of-doors. The sun follows through the wrought iron grilles of the entrance doors, and other arched openings from the sharp sun and shadow con trasts of the loggias. The main hall has a double stairway with wrought iron balusters leading to the upper floors. Like the loggias, its floor is of large, dark red tiles, and its length is broken by arches.
The arrangement of the rooms is logical. The office of the Superintendent is near the main entrance and opposite is the reception room, which is also the living room and library. At the southern end of the main hall there is a large playroom for the little girls and a s~wing room for those older. These rooms have southern exposures, their own loggias, lockers, and the dressing rooms and entrances near. The Assembly is on the north west. It is the largest room with a seating capacity for all the chilren and their attendants, and when the large doors of the adjoining reception room and those of the dining room are thrown open 1 it becomes a spacious auditorium. It has a stage for entertainments and the floors are finished for games and folk dancing.
The halls and corridors of the second floor are as cheerful as those below. French doors opening upon balconies, a large skylight of soft-toned glass, and the wrought iron stair baluster hung with flower pots, add to the feel ing of sunshine brought within. On this floor there are three dormitories and two sleeping porch galleries, with bathrooms and dressing rooms convenient and numerous, ... Sun and weather exposures, window ventilation and circulation of air, heating, the number and spacing of beds in each dormitory, the exits and fire escapes, and all the other important regulations of the State Housing Laws presented vital problems whose solving has not detracted from the charm and livableness of the building. 67
Separated from the activities of the lower floors, the rooms of the third floor a.re devoted to rest for those in need of it,ll
A significant fact about Waterman 1 s desic;;n for the
Administration building is tha.t the exterior plan is almost identical to one that Irving Gill designed for the Bishop 1 s
School in La Jolla in 1916. {Plate 19) The only major difference in the two designs is that Waterman opened up the top floor while Gill kepthls enclosed.
Hazel Wood Waterman's cont.ribu·tion to architecture in Southern California is just now beginning to surface.
The only reference to her work in the AIA Guide to Archi- tecture in San Diego is the Wednesday Club, and the most important: comment made is that her style is reminiscent of 12 I rvl.ng. G'll1 1 s. Although the Estudillo House is listed in this guide, the architect is stated as unknown and thus
Waterman's restoration efforts remain unnoticed.
Fortunately 1 thanks to the San Diego His·torical Society and her son, Waldo Dean Waterman, more and more information is being collected and recognition of her contribution is becoming apparent. Ohe significant aspect of her career
llMatilda Hunt, "The Childrens Home" (Box file: Hazel Wood Waterman Collection, San Diego Historical Society Library and I'-1anuscripts Collection) •
l2John Henderson and others, AIA Guide to San Diego (.San Diego Chapter of American Institute of Architects·-,--· 1977), p. 40. 68
Plate 19: Irving Gill, .Gilman Hall Bishop~ s School, .La Joll~, ~alifornia, ~916. 69
should be noted; her support of other women architects, especially Lillian Rice, was sincere and re~pedted, and won her considerable admiration.
Hazel Watel"''llan's last conunission was in 1929 and she died at the age of 83, while living in the Berkeley
City Women's Club, designed by Julia Norgan.l3
13Rochlin, p. 39. Chapter 5
LILIAN RICE
Another early California architect continued the tradition established by Hazel Wood Waterman and Julia
Morgan. Trained at the beginning of her career in
Waterman's office, Lilian Rice continued to help other women architects after establishing her own dynamic career.
Born in 1888, Lilian Rice entered the architectural department at the newly developed University of California,
Berkeley campus in 1906 while it was still under the direction of John Galen Howard. At Berkeley, Rice learned
.the basics of traditional Beaux-Arts philosophy i.n courses taught by noted architects such as Warren Perry and William
Hayes. At the same time she was exposed to the woodsy Bay
Area Shingle style popular throughout that region. When she graduated in 1910, she was one of the first women to receive an architectural degree at Berkeley.l
After graduation, Lilian Rice returned to the San
Diego area, preferring to develop her professional skills near National City, which was her hometown. She went to
lHarriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation o;f 11 Women Architects in California 1 AIA Journal, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977), 40.
70 ?1
work on a part time basis for Hazel Waterman, dividing her time between architectural projects and taking care of her very ill mother. One noted job that Rice worked on with
Waterman was the Wednesday Club previously mentioned.
Through her experience under Waterman's direction she learned to use reinforced concrete, while absorbing
Waterman's style of geometric forms and plain wa.ll surfaces.2
During World War I, Lilian Rice added to her archi- tectural knowledge by teaching courses in architecture and mechanical drawing at San Diego State Teachers College, which is now California State University at San Diego. At this time she also made her most important move, ta.k;i.ng a new position with the firm of Requa and Jackson.3 ·
In 1922, Santa Fe Railroad officials, having lost a considerable amount of money on 8,650 acres of Eucalyptus groves, thirty miles north of San Diego, decided to try to partially regain their losses by dividing up the land and building large estates within an architecturally planned community.4 The officials cpmmissioned the firm of Requa and Jackson, who in turn put Rice in charge of the plans. Sam w. Hamill, FAIA and former student of Lilian Rice's said that,
Miss Rice, who had gone to work for them, was sent out there i.n charge of that office. She was so
2 Ibid. , p. 3 9 • 3rbid. 4rbid. 72
successful in dealing with clients that she just stayed ·there and decided to open her own of£ice there. It was a very amicable arrangement. There was no split between Requa and Jackson and Lilian Rice; but she stayed there and opened her own office,S
Rice's solution was so successful that in spite of the land
being thirty miles away from San Diego, thereby requiring mot.or transportation, eighty percent of the project was
sold by the end of five years.6 Mr. Hamill, who was also
employed for some months as a junior draftsman in the
office of Hiss Rice, went on to list some of the works that
Lilian Rice had participated in with Requa and Jackson.
Mentioned were the design of the Village Center of Rancho
Santa Fe, including the layout of the Civic Center, the
Inn, the Rancho Santa Fe School and Library, commercial and
office buildings and the service station. (Plates 20 & 211
The total achievement of Lilian Rice at Rancho Santa Fe is best expressed by Harriet Rochlin when she said,
Few California architects have been offered as wide and uncluttered a testing ground for their concepts, and few can claim as harmonious and convincing a communal statement as Rice achieved at Rancho Santa Fe. Although the area was in the middle of nowhere, Rice carefrilly created a sense of urban space by clustering commercial, school, and residential areas
Sstatement of Sam Hamill in personal interview for San Diego Historical Society, March 10, 1979. Permission to quote secured.
6Judith Paine, ''Lilian Rice," Women in American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, ed. Susana Torre (New York: Watson~Guphill PubliCations, 1977), p. 108. 73
Plate 20: Lilian Rice," .view of town center, Rancho Santa Fe, California, .1922.· 74
Plate· '21: Lilian Rice, .Rancho Santa Fe ·rnn, Rancho Santa Fe,· California, .1922. r 75 !
along a wide main street with a central strip planted with green grass and flowers. Sidewalks, white-walled and arcaded walks created a sophisti cated ambiance.?
The homes that Lilian Rice built for the community of Rancho Santa Fe were simple three and four bedroom plans; however, each was conceived independently for the client and also the area in which it was to be built. (Plates 22 ..... 271
The Los Angeles Times, Home section featured a house in
Rancho Santa Fe built by Rice in the 1920's and now owned by Doctors Clifford and Ruth Grobstein. Although the original facade has since been changed, a photograph of it, before redesign, shows a simple Spanish Revival house with a flat roof and plain white exterior.B
It is surprising to note that none of Rice's houses in Rancho Santa Fe are listed in the AIA Guide to
Architecture in San Diego. However, David Gebhard's _Quide to Architecture in -Southern California does mention that her townhouses, built in 1923, represent "an excellent approach to urban planning."9 (Plate 28) It might be stated here that by the 1930's the Rancho Santa Fe type community became more than an isolated incident. Whether
?Harriet Rochlin, p. 40.
8The Los Angeles Times, January 14, 1979, Home.
9David Gebhard and RobertWinter, A Guide to Architecture in Southern California (Los .A.ngeles: Los A,ngeles CountyHuseum of Art, 1965), p. 11. ~\-o&c.- ·a\. · &.~'\..'{ • f\ · c~~''bt:::L'- · · 'l.~~c.~o · Q/"'w\~ '\'= · · C~L\\Ol-\\\~ • •
Plate 22: Lilian Rice, home of Hary A. Campbell, Rancho Santa Fe, California [n.d.]. L o I · l b · • • l> L o c:¥, f B • "f~ A n C./\ 0 J A n. T -"'
Plate 23: Lilian Rice, proposed residence for Mrs. Francis Rush, Rancho Santa Fe, California ..l. R. T. :jlf
0 0 """ RESIDENCE ('f "MR..·~~RT('N"MJLLARD o.-....•
0 0 0 0 '""" RAN(."() ~ANTA.•" fEn .. CAL\f(.\l(~IA ...... , Plate 24: Lilian Rice, floor plan for Mr. Barton Millard residence, Rancho Santa Fe, California [n.d.].
-....1 co )
· ·1\-o/r\t: · rav_ ·A\'L · cf ·I~· Cf\WC: · ..' . L0\ . 6 . . . ·bLOCK. ,~. · · 'l".~O\O · ef~"-i ~ '\t: · · C~u\a1-..'t\\~· .
Plate 25: Lilian Rice, sketch and floor plan for Mr. s. H. Carse horne, Rancho Santa Fe, California [n.d.]. Plate 26: Lilian Rice, sketch and floor plan for Mr. D. L. Fairchild residence, Rancho Santa Fe, California [n.d.].
co 0 l....:
lh D 1'.JJL>1<\ L\\11 ~& 'f.00/1\ Z.'\- I~• If ~~-~~ II • bA-~Av<.. . . .I I. 'l-1 • 2..1
'II'--~---.11¥~~- . :L.~~ -~---/L-·. . . -·· ~-.. D"' ' )L.I •. ~ r=... - , J \J.--L •-~fl.r~"""'}" -~--dl~~=~ _ 1LJl . . ' '. -~ i':>~:llCil.-=1·····"'' ... •• ..,='~n 1 ~00~ .
I
I -·-:------. --·-
'
Plate 27: Lilian Rice, floor plan for a residence, owner unknown, Rancho Santa Fe, California [n.d.].
(X) I-' 82
Plate ·2a ~ Lilian Rice,· .townhouses·, Rancho Santa Fe,· California, . 1923~ 83
or not Lilian Rice 1 s community \vas an influence on those
urban areas later to be built in Los Angeles is gue~tion-
able. Certainly her design approach is significant for
Southern California, for although the population growth of
San Diego was slow, areas around Los Angeles developed
rapidly and the .hmerican middle class ideal was to live in
a rural setting away from the traditional high density city
life. Co11lL'TIUnities like Rancho Santa Fe were ideally
suited to this vision and Rice 1 s simple Colonial Revival
homes were economically appropriate. The Los Angeles
Planning Conunission published a report in 1941, emphasizing
the necessity to provide for the future population growth
by encouraging just this type of community. Their stated
. goal was to provide for future population growth by
promoting the proliferation of s.mall communities with
single family dwellings rather than letting the urban
center swell without control.10
Lilian Rice was a versatile architect and she
adopted a wide range of styles. A fine example of her
work is the Woman's ZLAC Rowing Club in Mission Bay,
California built in 1929. (Plates 29 & 30) This bu;i.lding
is a simple wood-framed structure which is still in use
today. The wood exterior is painted a quiet gray and a
lOoavid Gebhard and Harriet von Breton, L . .A.. i~n the Thirties 1931-1941 (Los Angeles: Perrigrine Srnft1i-;~rnc. , 1975) r p. 25. Plate 29: Lilian Rice, ZLAC Rowing Club, Mission Bay, California, 1932. 85
Plate 30: Lilian Rice·,· .ZLAC Rowi~g Club, .Mission Bay, California, .19 32. 86
landscaped courtyard leads to the simple entrance. Double doors open directly to a large meeting hall, and wide double windows, across the room from the entrance face the bay and club's docking pier. The interior space, which resembles the sanctuary of Julia Morgan's st. Johns
Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, is very simple and unadorned featuring open beams and all wood paneling throughout. (Plate 31) To the right of the main hall, a two-story addition provides living quarters for visitors and a caretaker. Originally there was only a small room downstairs for a janitor, and most of the space was devoted to dressing rooms and lockers. In 1933, the San Diego chapter of the American Association of Architects recognizErl the excellence of Rice's design and cited the clubhouse for an award of merit.
In 1929, Lilian Rice also built the Robinson House, overlooking the ocean in La Jolla, California. (Plate 32)
A multi-level construction, the house is built entirely of wood and stone and it hugs the hilltop at the end of a long privat2 driveway. Planned with open beamed ceilings and intricate wood detailing similar to the Bay area style, the interior flows easily from one level to the next. The st.one chimney and lmv stone w:all give it em eclectic and country English appearance.ll
llGebhard and Winter, P~ 130, Plate 31: Lilian Rice, ZLAC Rowing Club, interior, Mission. Bay, California, 1932. Plate 32. Lillian Rice, Robinson House, La Jolla, California, 1929.
CX) CX) 89
Although she was an established architect in the
San Diego area, Lilian Rice kept her office at Rancho Santa
Fe. It was this conununity that offered the most unique challenge of her career and heLped develop her exceptional talent to maturity. The numerous residences with varied architectural needs gave Rice the chance no other women had at that time and is indicative of Southern California's early acceptance of women architects. It was not until ten years later that Lois Howe, Eleanor Manning and Mary
Almy had a similar opportunity and designed the National
Exemplar in Town Planning in Cincinnati in 1933. The success of Rice's contribution was not only in the original plan of Rancho Santa Fe but also in the fact that this community is still thriving today.
In 1932, Lilian Rice became terminally ill with cancer and died the next year at the age of 49 at Rancho
Santa Fe.
Pursuing the demand for a more comprehensive work, Miss Rice developed many forms which became part of the architectural fabric of the period. Miss Rice was devoid of the autocratic ego so connnon to many gifted designers. As a result of this empathy between architect and client, I would venture that the summation of clients paralleled the equal sunnnation of permanent friendships.l2
12statemerit of Sam Hcudll. Chapter 6
EDLA MUIR
Edla Muir (Lambie) was a respected member of the
American Institute of Architects and a very successful woman architect of the Los Angeles area. She was born in
1906 and began working in the summer of 1919 when she was only thirteen years old. She did not pursue her interest in archi tect.ure through formal education, but instead chose to begin, even before she graduated from high school, as a part time helper in the office of architect John Byers.l
Byers was a popular California architect who began his professional years as a language teacher. It was not until after he had completed his own house, designed and constructed with natural adobe materials, that he switched to the field of architecture. His praise by California architects and the popularity of his own house brought him numerous clients, enough to start his own business. From then on, most of his clients consisted of affluent motion picture and business people who wanted their houses built in Santa Monica, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Malibu.
---··-- lHarriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California," AIA Jonrpa!-_, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977), 40.
90 91
Conscious of Edla Muix 1 s determination even as a teenager, John Byers encouraged her interest in architec- ture. Consequently, after she graduated from high school, he accepted her into his consbc-·uction office as a. full- time apprentice. Her training with Byers was very thorough and as a result her architectural skills became proficient. Along with her skill she also developed a fine sensitivity to her clients' personalities. As time progressed, Edla Muir proved a competent assistant to Mr.
Byers and she was often left in complete charge of the office when he was away. Finally, in 1934, she passed the
California architectural licensing exams.2
As an architect in Los Angeles during the depression years, Edla Muir held a definite advantage over her contemporaries living elsewhere. Architectural historian David Gebhard explains that at this time, Los
Angeles continued to hold anC. employ its architects.
:Period Revival architects flO'urished here in a way unequalled anywb.ere else. 3
Among a long list of Los Angeles Period Revivalist architects, Gebhard includes John Byers and Edla Muir.
------2rbid.
3oavid Gebhard and Harriet von Breton, L.A.· in the 'I'h.irties 1931-1941 (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1965}, P· 108. 92
In 1935, Edla Muir planned and constructed her own home at 455 N. Bundy Drive in Brentwood. (Plates 33 & 34}
By this t.ime Brentwood was already established as one o:l; the upper middle class housing areas where streets were designed to fit into thenatural surface features of the land. Muir designed her one-bedroom home as a small version of an upper middle class dwelling. The two chimneys, dormer windows and high-pitched, shingled roof gave it a Medieval English appearance. The exterior facade; entirely of stone, hinted at what David Gebhard calls
Pennsylvania Colonial. The entire effect resulted in the story~book appeal that is often associated with Period
Revivalists.
It is knmvn that Muir stayed with John Byers' office for another eight years until 1941. In 1936, the same year that she built her own home, they worked together and completed the Chase House in Azuza, California. (Plate
35, Figure 1) This home reflects the same imagery Muir used in her own home. The Chase House has English style chimneys and dormers as well as a "round tower topped by
French provincial weathervane • . • and double~hung shuttered windows placed low in a stone veneer wall," 4
Another residence Byers and Muir built was the
Ilsey House in Los Angeles. {Plate 35, Figure 2} Totally
4Tb~d '""" ..L. • 1 p. 110. .. ,...... l.
~· -·~ ------......
t~k-'- .. ~· ;-.--;
6.
Plate 33: Edla !>1uir, elevation of Edla !>1uir residence, Brentwood, California, 1935.
1.0 w ""im.LL- ,~...... -.u .... -.., ~ ( ...... \ .
t'-·U..,.•'
Plate 34: Edla ~1uir, floor plan, Edla Muir residence, Brentwood, California, 1935. Plate 35: Fig. 1. (above) Edla Muir and John Byers, Chase house
Fig. 2. (right) Edla Muir and John Byers, Isley house 96
eclectic in nature, this two-story structure included a trellised porch topped with a triangular pediment and with decorative Mission s·tyle elements above the second-story windows.5
During the war years, 1941-1945, building con- s·truction slowed down across the nation. Those architects fortunate enough to stay in the construction business often spent their time building subsistance structures, and even so it was frequently questionable whether the materials they ordered would ever be delivered. Ne·w techniques and materials underwent rapid development but they were used exclusively for the nation's defense products. For the architects of California, including Edla Muir, it was a period of waiting.
• • • new plastics made the translucent house a possibility .•• , arc welding strengthened steel joints, ... synthetic resins could weatherproof lightweight building panels and new airplane glues made a variety of laminates a reality. Fresh approaches to plan, to form, to structure lay on paper ready to be tested.6
In 1945, an important development opened the doors to a volume of architectural creativity that would s·trongly affect Edla Muir and o·ther California architects. John
Entenza, editor and publisher of Arts and Architecture
5rbid.
6Esther McCoy, Modern California Houses; Case Study Houses 1945-1962 (New York: R-einhc))~d J?ubl.f~ihing Corporation-;· 1962), p. 8. 97
magazine, announced that his magazine would commission eight archi tecturaJ_ offices to design and build eight houses. The archit~~cts involved were of established reputations and the~::' included J. R. Davidson, Richard
Neutra, Spaulding a.:::·1d Rex, Warsten and Bernardi, Ralph
Rapon, Whitney Smit:::::., Thornton Abell, Charles Eame:? and
Eero Saarinen. The goals were to design a good living environment, inside and out, including' landscaping, and the architects were enc:::mraged to experiment with the wide range of forms and :::::;.aterials now avail.able to t.hem. This
Case Study House pr-:1gram was to affect the rapid growth of modern architecture in California and quite radically changed Edla Muir's earlier eclectic style.
After the c 2-ose of World War II, Edla Muir established her OWi- office in West Los Angeles. According
11 to the artie le 1 A :'housand Wmnen in Architecture, '' published in the Ar::hitectural Record, Muir stated that her first independent c :;mmission i I have heard a lot about prejudice toward women • • • but I personally have encountered very little of it. • • • Once some background has been acquired, it is a foregone conclusion that the public is most willing ·to accept a woman in domestic architecture.? The important word here is "domestic'' and during her career 7"A Thousand Women in Architecture," Architectural Record, 103 (June, 1948), 105-11_8. 98 Muir worked almost entirely on residential projects. In this way she was strongly influenced by the Case Study House program, for her skill and approach developed along very similar lines. In 1949, she built two houses in Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles; the first was for Ivlrs~ Zola Hall, and the second, for architect John Rex. (:Plate 36) Rex and Sumner Spaulding built the second house to be completed in the Case Study House program. In Chapman Woods, in 1947, their design followed a modular plan of plywood and glass.8 Edla Muir's design for the Rex :House followed the same pattern, and the entire house was built of rough-sawn redwood and glass. It is a low, horizontal structure designed close to the ground to fit unobtrusively into the wooded landscape. The glass walls draw on the outdoor environment; this is an integral part of the int.erior design. The Rex House is one of her n1ost repu table designs and it is an excellent example of her approach to contemporary housing. Between the years of 1950 and 1955, Muir worked on residential projects in Ellensburg, Washington, a small town located in the agriculturally productive Yakima Valley. There is little information as to why she chose to practice 8McCoy, p, 48. 99 Plate 36: Edla Muir, . .J'ohn Rex res'idence, .Los A!lgeles·, California, .19.49 ~ 100 in this particular area; however, she is known to have participated in the design of the Lincoln Elementary School there. The building is a simple brick two-story rectangu ...... lar structure with a central staircase and at that time it was the most modern structure in the town. Muir also helped renovate the town's only hotel, the Antlers Hotel, meanwhile working on a number of plans for other private residences. The Russell Law House, built in 1956 and located in Malibu, California! is noted in the 1977 issue of the AIA · Journal, in conjunction with the John Rex House, as one of Edla Muir's most widely acclaimed homes.9 Its construction and design is similar to that of the John Rex House, revealing t.he same long horizontal lines and constructed with redwood and glass. By the end of her career in 1968, Edla .Muir had completed hundreds of houses in the Los Angeles area. Many of her elevations and floor plans, between the years of 1946 and 1968, were donated by her son, Alex Lambie, to the University of California at Santa Barbara. 1 0 9Rochlin, p. 40. lOThese plans are available for public viewing at the University of California, University l1useum. It might be noted however, that although there are completed card files on the entire acquisition of her work, the actual drawings are not in order. The plans for the Russell Law House and the John Rex House are not in the Collection. 101 Edla Muir 1 s strength lies not so much in her un;i~que contributions to architecture in Los Angeles, but in her easy acceptance of contemporary trends. The abrupt change of public taste to California Modern from Perj.od Revivalist could easily have destroyed the career of a less flexible architect. Edla Muir was aware of the significance of the new building trends, therefore she took ample advantage of her opportunity to learn from such distinguished members of the architectural profession as Richard Neutra, Spaulding and Rex, Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen. In a conversation with Betty Landess, a Los Angeles architect who worked with Muir until her death in 1971, it was expressed that "Edla Muir was highly respected by all those who worked with her."ll Mrs. Landess also explained that Mr. Elliot Welsh, a licensed building designer, worked closely with Muir during the last few years of her life and that it was Mr. Welsh who completed a number of her unfinished projects after her death in 1971~ llstatement of Betty Landess, AIA (j,n a telephone conversation), February 15, 1978. Chapter 7 LUTAH MARIA RIGGS A vital woman architect in Southern California is Lutah Maria Riggs, FAIA. Although she is 83 years old, Miss Riggs is still a prominent architect of the Santa Barbara area and she is highly respected by her contem~ poraries; she was educated at the University of California at Berkeley and studied architecture under the formal direction of John Galen Howard. In an interview at her office in Santa Barbara she gave the impression of a woman totally satisfied with her work. During the conversation, she expressed her a~.v-areness of the changing circumstances of women in architecture. However, when asked if she had felt uncomfortable as a woman to be studying architecture in those early years, she replied, "I felt no discrimination then. I attended architectural classes just like I attended music or history. I loved Berkeley,'' she further explained. "It was not only the Universit.y, but the entire area of San Francisco. I enjoyed going to the museums and to Golden Gate Park, and of course," she went on, you know that Julia Morgan lived there. I remember going to her office to apply for some summer work. · She ¥JaS a little old lady then, but she was working steadily and her desk was covered with 102 103 blueprints. She didn't need any help, but I am glad I went anyway because o·therwise I might never have met her.l Towards the completion of her undergraduate work at Berkeley, Miss Riggs was recommended by John Galen Howard for a job in Susanville, California. Mr. Ralph D. Taylor, a well-known architect of that area, needed a draftsman to help complete various new projects. The opportunity was excellent and as a result, Lutah Riggs left school that fall for. Susanville. As her first working experience, Miss Ri9gs felt that it was a fine place to start. As a percep~ tive architect, she responded quickly to the beauty of the small town. It was on the side of a mountain overlooking the desert. It was wonderful for sometimes, in the late evening, you could look out over the flat plain and watch the heat lightening flicker far below.2 · During the year in which she worked for Mr. Taylor she became aware of a particular architect.ural style that was to affect the rest of her career. In a "Country Houses" issue of the Architectural Record, she saw photo- . graphs of George Washington Smith•s work. Mr. Smith, an important Santa Barbara architect, was later to become the acknowledged master of the Spanish Colonial Revival and lrnterview with Lutah Maria Risrgs, FA.IA, October 24, 1978. 2rbid. 104 Lutah Maxia Risrgs was determined to eventually work for him, It was his style that ultimately affected her own,3 Before she returned to Santa Barbara, however, Miss Riggs decided to finish her education at Berkeley and she returned there to complete her masters degree. Unfortu nately, other circumstances were to interfere with that . goal for soon after she arrived, she was notified that her mother was gravely ill. This development then led to hex immediate return to Santa Barbara and in August, 1921, she made her first attempt to work for Mr. George Washington Smith. She packed her drawings under her arm and set out for his office only to meet with encouragement but also pleasant skepticism. Regretfully, Mr. Smith had no work available.4 Although disappointed, Lutah Riggs needed a, job; consequently, she left the next day for Los Angeles hoping her prospects would improve. In Los Angeles she learned that Mr. Smith was indeed looking for a draftsman, so once again, even more determined, she waited a few days, then promptly :returned to his off.ice. There she was hired quite . graciously by Mr. Smith for one week on a conditional basis. ;For 1:hat entire week Lutah Riggs vlOrked standing up, and it was not until Friday that Mr. Smith handed her a draftsman stool and told her she could return on Monday if 3Ibid. 4rbid. 105 she wanted to continue working for him. It was the begin~ ning of a firm friendship between them and later, when George Washington Smith and his wife Mary went to Mexj,co, they took Lutah with them. In Mexico Miss Riggs was exposed to fine Spanish Colonial architecture.S Lutah Riggs' assistance served to preserve the quality of work in George Washington Smith's office; the projects she worked on showed the same strength of abili t:y as Smith's own. In 1926, not far from her office, Lutah Riggs built her own house in a strong Spanish Colonial Revival style. (Plate 37) The house is set back from t.he street with almost a solid white stucco exterior. It has a ·small courtyard doorway leading immediately to t.he stairs \.vhich then take a strong diagonal across the face of the exterior to a small balcony leading into the house. The windows and doorways in the front are small and set deep into the facade giving a feeling of quiet privacy and intimacy to the house. In 1930, following the death of George Washington Smith, Lutah Maria Riggs completed the va.rious works in progress with another architect in the office, William Allen Horning. After finishing this work, Miss Riggs worked mostly alone from 1931 until 1942. Occasionally, however, she worked with A, E. Hanson, a landscape archi.- 5Ibid. 106 Plate '37: Lutah Maria Riggs, Lutah Maria R~ggs re~idence, Montedito, ~alifornia, 1926. 107 teet in Los Angeles. Mr. Hansen had purchased many acres of property in what is n()w known as Rolling H.i,lls. This land he then parcelled out and sold in two~ to five-acre lots with the offer of architectural services which often included plans by Lutah }1aria Riggs. 6 After the close of World War II Miss Riggs began a partnership with Arvin B. Shaw III~ a graduate student from Yale University. Mr. Shaw had worked smmners for Miss Riggs until his graduation from Yale. Immediately following that, he enlisted in the armed services and it was not until after the war that he could come into partnership with her. Their close friendship lasted until he died, and from 1950 until the present she has worked alone with only occasional assistants. The homes that account for her formidable repu- tation include her own residence built in 1926, the Allen Breed Walker residence, built in 1938, and the Erving House, built in 1953 and located at 650 San Ysidro Road in Montecito, California. According to Miss Riggs, "Each assignment presents its pro~lem. I aim to solve them the best way possible, and also provide enough beauty to lift the spirit."? Her attitude might account for the 6Ibid. ?Harriet Rochlin, "A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California," AIA Journal, 66, No. 9 (August, 1977), 40. 108 considerable difference in her design approach to the Erving House. (Plate 38) It is a distinctly modern house set far back from the main road with a private driveway leading directly to the carport and parking area. Empha sizing privacy for the owners, a double-doored. gate opens on·to a landscaped courtyard which in turn leads to the main entrance of the house. The high-peaked glass front of the house gives the interior a sense of spaciousness while it also provides that sense of indoor-outdoor living important to many California families. The interior space of the Erving House is designed to emphasize this living pattern with wide sliding glass doors. This house differs radically from Miss Riggs' earlier, more traditional, Spanish Colonial Revival style. Her more eclectic tenden cies seem ·to be missing from the contemporary design of this house and it appears to be a rather standard answer to California hillside living. Other fine examples of Miss Riggs work include the Plow and Angel Pub, 1955, and the Vedanta Temple, 1956, built for the Vedanta Society of Southern California and located at 901 Ladera Lane in Montecito. (Plate 39) Mrs. Ruth Sheets originally commissioned Lutah Riggs to design ~he Temple and the structure attests to the research into East Indian architecture that went into the design. A unique structure, the outside is made entirely of wood with large telephone posts used as pillars for the open veranda 109 Plate '38: Lutah Maria R.i9gs, .El.'Vi!lg House," .Montecito, C~lifornia, 1953; 110 Plate 39: Lutah Maria Riggs, Vedanta Temple,' .for t.l-te Vedanta Society, Montecito, California, 1956. 111 that extends around the building. The original plan called for a flat roof but when Riggs decided upon lami nated arches to be used for the interior, she changed her plans to a high pitched roof with clay tiles. A.t this same time in 1956, Miss Riggs was also \'.TOrking on the Wright S. Ludington House which is entirely different from the Vedanta Temple. Although quite a dista:r:ce separates the two structures, they are in clear view of each other. The Ludington House is a grand estate and was called Hesparadis House by Mr. Ludington. The s·tyle is a combination of Mediterranean and Greek Revivalist and because the end result was such a large building, Mr. r.udington eventually gave it to the Art Museum. In 1974, Miss Riggs built him a smaller residence down the hill. The interdependence of landscape and architecture has always been a primary concern of Lutah Maria Riggs. What most impressed her about Susanville was the beauty of the landscape, and her affinity for Montecito and Santa Barbara is the same. Miss Riggs is also a versatile architect, using many styles including Spanish Colonial, California Modern and Period Revivalist. Drawing on her many sources, she has a reputation for being completely flexible in her approach to her individual client preferences. 112 In 1960 1 Lutah Maria Riggs was made a Fellow by the American Institute of Architects for her excellence in design and service to the profession. At the age of 83, she is still working in the Santa Barbara area, and has two permanent assistants. Epilogue WOMEN'S SEARCH FOR PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 113 Epilogue The progress of women in architecture in the East compared to those in the West, differed for various reasons. In the early 1800's when women in the East were disen chanted with their domestic environment, women in the West were concerned with mere survival. By the 1860's and 1870's while women were struggling for acceptance into university programs, and men were just beginning to accept them in the limited area of domestic architecture, California was a new state and the transcontinental railroad was bringing new families to the West. By the 1890's, when Sophia Hayden designed the Woman's Building in Chicago, the University of California at Berkeley, Department of Engineering, gradu ated its first woman candidate, California's first woman architect, Julia Morgan. In the East, at the turn of the century, women were forming architectural alliances and partnerships, while in California architects Julia :Horgan and Hazel Wood Waterman were being influenced by the styles of their male contem poraries. The rapid increase in California's population encouraged architects such.as Greene and Greene, Maybeck, Irving Gill and George Washington Smith to build substantial reputations on the design of domestic architecture while women \>Jere still trying to overcome prejudice towards them- 11~ 115 selves as designers. It is interesting to note, however, that while this speciality had become an important concern for many California architects, Julia Morgan was not innovative in this area. Neither was her contemporary, Hazel Wood Waterman involved with any women's architectural associations. But unlike Morgan, her most significant buildings were commis sioned as a direct result of her personal contact with women's community organizations. Lilian Rice was the first woman to graduate from ·the University of California at Berkeley, Department of Architecture, and her participation in the newly organized Delta Chapter of the National Nomen's Architectural Association would have been natural. Although there is no evidence to point to her alliance it was perhaps through the influence of this group that she recognized the difficulties in her position as a woman architect. By the 1930's and 1940's communication increased between the East and West. The reputable position of domestic architecture was acknowledged and as a result, women seemed to assimilate comfortably into the field of architecture. However, with the advent of World War II, both men and women architects kept their careers at a subsistence level; materials were scarce, commissions were speculative and new construction techniques were used primarily for defense purposes. These events combined 11.6 perhaps to make the careers of Edla Muir qnd Lutah Maria Riggs easier, for neither one Of them felt a strong need to assert themselves or question their position in the profession. The environment in which these five women archi tects practiced their profession in the West was consid erably different than the environment women architects have today. In the 1960's women again raised questions about their status in the field and this time their efforts progressed with greater force and urgency than ever before. Women architects from both the East and West combined efforts to clarify their historic contributions and their future position in the field. With the development of many university programs in the West, more and more women came .into the profession and there was an intense movement to inform and educate both men and women~ Women architects no longer wanted to identify architecture as a man's profession but to establish it as rightly their own. In 1964, the UIFA, l'union Internationale des Ferunes Architects, was founded to create bonds of friend ship between all the women architects of the world. Between 1964 and 1971, the UIFA organized and held two inter~ national congresses. The last congress scheduled was held £rom September 12 to September 15, 1971, in Romania where 117 600 architects, one-third of the profession, are women. Jane L, Hastings, a Seattle architect, was the only American officer in the UI~A at that time,l In 1970, The ~air Employment Practices Act passed by the United States Government was established to provide guidelines for businesses to follow when hiring new personnel. Although this legislation made it possible for \1omen to be hired in previously all-male positions, it failed to have any noticeable effect for women in the field of architecture. In 1971, Regi Goldberg, a young woman architect and designer for Ulrich Franzen and Associates, sent to two hundred women a questionnaire and manifesto designed to help create a women's Architectural Review Hovement. She suggested the arrangement of an exposition, complete with seminars and lectures, to help educate "ourselves, our male colleagues, the media, the universities, architectural historians and critics about the contributions and capa bilities of the female architect."2 Although the response to her proposal was minimal, Miss Goldberg persisted and by November, 1972, she had received the support and the facilities of The Architectural League of New Xork. More l"Women in Architecture," Architectural Forum, 127, No. 3 (September, 1972), 51, 2 Ibid. , p. 4 9 • 118 than eighty women attended the program and, by the end of their meeting, The Alliance o;f Women in Architecture was formed. The Alliance proposed to investigate such issues as job discrimination and educational opportunities for women professionals. In addi·t.ion, they organized their programs and newsletters to include salary and job opportunity surveys, a guide to archi-tectural firms, and a campaign to oppose sexist advertising in building products. 3 In November, 1971, a parallel group was formed in the Boston area by Dolores Hayden, a graduate of Harvard University. Miss ·Hayden's group was originally called "Women in Enviromnental Design," however, in March, 1972, they reorganized and formed "The Women Architect's, Landscape Architect's and Planner's Association," WALAP.4 By 1971 the total corporate membership of women in the nationally. recognized. American Insti tut.e of Architects, AIA, was 23,238. In a detailed analysis of AIA that followed, the Forum quoted a number of professional sources. Sally Harkness; founding partner of the Archi- teet's Collaborative said tha4 "The AIA is doing very well on its own •.•• The more I see of the AIA the more I respect them. They 1 re really trying." .._Tames A. Sheeler, deputy executive vice president of the AIA said that, "I've 3Ibid. 4rbid. 119 i. heard consistently that there should be more women in t~e profession. But I'm not aware of our schools discour~ging women . n5 In 'spite of Mr. Sheeler's opinion however, Elizabeth Duncan Koontz, director of the Woman's Bureau of Labor noted that of all the 33,000 registered architects in the United States in 1971, only four percent were women.6 In April, 1973, Architectural Forum published another article titled ''Rights Between the Sexes" in which some statistics on salaries were_ gathered from a sampling of 162 male and 67 female architects. For men, the average (mean) income was approximately $15,800 yearly, while for women the average was only $13,200. These figures were significant in that there was very little difference in education between the sexes.? In September, 1973, the Archive of Women in Architecture in New York was formed. The purpose of this Archive was to assemble a • • • comprehensive body of contributions made by women in all realms of the profession. The Archive of Women in Architecture in order to satisfy this need, ••. was initiated by a grant from The Architectural League of New York, · a non-profit organization of concerned profes sionals in the· fields of architecture, planning sibi.d. 6rbid. 7 "Rights Between the Sexes," Architectural .Forum, 12 a tAp r i 1 , 19 7 3 > , 11 • r; n ) -·~U and allied areas. The Archive collects biographical data and documentation on a vast range of projects (proposed, built, theoretical, rese~rch, student and other categories) realized by women individuals or in partnership with other people or institutions, Women have been invited through two successive mailings to submit their work to this permanent resource center.8 On the West Coast the concern for women in arch±- tecture was recognized'and acted upon when the University of Oregon organized the West Coast Women's Design Conference in April, 1974. At this University the women in the architecture department had been meeting regularly since the fall of 1972. At that time there were about ninety women students and three women on the faculty, Some statistics they had compiled showed that women were entering the profession in ever increasing numbers. They found that between 1968 and 1969, the enrollment by women in archi- tectural schools had increased 0.87 percent, while in 1970-71, it had increased 1.8 percent. It was the begin ning of growth that would substantially continue for the next ten years.9 With new awareness, the women students of the architectural department susrgested that the University sponsor a design conference. 8Based on personal correspondence between Susana 'I'orre, curator, New York Architectural League, and the writer, April 7, 1977. · 9proceedings of the West Coast Women's Design Conference (University of Oregon, April 18-20, 1974), p. 2. 121 It became clear to us from the beginning that in planning the conference we wanted· to work in a cooperati~e, non-authoritative way. At first it was hard work to establish and maintain an egali tarian structure; then the task became easier, since the structure reinforced the very behavior and attitudes which had given it birth. Our trust in, and commitment to each other grew as we worked together. We developed an amazing cohesiveness. · We made conscious and constant attempts not to create the hierarchical, star system structure. For the opening of the conference instead of one keynote speaker presenting her work, two women (J. J. Wilson a.nd Karen Peterson, Sonoma, California) presented the work of many women artists. Our announcements and program listed either no names, or the names in alphabetical order. Within this non-competitive, supportive frame work, the conference provided an opportunity for women in design to come together and learn from each other •••• Women practicing architecture and/or affiliated with the established professional organizations mixed with students, and with the academic women, and with the women seeking radical alternatives. This was one of the most extraordinary aspects of the Oregon Conference.l0 Special guest presentations were given during the conference by Denise Scott Brown, Dolores Hayden, and Shelia de Brettville among others, and excerpts from the proceedings showed that a wide range of topics from Domestic Architecture and Feminism, to Energy Conservation design,were discussed. Denise Scott Brown told of a "series of horror stories which covered her first experience 10 Ib'd~ • I p • 3 • 122 as a woman professional in architecture,'' and artist Shelia de Brettville said that, ''a genuine urgency exists • • • we need visions of feminist utopias.ll In March, 1975, after ·the women's conference in Oregon, the AIA Journal reported on a four-year a~firmative action plan to provide for the integration of women as full participants in the architectural profession.l2 The AIA then proposed to open their organization to both men and women on equal status. They went on to add that they would faithfully try to integrate women as full participants in the profession and to increase the public's awareness of the contribution of women architects. Two years after the earlier Arc:hitectural Forum survey, the AIA Journ9-l noted their figures for average salary-comparison. In 1975, the mean full-time salary for women had increased to $14,500 a year, still considerably below the $24,300 cited for men.l3 An interesting portrait of the typical woman architect a~erged from the AIA task force investigation. The task force report found that despite initial similarities between men and women architects, their career paths began diverging sharply very early on as a direct result of · discrimination against women. llibid., p. 24. 12"The board's action ••• followed recommendation of the women in architecture task force's report on the status of women in the profession." "The Board Acts on the Role of Women in Architecture," AIA Journal, 63, No. 3 (March, 1975), 33. 12:3 For example, even after identifying their primary interest in architecture, more women than meri reported having majored in fields other than architecture as undergraduates, a fact the task force interpreted as a sign that women feel more serious doubts about succeeding as architects. Further, although they seldom result in higher incomes, graduate degrees in architecture were obtained by almost twice as many women as men, which the task force viewed as an attempt by women to bolster a shaky sense of self-confidence. By far the most significant difference separating men from women in the architectural 14 profession is the size of their annual salary , • • 'I'he r;os Angeles Times took an active part in the investigation of women in architecture. One editorial by Barbara Guis stated that women were absent in the field of. architecture. In this editorial, architect Virginia Ward Tanzmann, project director of space planning for SUA, Incorporated, Westwood, was quoted as saying, The professional world is permeated with sexual prejudice. Regardless of the law, people can find an excuse to make it exist if they want to. Women in architecture are trying to turn that around • • • and the profession is in a state of revolution because of it. • • . many women in architecture today feel harnessed in fringe positions ••.. As a profession, archi~ tecture is almost a neanderthal--we're pushing pencils and doing things in very old fashioned ways.l5 · · In 1975, the second Women in Design Conference was held at the Woman's Building, then located at 743 S. Grand- 1 5Barbara Guis, "Women Virtually Absent in Field of Architecture," Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1975, Part x, p. 1, col. 1. 12.4 view Street, Los Angeles. This conference was expected to draw about two hundred women from across the nation and served as a forum for expressing and examining all the fears and aspirations that women have as designers and architects.l6 At this conference at the Woman's Building one of the first women speakers of the day was Jane Thompson, former editor of Industrial Design. Although most of her talk was biographical, Mrs. Thompson began to reflect, towards the end of her speech, on a few subjects that many \vomen professionals seriously consider at one time or another: namely, do women culturally bring a unique se·t of experiences to their jobs, do these experiences make women perform differently than men? And also, should women compete with men? Her reply to these questions was, I think that women should not hesitate for a minute to get into any field, •.. if that's what suits her. Compete, yes, but I don't think, in terms of roles, that it is always necessary to compete because by and large, women have talents, perceptions, ways of expressing things, ways of doing things that men don't have.l7 16The featured speakers included Ellen Perry Berkeley, senior editor of Architecture, Denise Scott Brown, architect, Claire Forrest, professor of architecture at USC and Ethel Kramer, architecture critic and visiting professor at UCLA's School of Architecture. 17opinion expressed by June Thompson, former editor of Industrial Design,at the Woman's Buildings, in Los Angeles, California, March 19, 1975. · 125 In a personal interviett'l in the sununer of 1977 Ena Dubnoff, architect and instructor at the Southern California Institute of Architecture discussed what she was most concerned about in the profession. She said that, With the water shortage, pollution, problems of space and ecology, no one can afford to build except for large corporate buildings and when you get to that point, you lose all perspective of being an architect; it amounts to what colored glass ~ou put in and it's all red tape •.•• If the architect is concerned about making a living, he has to build what he gets. Very few have the option to be selective. If they are concerned about moral issues, they don't get jobs.l8 .Hiss Dubnoff likes to work with small groups of people, to help them in a one-to-one relationship. She is concerned with people who cannot afford to build homes, and what steps the architect can take to alleviate the high cost of construction. In terms of women's awareness or consciousness of their position in architecture, she admits to having continually introduced the idea of women getting together each semester in order to discuss where they. are heading. The students at SCI-ARC are mostly interested in going through the program and getting their license to practice. .Hany of them are· already working for architectural firms. The women students end up meeting for one session and then 18statement by Ena Dubnoff, instructor at Southern California Institute of Architecture, in a personal inter view, Santa Monica, California, June 10, 1977, it s;i.mply peters out; they simply get too busy a.nd they resent being thought of as separate. They have a certain amount of fear, I believe.l9 In 1977, a very important contribution to women in the area was the opening of the exhibition, ''Women in American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective," at the Brooklyn Museum in New York. The show, organized by The Architectural League of New York and supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts in Washington, D. c., opened to excellent reviews. A major publication with the same title was put out by the Whitney Library of Design to accompany the exhibition and was edited by Susana Torre, a practicing architect and a former assistant professor of architectural design. Although the exhibition was slated for two months at the Brooklyn Museum, it was scheduled to go on extensive tour throughout the United States. In March of 1977, progressive Architecture ran a rather lengthy art.icle reviewing the entire show, but offered little in the way of commentary or criticism.20 The "Women in Architecture'' show was brought to Los Angeles in May of 1978, through the volunteer efforts of Shelia. de Brettville, designer, and the co-ordinating efforts of Susan Peterson and Fran Offenhauser, partners · 20nwomen Behind the T-Square," Progressive Architecture (March, 1977). 127 for the architecture firm, Kyra/Des~gn. "Women in Architecture'' was exhibited at the Woman\ s Buildi?g, now located at 1727 N. Spring Street. Many extra events were scheduled at the Woman's Building to accompany the show. Two slide programs were available for viewi!lg: one organized by Los Angeles poet and novelist, Deena Metzger, consisted of slides and taped quotations from women writers talking about the uses of space; the other was a series of slides, seen only by special request, depicting the work of other California architects. Dolores Hayden, archi..- tectural historian, gave an illustrated lecture on "America Village o'f Household Liberation, 1800-1930." On May 18, 1978, John Dreyfus, architectural critic of the Los Angeles_Times, reviewed the exhibition. It's a didactic architectural show that won't just jump up and grab you by the cerebral cortex, It takes some work to get some value. You can whistle through the show at a high rate of speed and learn that America has produced some female architects. Or you can take your time and learn about the problems those architects faced, the qualities of their work and the varied natures of their efforts. Overall, the exhibition leaves one with a basic knowledge of the range (residences through castles to skyscrapers), quality (mediocre through.excellent) and difficulties (enormous} of women's work in American architecture.21 21John Dreyfuss, "Women's Work in Architecture," Iios Angeles Times, May 18, 1979, Part II, col. 3. 128 ;I:n October, 1977, the author sent a,n i_n£orma,l questionnaire to approximately one hundred and fifty women architects from Santa Barbara to San Diego. The current opinion of those women who are working architects, w01nen who have to deal with their place in the profession on a day-to-day basis is necessary to separate th~ architects from the feminists. Altho~gh the questions were specific, a paragraph at the end of the introductory letter was included to provide each woman a chance to elaborate on her responses if she so desired. The results of this questionnaire showed that most women architects in the area belonged to AIA and AWA respectively and that they all believed these organizations had been fair concerning the issue of women in architecture. To the question about whether it is possible for an architect to survive economically without belonging to a, large firm or office, the reply was affirmative from many who were working independently or in partnerships. Another response indicated that they did not feel that a tradition of architectural styles on the West Coast had influenced their current approach to design. As to whether or not such problems as water shortages, pollution or ecology 'tvere affec·ting them as professional architects, the answer was positive. They agreed that an individual architectural style was becoming less and less evident in contemporary design. Out of sixty-five women who answered - 129 the letter, sixty-three indicated that they had always been interested in the history of women in architecture. It is significant to note, however, that only a few were aware of the two Women in Design conferences. When asked if they felt any discrimination in school because of their sex, the most common response was positive. Many women felt that the professors had difficulty in relating to women students. Unfortunately, there is a definite shortage of women on the faculties of architectural departments in the universities and ·this is a major factor in the feelings of isolation that many women have. In 1978 various universities in the area having architectural departments were contacted. The University of California at Los Angeles has three full--time and two part-time women professors of architecture in their Urban Planning department. The University of Southern California c.Ticl nQt have any women on their architectural faculty, Southern California Institute of Architecture had three women architects teaching there, and Cal-Poly Pomona had one_ graduate assistant. In spite of this minimal advantage, it was surprising to notice that, on the whole, Inost women contacted did not feel any direct prejudice either by _salary or position towards themselves because o;E their sex. Whether by experience or isolation, they did not seem to feel that being a woman in architecture was a serious disadvantage. It is clear from this study of women in archi- t.ecture that their contributions to the field have been significant. In the mid-nineteenth century, even without formal education, the domestic responses of women fell directly in line with the architectural theories of the time. Women's involvement has not been isolated. Catherine Beecher's ideas were parallel to those of Ruskin, utopian living standards were explored by the Woman•s Commonwealth, women's educational rights improved concurrently with the rise of university-established architectural departments and women established formal architectural careers complete with professional associ- ations and partnerships. In the twentieth century, the careers of Julia Morgan, Hazel Wood Waterman, Lilian Rice, Edla Nuir and Lutah Maria Riggs serve to illustrate the depth of understanding and ability that women bring to this profession. Consequently, the movement in the 1970's towards professional identity reinforced women's determi- nation to gain recognition of their efforts and to eliminate discrimination toward their abilities and th~ir rightful place in the profession. BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Banharn, Reyner. Los Angeles, The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Great Britain: Fletcher and Son Ltd., 1971. The Architecture of the Hell-Tempered Environment. London: The Architectural Press, 1969. Beecher, Cahterine E. The American Woman's Horne. New York: J. B. Ford, 18 69. Treatise on Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies' at Home. New York: Harper, 1841. Clark, Kenneth. The Gothic Revival. London: Butler and· Tanner, Ltd., 1928. Cole, Doris. From Tipi to Skyscraper. Boston: i Press, 1973. Current, William. Greene and Greene: Architects in Residential St.yle. Fort Worth: Arnon Carter Museum of Western Art, 1974. Farrar, Eliza i'7are. The Young Ladies' Friend. Boston: American StatiOners Company, 1837. Gebhard, David. Architecture of California. Los Angeles: Pereguine Smith, Inc., 1968. Gebhard, David, and Harriet von Breton. L. A. in the Thirties !931-1941. Los Angeles-: Peregrine Smith, Inc. 1975. Gebhard, David, and Robert 'V'Jinter. A Guide to Architecture in Sout.hern California. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County-·t"luse,.lm of Art, 1965. Gebhard, David, Roger ~1ontgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. A Guide to Architec ture in San Francisco and Northern California. Santa Barbara: Pereguine Smith, I~c., 1973. Gebhard, David, and Sally ~t\foodbridge. Bay Area Houses. New York~ Oxford University Press, 1976. 132 133 Henderson, John, Al Hadzima, James Hart, Donald Reeves, and Donald Schucard. AIA Guide to San Diego. San Diego: San Diego Chapter of the American Architects Associa tion, 1977. Jenks, Charles. Modern Movement in Architecture. New York: Anchor Books, 1973. Kostof, Spiro, ed. The Architect. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Longstreth, Richard W. Julia Morgan - Architect. Berkeley: · Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, 1977. Maxey, Chester c. Polit~cal Philosophies. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938. HcCoy, Esther. Modern California Houses. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation# 196-2. Five California Architects. New York: Reinhold Book Corporation, 1960. Mendelowitz, Daniel. A History of American Art. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1 Inc., 1973. I'1oore, Charles, Gerald Allen, and Donlyn Lyndon. The Place of Houses. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. Moseley, D. S. Picturesque Chicago and Guide to the World's Fair. ·chicago: The Religious Herald, 1893. Naylor, Gillian. The Arts and Crafts Movement. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1960. Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1907. The Stones of Venice. London: J. ~'Jiley, 1864. Unto this Last. London: University Tutorial ---Press, Ltd. [n.d.]. Scully, Vincent. The Shingle Style and The Stick Style. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Stern, Robert. New Directions in American Architecture. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1969. 1.34 Stern, Madelaine. We The Women. New York: Shulte Publishing Company, 1963. Torre, Susana, ed. .Women in American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective. New York: Watson-Guphill Publications, 1977. Vaux, Calvert. Villas and Cottages. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1857. Wasserman, Louis. Modern Political Philosophies. Philadelphia: The Blakistone Company, I~ V>lright., Frank Lloyd. The Natural House. New York: Horizon Press, 1954. Journals and Periodicals "Archit.ectural Education in the United States." American Archi teet and Building Ne\•Js_. (September 30, 1978} Beecher, Catherine E. "How to Redeem Woman's Profession from Dishonor." Harper~ New Monthly Magazine, 31 (June 1865} 1 710-715. Bethune, Louise. "Women and Architecture." Inland Architect and News Record, 17 {March 1891), 20-21. Chatfield-Taylor, Adele. "Hitting Home." Architectural Forum. (March, 1973} 1 58-61. Dean, A. 0. "Board Acts on the Role of Women in Architec ture." American Institute of Architects Journal, 63 (March 1975), 33-34. "Design for a Wokman's Cottage." ·American Architect and Buil_':!inL._News, 3 (April 13 1 1878) 1 129. Dinerman, Beatrice. "Women in Architecture." Architectural ~orum, 131 (December 1969), 50-51. Editorial. The American Architect and Building News, 1 {September 30, 1876), 1. 11 Four Fine Fellows." American Institute of Architects Journal, 52 (September 1969), 86-87. "JIHss Luscomb Takes a Stand." Time, 97 (April 26, 1971), 20. 11 A Modern House in Hassachusetts. 11 Architectural Forum (November 1933), 413-416. A Plea for Women Practising Architecture." American Architecture and Building News, 76 (April 19, 1902), 20-22. "Rights Between the Sexes. 11 Architectural Forum, 138, No. 2 (April 1973), 71. Rochlin, Harriet. "A Distinguished Generation of ~vomen Architects in California." P.Jnerican Institute of Architects Journal, 66, No. 9 (August 1977). "Westways Women: Designed by Julia Morgan ... Wes·tways, 68, No. 3 (March 1976), 26-29. Sachs, H. "Aunty Tom Architects." Architectural Design, 4 9, No. 2 ( 19 7 4) , 119-12 0. "Surveying the Role of Women in the Profession. 11 American Institute of Architects Journal, 61 {June 1974), 9. "A Thousand Women in Architecture." Architectural Record, 103 (March 1948), 105-113; (June 1948), 108-115. WALAP (Women Architects, Landscape Architects and Planners). 11 The Case for the Flexible Workschedules." Archi·tec tural Forum, 137, No. 3 (September 1972), 53. "Women in Architecture. 11 Architectural Forum, 137, No. 3 (September 1972), 45-52. Newspapers Dreyfuss, John. "Women's Work in Architecture, .. Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1978, Part II, p. 1, col. 3. Guis, Barbara. "Women Virtually Absent in Field of Architecture, .. Los Angeles Times, March, 16, 1975, Part X, p. 1, col. 1. Other Sources Conversation with Ena Dubnoff, professor of architecture at Southern California Institute of Architecture, summer, 1977. 136 Tape recording of Jane Thompson, former editor of Industrial Design, Woman's Building, Women in Design Conference, 1975. Dwelling Place and Architecture, an exhibition of projects and buildings designed by women, Shelia de Bretteville. Questionnai~e sent out to 150 women architects in October 1977. Letters received from Southern California women architects, October to December, 1977. Conversation with Lutah Maria Riggs, November 1978. Conversation with Betty Landess, February, 1978. Letter received from Harriet Rochlin, December, 1977. Letter received from David Gebhard, 1978. Proceedings of the West Coast Women's Design Conference, April 18-20, 1974, University of Oregon. AWA membership received from Virginia Tanzmann, president of AWA. APPENDIX cover Letter and Questionnaire 137 October 16, 1977 Helen Morgan 8932 Amigo Ave. Northridge, CA. 91324 Dear I am a master's degree candidate at California State University, NOrthridge, and I am working on my graduate thesis, West Coast Women in Architecture. [Title was changed to Five California Women Architects in a Historical Perspective.] Because there has been so little material published on West Coast women architects, I hope to include informa tion on women currently working in the field, as well as those who have been historically prominent. In order to gather this material, I am doing an informal survey of as many women architects as I can contact. It would help me considerably if you could please send me a copy of your vita, and also ans\ver the few questions that I have enclosed. I would appreciate your response to this questionnaire and welcome any additional information you might feel is relevant to this subject. Sincerely, Helen Morgan 138 QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What professional organization are you affiliated with? 2. How have these organizations dealt with the question of women in architecture? 3. With your experience, do you think it's possible for an architect to survive, economically, without being attached to a large corporate firm, or city architec tural office? 4. Do you believe that the developing problems of water shortage, pollution, space and ecology, have affected you as a professional architect? 5. Do you feel that a tradition of architectural styles on the west coast has influenced your current approach to architectural design? 6. Are architectural styles breaking down and becoming generalized throughout the United States? 7. Have you been interested, either as a student or a pro fessional, in the history of women in architecture? 8. Do you believe that you, as a woman, bring to the architectural profession any specialized consciousness? 9. As a student of architecture, did you find any specific problems occurring because of your sex? 10~ As a student were you concerned with the realities of your profession; i.e., getting a job, discrimination, specialization? 139