Structural wood of the Lozano factory, 1905-1917

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Structural wood of the Lozano factory, 1905-1917
Series Title:
Lozano cigar factory preservation documents
Physical Description:
Mixed Material
Language:
English
Creator:
Edmunds, Susan G.
unknown
unknown
unknown
Publisher:
Susan G. Edmunds
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Notes

General Note:
Completed for Materials and Methods of Preservation, Spring, 1984

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution.
System ID:
AA00000571:00001

Full Text

THE STRUCTURAL WOOD OF THE


LOZANO FACTORY,


1905-1917


G. Edmunds


Susan































Table of Contents

Page

Introduction .................... ......................... .1

The Lozano Factory's Place in History .....................2

The Migration of the Lumber Industry and Its Relation
to the Wood of the Lozano Factory ......................8

The Relation Between the Technological Development of
the Lumber Industry and the Wood of the Lozano Factory.17

Wood Type ...................................................33

Conclusion.................. ...............................37

Figures ...................................................40






















Introduction


Though the F. Lozano & Sons Company owned the building

which still bears its name for a relatively short period,

the building stands as a landmark of the exuberance of the

time in which it was built. As its whole reflects the large

and small events that were associated with the cigar industry

in Tampa, its structural wood reflects the industry that pro-

duced it on many scales. Regretably, the length of this pa-

per only allows touching upon some of the larger events of

the lumber industry's development. However, it is interest-

ing to see how the heyday of the cigar industry coincides

fleetingly with that of the lumber industry in Florida,

which was only part of the lumber industry that was undergoing

its own upheavals of technological change embodied in the

wood as are the practices of the industry during a period

when people were only beginning to realize that the virgin

forests of America were not limitless.













The Lozano Factory's Place in History


The construction of the Lozano Factory is an artifact,

not only of the early growth of Tampa and the aspirations of

F. Lozano and his sons, but also of world events.

In a sense, the factory can be seen to have had its begin-

nings in Cuba's Ten Year War between 1868 and 1878. This war

forced thousands of cigar makers and several prominent cigar

manufacturers to emigrate to the United States. Most of the

immigrants relocated in New York. However, one Cuban manufac-

turer, influenced by a friend, Gavino Gutierrez, who had pre-

viously sought to establish a guava concern in Tampa, came to

Tampa. The manufacturer, Don Vincente Ybor, and Guiterrez

purchased 40 acres for the purpose of establishing a cigar

manufacturing concern. To show their good faith in the ven-

ture, businessmen of the city of Tampa raised $4,000 of the
2
$9,000 purchase price. The wisdom of this investment by Tam-

pa businessmen would later be testified to by the growth of

Tampa, Ybor, and the cigar industry.

Still another outside influence on the growth of Tampa

was the growth of unions in the Northeast. By 1889, growing

union strength caused the syndication of Clear Havana manufac-

turer and many discontented with the situation began to move to



1Glen Westfall, Don Vincente Ybor, The Man and His Empire,
Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1977, p. 166.

2Charles E. Harner, Pictorial History of Ybor City, Tampa:
Trend Publications, 1975, p. 13.













Tampa.3 In June of 1892, the Tampa Daily Journal heralded the

opening of the first cigar factory in Ybor City, a 50' x 150'

structure.4 Subsequently, a strike by cigar makers in 1894

caused a large number of factories to move to Tampa.5

Perhaps these factories chose Tampa because other factor-

ies had been established, or because of the availability of

shipping, the already established Spanish-speaking community,

or the warm weather. But regardless of the reason, the cigar

industry came and Tampa prospered. In 1890, the total real

estate tax evaluation was $4,317,844; by 1900, it was $7,597,860

and by 1905 it was projected to exceed $12,500,000.6 Similar-

ly, the cigar industry grew. In 1897, when a Board of Trade

was established in Tampa, the total number of cigars manufac-

tured was 90,408,000 and by 1904, 196,961,500 cigars were be-

ing produced.7 By 1905 the number of business licenses is-

sued was up 28% from the previous year and cigar output was

17% above the year before.8

Business was good, Tampa was growing, and the cigar

industry was too. The newspaper heralded a brick building



3Westfall, op. cit., p. 143.
4
Tampa Daily Journal, June 15, 1892, p. 1.

5Manifesto, New York, Cigar Makers Union, August 30, 1901.

6Tampa Morning Tribune, August 26, 1905, p. 1.

7Ibid., p. 2.

8Tampa Morning Tribune, February 2, 1905, p. 1.











boom in Tampa, a boom in Ybor, and the erection of several

new factories there.10 The Ybor population was 10,000 and

Seventh Avenue was a prosperous street. Businessmen were

still optimistic and willing to lend a hand to the growing

cigar industry. Early in 1905, leading businessmen were so-

liciting donations for the erection of a cigar factory for

Fernandez, Wodiska, & Co.12 at the cost of $16,000 for a three-

story frame structure.13

There is no record of F. Lozano being so lucky, but he

and his partner, Mr. Nistal, who were already housed in a
14
factory at 1925 Seventh St., were planning larger and grander

things, including a three-story brick building.15 However,

before the building was built, Mr. Nistal withdrew from the

partnership,16 which may have been the reason that the first

phase of the building ended up being only two stories.17 At

any rate, by September 15 the factory was in progress, not-

withstanding delays due to a rainy summer,18 and by September


9Tampa Morning Tribune, March 9, 1905, p. 1.

10Tampa Morning Tribune, January 15, 1905, p. 2.

llTampa Morning Tribune, October 15, 1905, p. 2.

12Tampa Morning Tribune, February 1, 1905, p. 2.

13Tampa Morning Tribune, February 25, 1905, p. 2.

14Tampa Morning Tribune, November 5, 1905, p. 2.

15Tampa Morning Tribune, February 2, 1905, p. 2.

16Tampa Morning Tribune, May 19, 1905, p. 2.

17Tampa Morning Tribune, November 2, 1905, p. 2.

18Tampa Morning Tribune, September 15, 1905, p. 2.













27, after a week of good weather,19 the brick work was half-

way up the second floor.20 Subsequently, by November 2, when

the walls were nearing completion,21 Lozano, Nistal, & Company*

was predicting to be in the new building by the 15th.22 How-

ever, the completion must have come more rapidly than Lozano

expected, because the change to the new factory was completed

on November 5, 1905.23

Though no starting date was found for construction, a

comparison with the 50' x 100' three-story brick Stachelberg

Factory that was being built simultaneously is useful. By

August 25, the brick walls were started24 and by November 4

the building was ready for occupancy,25 a period of just over

two months, indicating that the first phase of the Lozano fac-

tory could have been built in less than three months.

Similarly, though there are no documents readily found

regarding the Lozano Factory's construction cost, a comparison

with other construction is useful in determining a range in


19Tampa Morning Tribune, September 22, 1905, p. 2.

20Tampa Morning Tribune, September 27, 1905, p. 2.

21Tampa Morning Tribune, November 3, 1905, p. 2.

*Apparently a newspaper error since Nistal was to have
left the company by that date.

22Tampa Morning Tribune, November 2, 1905, p. 2.

23Tampa Morning Tribune, November 5, 1905, p. 2.

24Tampa Morning Tribune, August 25, 1905, p. 2.

25Tampa Morning Tribune, November 4, 1905, p. 2.













which its cost could have fallen. In Tampa in 1905, 13 brick

and stone buildings and blocks were built at an average cost

of $9,889;26 in Ybor, a two-story brick building of 2,275

square feet cost $5,000 or $1.10 per square foot,27 a 60' x 70'

two-story brick building of 8,400 square feet with an elevator

cost $10,000 or $1.20 per square foot,28 and an 80' x 100'

two-story brick building of 16,000 square feet with apart-

ments cost $20,000 or $1,25 per square foot.29 Thus, it can

be assumed that the Lozano's first phase of 15,150 square

feet30 probably cost between $1.10 and $1.25 per square foot

or a total of $16,650 to $18,950 to build and was a much

larger enterprise than most buildings built in the area that

year as the Lozano Factory, with a basement for storage, two

floors for shipping and cigar manufacture, an elevator, and

very few partitions,31 was surely no grander than the most

expensive example and probably more expensive than the cheap-

est.

Unfortunately, little can be determined about the addi-

tion of the third floor, except that it was completed sometime


26Tampa Morning Tribune, August 25, 1905, p. 1.

27Tampa Morning Tribune, May 7, 1905, p. 2.

28Tampa Morning Tribune, March 3, 1905, p. 2.

29Tampa Morning Tribune, October 9, 1905, p. 2.

30Tampa Morning Tribune, November 2, 1905 and Sanborn
Maps, 1915, p. 42.

31Ibid.












in 1916 as the assessment jumped $2,300 that year.32 This,

however, cannot be construed as representing the cost of con-

struction.

In summing up the forces that shaped the first two phases

of the Lozano Factory, it can be seen to be a product of the

dreams of one man, F. Lozano, and those of his sons, and the

rapidly growing cigar industry and world events that brought

the cigar industry to Tampa. These forces culminated in the

original construction of the basement and first two floors of

the Lozano Factory and the addition of a third floor in 1905

and 1915, respectively (See Figure 1). And it is with these

dates in mind that this paper shall proceed to assess the

visual evidence of the structural wood in the factory in re-

lation to the industry which produced it.























32Hillsborough Clerk of the Circuit Court, Records of
File, Tampa, 1915-1921.





















THE STRUCTURAL WOOD OF THE


LOZANO FACTORY, 1905-1917



















Susan G. Edmunds
Mr. Garner
Materials & Methods
in Preservation
April 23, 1984













The Migration of the Lumber Industry and Its Relation to the
Wood of the Lozano Factory


The first water mill in Florida was established near

Pensacola in 1798 by Millam de Carrera.1 However, Florida

was not to become a major producer of wood until after the

forests in Midwest and Northeast America were exhausted.

Similarly, the industry migrated within Florida due to the

availability of wood, transportation, and lucrative markets.

Subsequently, the species of wood made into lumber varied

accordingly, though the major production was always conifer-

ous and the primary structural woods were pine. Also, it is

important to note that although utility woods were in the

early years of America's development a local product, the

type of wood used in construction became increasingly tied to

the migration of lumbering centers as new methods of transpor-

tation were developed. This migration complemented the growth

of Ybor and transportation played just as important a role in

the location of local suppliers as it did in the location of

the centers of lumber production. In turn, as will be seen,

the primary cause of migration was reflected in the quality

of wood available much as the type of wood available reflect-

ed the industry's migration.

The migration of the lumber industry has its documented



lWilliam Gober, "Lumbering in Florida," Southern Lumber-
man, December 15, 1954, pp. 164-166.












beginnings with a shipment of wood from Jamestown to London

in 1608. However, the first real major center of lumbering

was to be in Maine. Reportedly established by the opening of

a mill in Berwick, Maine in 1831, Maine's lumber industry was

to dominate American production and export until about 1850

when the Hudson River valley of Albany, New York became the

largest lumber producer, cutting about eight billion board

feet in 1850. Subsequently, the center of America's lumber

production was to shift to Pennsylvania and Williamsport

along the Susquehana River.3 However, these areas were rap-

idly depleted as technology improved production and the de-

mand for wood grew.

As the railroad began to open the Midwest to expansion,

the lumber industry followed, for the migrating population

created a lucrative market and rail transportation and the

development of steam-powered mills removed the need to be

near the coast or rivers.4 By 1876, Saginaw, Michigan had

outstripped the East in the production of white pine to be-

come the major lumbering center in America. Simultaneously,

the cutting of redwoods and sequoias had already begun in




2Stanley F. Horn, This Fascinating Lumber Business, New
York: The Bobbs Merrill Co., 1943, p. 107.

3Nelson Courtland Brown, Lumber, New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1947, pp. 1-3.

4Brown, op. cit., p. 2., and W.G. Younquist and H.O.
Fleisher, Wood in American Life, Madison, Wisconsin: Forest
Products Research Society, 1977, p. 64.













18495, the Southern* pine forests were just beginning to be

opened up,6 and the Ohio River markets exploited by the South

as local rail systems were being linked with trunk lines.7

Yet before these markets were to be exploited on a grand scale,

the lumber industry was to expand to Wisconsin and then to

Minnesota8 and it was not until the supply of white pine

around the Great Lakes ran low that the industry sought other

sources.

However, the depletion of the Midwest's lumber supply

was rapid. By 1880, "cruisers" were being sent by the lumber

industry to scope out the South, from whence they returned

with glowing reports. Land which could produce 6,000 to

10,000 board feet per acre could be bought cheaply from the

government for $1.25 an acre. Labor was cheap. And the timb-

er stood on level ground, which would facilitate the lumbering

process. The only thing that stood in the way of Southern

lumber taking over the market immediately was a prejudice in

the marketplace against Southern yellow pine in favor of

white pine. However, this prejudice was quickly overcome.


5younquist, op. cit., p. 75.
*In the lumber trade, this does not apply to political
boundaries but means south of the Appalachians.

6Younquist, op. cit., p. 64.

7Horn, op. cit., p. 102.

8Brown, op. cit.

9Horn, op. cit.












By 1894 it was the principal wood used in shipbuilding and in

1895 the New York Tribune heralded its superiority to other

pine due to its durability.10

Subsequently, the center of the lumber industry began to

shift, first into the northern reaches of the South. This is

not to say that the lumber industry was new to the South.

The South had been producing lumber for 300 years, but not in

vast quantities and primarily for local consumption, with the

exception of the coast of Georgia. And, directly after the

Civil War, carpetbaggers and penniless ex-Confederates like

A.C. Danner who returned to Mobile from the Confederate army

in 1865, began to lay the groundwork for a vast empire in the

lumber industry.11

However, the boom in the Southern lumber industry did

not occur until the large lumber interests and smaller lumb-

ering operations from the Midwest began to buy property and

move to the South after the Midwest was approaching depletion.

As in the Midwest, the development of the region was un-

even. Some lumbermen from the Great Lakes area established

themselves west of the Mississippi and others did so first

east of the Mississippi, opening up the coastal areas, and by

1899 almost 10 billion board feet of Southern yellow pine were

being produced,12 which was a great deal considering that the


10Horn, op. cit., pp. 101-103.

11Ibid., pp. 104-106.

12Ibid., p. 100.










total output in America in 1876 had only been 16 billion

board feet.13

Soon the impetus of the Midwestern lumber interests be-

gan to have an effect on Florida as well. First developing

the areas of North Florida along the rivers and coast (See

Figure 2) due to limited rail transportation and accessibil-

ity to lucrative markets (See Figure 4), Midwesterners began

to establish large enterprises in Florida, including the Cum-

mer Mill, established in Jacksonville as its first yellow

pine mill in 1896, the Tilghman Wilson Company, established

in 1891 near Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast, and the Putnam

Lumber Company, which purchased 300,000 acres14 in Putnam

County. Others were to go further south, following the pro-

gress of the Plant railroad, which connected Tampa to the

north as early as 1883.15

Again, this is not to say that these areas had not pre-

viously been lumbered. In 1881, Florida was already produc-

ing 6,615,000,000 board feet of yellow pine per year and

Hillsborough was producing 162,000,000 board feet per year.16

However, by 1909, after the infusion of capital from the Mid-

west and just after the Lozano Factory was built, Florida was

producing approximately 800,000,000 board feet17 of the


13Younquist, op. cit., p. 118.

14Baynard Hardwick Kendrick, Florida's Perpetual Forests,
(Memoirs, Letters, etc.), Tallahassee: State Library of Flor-
ida, 1980, pp. 67, 107.

15Younquist, op. cit., p. 112.

16Gober, op. cit., pp. 164-166.

17Brown, op. cit., p. 4.










Southern yellow pine's total annual production of between 16

and 17 billion board feet of lumber,18 which was 36.6% of

the nation's 45 billion19 board foot output. And, as North

Florida was already severely deforested, much of the wood was

coming out of South Florida as was the lumber being adver-

tised for sale in Ybor City during its boom.20

Similarly, the local wood suppliers were dependent upon

and their location was influenced by the type of transporta-

tion available and its location as were the large lumbering

operations. In Ybor City at the time of the construction of

the first phase of the Lozano Factory, there were four such

lumber distributors advertising: Edenfield Building and Man-

ufacturing Company, Hillsborough Lumber Company, Jetton-

Deckle Lumber Company, and A.E. Meeks Woodyard,21 all of them

located within easy access of the railroad (See Figure 3).

Another important transportation factor on the location of

distributors was that teams of horses were still used to de-

liver materials.22 This meant that in 1905 it was important

to be located near centers of construction, which caused some

distributors to have multiple distribution centers within the



18Horn, op. cit., p. 100 and A. Stuart Campbell, Studies
in Forestry Resources in Florida, Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1932, p. 13.

19Brown, op. cit., p. 3.

20Tampa Morning Tribune, June 18, 1905, p. 2 and May 10,
1905, p. 2.

21Tampa Morning Tribune, June 17, 1905, p. 2 and January
13, 1905, pp. 2, 6.

22Tampa Morning Tribune, May 28, 1905, p. 2.












same area, such as the Jetton-Deckle Lumber Company, which

had lumber yards in both the incorporated area of Tampa and

Ybor City.23 On the other hand, by 1917, when cars and

trucks became more prevalent, the size of the market area be-

came larger. Thus, it is probable that the structural wood

of the Lozano Factory's first phase came from one of the four

lumber suppliers located near Seventh Avenue and the railroad

track in the heart of Ybor, although the range possibilities

of suppliers would have been greater for the addition of the

third floor in 1917.

Where the wood was milled is a more difficult question.

Usually, wood was milled and dried before it was transported

to reduce the cost of shipping.24 However, in 1905 some of

the suppliers in Ybor such as A.E. Meeks milled wood in their

yards after it was delivered by the railroad.25 Yet, cer-

tainly the milling of the columns and blosters, which were

planed and champhered (See Figure 4), was done locally as by

1905 many mill work shops and lumber suppliers such as Jetton-

Deckle, W.S. Smith, Hester and Bramlet, and Edenfield Building

and Manufacturing Company had such capabilities and importing

such items from another locale would not have been economic

for a factory building.26


23Tampa Morning Tribune, January 13, 1905, p. 2.

24Horn, op. cit., p. 113.

25Tampa Morning Tribune, May 10, 1905, p. 2.

26Tampa Morning Tribune, January 13, 1905, p. 2., June 17,
1905, p. 2., September 2, 1905, p. 2.













In short, due to the sources of wood used by the lumber

industry in Florida during its boom from 1900 until the De-

pression27 and the economics involved in the transportation

of wood, it is probable that the structural wood in the Lo-

zano Factory's first two phases was pine that was cut in

South Florida. Also, due to the economies of rail and team

transportation associated with proximity, the wood of the

first phase of construction was most assuredly supplied by

either the A.E. Meeks Woodyard, the Hillsborough Lumber Com-

pany, the Jetton-Deckle Lumber Co., or the Edenfield Building

and Manufacturing Company, although the number of possible

suppliers for the 1917 addition would have been larger. More-

over, the special milling used in the rafter tails, columns,

and bolsters of both phases was probably done locally. Thus,

just as the location of wood resources, markets for lumber

products, and the availability of transportation determined

what kind of wood was available and the location of lumber

production centers, these factors were equally important on

the local level in Ybor City.

Still another aspect of the migration of the lumber in-

dustry must be mentioned here, though not based on transpor-

tation but on the practices of the industry, which were pri-

marily causes of its migration. As the wood resources in

America seemed unlimited, it was common practice to cut first



27Kendrick, op. cit., pp. 5-48.












growth and move on. Part of this practice involved the cut-

ting of prime timber first.28 By 1909, Nelson C. Brown re-

ported that 33% of Florida's timberland had been cut, be-

moaning the fact that the best stands of long leaf yellow

pine had already been cut.29 Later in the same report, he

pointed out that early operations in Florida had left stumps

24" high and had cut off the tops of trees below the first

limb, whereas in 1909, only 8-12" stumps were left. Wood

was being taken above the first limb to a minimum diameter of

8-10" and smaller trees from once cut over lands were being

used.30 This would explain the reason that more knots and

less heartwood appear in the structural wood used in the con-

struction of the Lozano Factory's third floor, which was added

12 years after the original construction (See Figures 5 and 6).


















28Simon Elliot, The Important Timber Trees of the United
States, Boston/New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1912, pp. 1-4.

29Nelson C. Brown, Preliminary Examination of the Forest
Conditions of Florida, Gainesville, University of Florida Press,
1909, p. 21.
30Ibid., p. 48.












The Relation Between the Technological Development of the
Lumber Industry and the Wood of the Lozano Factory


As the lumber industry migrated from the Northeast to

the Midwest and then to the South, technological advances

concerning the application of power, improved materials, and

new concepts changed the industry and its product as much as

its migration. Consequently, just as the Lozano Factory as

a whole is the physical evidence of a man's dreams and world

events and the type of structural wood used in the Factory

is a record of the migration of the industry, the surface

characteristics and variations in the dimensions of the wood

are the record of a particular point in the development of

the industry's technology. Thus, to understand the signifi-

cance of these characteristics, the absence of others, and

the simple existence of the structural wood of the Lozano

Factory, it is important to understand the historical context

of the wood in terms of the development of the technologies

of lumber production in the United States.

The earliest log saw on record is the pit or drag saw

used by two men, who pulled the saw back and forth with one

man above the log and the other below in a pit (See Figure 7).

Although two such men could only saw 100 to 200 linear feet

per day, the end product was more refined than that which

could be produced by hewing.1 Subsequently, the pit saw was




lW.G. Younquist and H.O. Fleisher, Wood in American Life,
Madison, Wisconsin: Forest Products Research Society, 1977, p. 75.













improved by the addition of a stiffening frame, which was in

turn provided with vertical slide ways, and soon water was

used to power this arrangement.2

The first recorded date for the use of such a water mill

in North America is generally agreed upon as being 1933. How-

ever, sources are at odds as to which location was the first

to have such a mill. Some maintain that the first powered

mill was established on the falls of the Piscataqua River be-

tween Maine and New Jersey. Another maintains that in the

same year two saw mills powered by water, as well as one

powered by wind, were established by the Dutch West India

Company in New Amsterdam.4 Whichever was first, it is nota-

ble that the English-speaking colonies lagged behind in this

development. This is perhaps because in England the first

water mill was not established until 1660, at which time the

pit sawers were so outraged that they chopped it down with

axes and it was not until the late 1800's, after two more

attempts to establish water mills in England were met with

violence, that water mills became accepted in England.5

Roughly coinciding with this development, the first water-



2Younquist, op. cit., p. 76.

3Ibid., p. 23.

4Stanley F. Horn, This Fascinating Lumber Business, New
York, The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1943, p. 136.

5Ibid., p. 137.












powered saw mill was established in Florida in 1798 by Millam

de Carrera in Pensacola.6

Shortly thereafter, in 1803 to be exact, the first steam-

powered mill was established in the South in New Orleans.

However, history was to be repeated as resentful pit sawers

tore it down. Yet as industrialization became a fact of

life, the use of steam-powered saws grew and by 1841 the

first steam-powered mill was established in Florida.8 By

1860, the use of turbine wheels and steam engines had super-

ceded the use of water power in the South and Midwest, al-

though smaller mills in the Northeast continued to use water
9
power for some time.

The obvious reason for the change to steam was that,

like the development of rail transportation, it facilitated

the exploitation of vast timber resources that were not ad-

jacent to waterways and therefore had not previously been ec-

onomical to cut.10 In turn, not only where timber came from

was affected, but milling operations and log transportation

were to change as well. Teams, primarily of mules and oxen

in the South, which had previously been used only for yarding


6William Gober, "Lumbering in Florida," Southern Lumber-
man, December 15, 1954, pp. 164-166.

7Horn, op. cit., p. 100.

8Gober, op. cit., pp. 164-168.

9younquist, op. cit., pp. 75-78.

10Horn, op. cit., p. 126.













logs on the river banks, began to be used to haul logs over-

land.11 And the development of steam engines led to the de-

velopment of portable saw mills, practical for widespread use,

though their product was variable logs to be milled close to

where they were cut, thereby making overland transportation

easier.12

The use of steam was to remain important in the lumber

industry through the beginning of the twentieth century and

its use, in Tampa at least, was still prevalent in 1905,13

though around that time direct current motors were being used

by the lumber industry. These motors facilitated work flow

by allowing more convenient location of machinery than line

shaft driven steam or the then only occasionally used water-

powered mills.14 Thus, it is possible that the mills that

produced the structural wood of the Lozano Factory's first

phase could have been powered by steam or direct current.

It is more probable, however, that steam was used, as the

irregularity in dimensions observed (See Figure 6) would in-

dicate that a portable saw mill had been used and these



11Horn, op. cit., p. 126.

12Ibid., p. 138.

13Tampa Morning Tribune, September 26, 1905, p. 2.

14Judson A. Mansfield, "History of the Development of
Woodworking Machinery, 1852-1952," Proceedings of Wood Sympo-
sium on One Hundred Years of Engineering Progress with Wood,
Washington, D.C.: Timber Engineering Co., 1952, p. 76.












mills were still steam powered in 1905.15 On the other hand,

the mill that produced the lumber used in the 1917 addition

was probably stationary or the wood at least resawn by a sta-

tionary mill, as the dimensions were more standardized (See

Figure 3). And it was probably not steam powered, but pow-

ered by direct current due to its advantages or by a gasoline

or diesel engine, as such engines had been developed by then

and had the advantage of not requiring a constant clear water

supply.16 Also, it could not have been powered by alternat-

ing current as such motors only came onto the market around

1919.17

Yet the change in power sources was not the only devel-

opment which left its mark on the structural wood of the Lo-

zano Factory. Coinciding with the development of new power

sources, new applications of power developed. The single

vertical saw within a frame gave way to the gang sash saw,

which held multiple saws within one frame.18 In turn, though

its use continued well into the twentieth century for resaw-

ing,19 the sash gang saw was replaced in importance by the

circular gang saw.20


15Horn, op. cit., p. 141.

16Mansfield, op. cit., p. 78.

17Ibid., p. 40

18Horn, op. cit., p. 131.

19Ibid., p. 136.

20Nelson C. Brown, Lumber, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1947, pp. 79-82.











21
The first circular saw was patented in England in 1777.

Although some sources attribute its invention to Benjamin

Cummings of New York, Cummings did not hammer out his first
22
circular blade until 1820. Yet 1820 remains an important

date, for it was the first introduction in America of the

circular saw, which applied the principle of continuous mo-

tion, increasing production to about 3,000 board feet per 12-

hour day early in its development.23 Soon circular saws were

the most prevalently used head* saw and just prior to 1850

they were introduced to Florida,24 where they remain impor-

tant today due to the smaller dimensions of Florida's trees

and the cheap stumpage that does not make the waste of a wide

kerf of 5/16" to 3/8" serious25 as evidenced by the use of

circular saws in mills such as those run by B & K Cypress and

Griffis Lumber.

Another development which remains important today was

the band saw (See Figure 9). Invented in England by William

Newberry in 1808,26 it did not come into practical use in this



21Brown, op. cit., p. 69.

22Horn, op. cit., p. 136.

23Baynard Hardwick Kendrick, Florida's Perpetual Forests
(Letters, memoirs, etc.), Tallahassee: State Library of Flor-
ida, 1980, p. 105.

Main saw in a mill used for opening and slabbing logs.

24Kendrick, op. cit., p. 106.

25Brown, op. cit., p. 70.

26Horn, op. cit., p. 137.












country until after the development of alloyed steel by Robert

Mushet in 1855 because the brittleness of carbon steel which

had been previously used made band saws inefficient due to

blade breakage.27 Similarly in America, though J.R. Hoffman

began experimenting with the use of band saws in his saw mill

in 1860, it was not until 10 years later, after receiving a

blade from France of alloyed steel, that he developed a

practical band saw for lumber. However, by the 1880's, saw

mill operators began to make general use of the band saw28

and by 1909 almost every pine and cypress mill in Florida pro-

ducing over 50,000 board feet a day was using band saws.29

Thus, in 1905 and 1917, during the construction of the

first two phases of the Lozano Factory, both band saws and

circular saws were prevalently used. However, due to the

arced surface texture of the lumber in the Lozano Factory

(See Figures 10 and 11), it is evident that it was milled

with a circular saw.30 This would support the conclusion

that, due to its irregularity, the wood of the first phase

was probably produced by a portable mill, for portable band

saw mills did not come into use until about the time



27Mansfield, op. cit., p. 81.

28Horn, op. cit., p. 137.

29Nelson C. Brown, Preliminary Examination of the Forest
Conditions of Florida, Gainesville, University of Florida
Press, 1909, p. 48.

30John Garner, Lecture on Woodland Timber, February 13,
1984.













of World War II. Moreover, the use of a circular saw

would indicate that the third floor's lumber was probably

produced by a small mill, since most large mills by 1917

used band saws because these could produce four to six

thousand board feet per hour while circular saws could only

produce three to 10 thousand feet per day.2 Also, both

the edges and sides of the lumber show circular saw marks,

so they could not have been recut from a cant cut by a band

saw.

Still another application of power, the cylinder plane

is evident in the smoothly finished wood of the columns and

bolsters (See Figure A). The first power-planing mill was

invented in 1828 by a carpenter, William Wood, of Poughkeep-

sie, New York. Wood did not promote it and it was not until

after 1842, when he sold the patent, that such planes came

into general use. Even then, their use was limited, as the

buyers of the patent licensed the machines for royalties until

1856 at a rate of $3.00 to $7.00 per thousand board feet,

which restricted their use to producing special products.34

However, by 1850, Baxter D. Whitney had developed a cylinder

planer which surpassed the production capabilities of the



31Brown, Lumber, op. cit., p. 122.
32Ibid., p. 79.

33Horn, op. cit., p. 138.

34Ibid., p. 152.












earlier fixed knife type and after Whitney introduced an im-

proved model in 1866 which won a silver medal at the 1867

Paris Exhibition, cylinder planers (See Figure 12) dominated

the market. Subsequently, Whitney again improved the cylin-

der planer and developed an endless bed double surface in

1881.35 Thus, it can be seen that the columns and bolsters

could indeed have been surfaced with a cylinder plane. More-

over, they could have been planed locally with locally made

machines as companies such as Hester and Bramlet advertised

having the equipment to do novelty work as well as planing36

and the Tampa Foundery and Machine Company was in business

making boilers and machines of brass and iron by 1905.37

Still other technological developments in the lumber in-

dustry are embodied in the wood of the Lozano Factory, though

not so readily visible. Particularly important in increasing

the efficiency of the production of lumber are the advance-

ments in the drying and logging processes. Though technolo-

gical development in these processes began later than in the

milling process, advancements came rapidly.

Particularly important in the logging process were the

developments of the later half of the nineteenth century.

Just after 1860, the double bitted "Yankee Axe" was introduced,

the spiked cart hook for handling logs was perfected around


35Mansfield, op. cit., pp. 77-78.

36Tampa Morning Tribune, September 26, 1905, p. 2.

37Tampa Morning Tribune, June 17, 1905, p. 2.













1870, and by 1876 lumberjacks were beginning to use saws to

fell trees (See Figure 13).38 By 1905 and 1917, when the

Lozano Factory was being built, these tools were still pre-

valent. And power chain saws would not replace the cross cut
39
saw until after the first quarter of the nineteenth cen-

tury, though steam power began to be applied in other logging

operations about the time the cross cut saw was developed.

One of the earliest of these applications of steam was

the donkey, a stationary steam engine with a drum carrying

a steel cable (See Figure 14) which could be used in places
40
that were too tight for animals. However, teams would

still have been in use as well when the Lozano's first phase

was built if not in 1917, for teams were still being used in

the millyards in 1905.41 And they.would have been used with

four or eight-wheeled carts; bummers, two-wheeled contrap-

tions that dragged logs; or slip tongue carts, which dragged

logs slung below their axles.42

The next important development using steam for logging

was the steel logging railroad. Although railroads were pre-

valent by the mid-1800's, it was not until the late 1870's



38Younquist, op. cit., p. 75.

39Horn, op. cit., p. 125.

40Ibid., p. 128.

41Tampa Morning Tribune, June 18, 1905, p. 2.

42Horn, op. cit., p. 128.












that the steel logging railroad was built in Michigan, until

which time the logging "railroads," also called pole roads,

had been constructed of wooden rails and utilized horses to

pull the log cars. And, just as the regular railroads opened

up new areas for the lumber industry, the logging railroads

made it possible to expand all of the main lines43 and led to

yet another application of steam in logging, the skidder (See

Figure 15).

Also an outgrowth of the steam donkey, the skidder was

invented in 1883 by Horace Butters and, like the steel log-

ging railroad, it was developed in Michigan. Basically steam

engines mounted on steel frames which could be moved along on

rails and which were equipped with pulling booms and sometimes

loading booms,44 steam skidders were considered the only prac-

tical means of achieving quantity production in a logging op-

eration until the development of tractors.45 The first skid-
46
der in the South was built in 1890 by Butters himself.

Therefore, it is quite probable that skidders were in use in

Florida by 1905. However, by 1917, tractors had been invent-

ed by O.A. Lombard, who simply added continuous treads to a

conventionally-geared logging locomotive and these could have



43
Horn, op. cit., p. 128.

44Ibid., p. 129.
45Ibid., p. 131.

46Ibid., p. 130.












been used, though the lumber industry was slow to accept them.47

Still another development worth mentioning is high lead

yarding, which utilized a skidder and a cable attached to the

tops of two tall trees below which a trolley was slung to car-

ry logs. Primarily used in rough terrain, its main use in

Florida was in the cypress swamps and it was therefore pro-

bably not used in logging the pine used in the Lozano Factory.48

Similarly, though there wasn't any readily discernable

concavity due to the collapse of the wood's cellular struc-

ture in the Lozano Factory, as is usually associated with kiln
49
dried lumber, it is important to be aware of the development

of kiln drying, for if it is done properly, its effects are

subtle. The first experiments with artificial drying

occurred in the late 1870's and made use of a smoke kiln in

which a fire was built under the wood in a box and the smoke

was drawn upward through the wood. This method proved unsuc-

cessful in that the smoke dirtied the wood, its effectiveness

was unreliable, and the lumber frequently ignited. However,

during the Civil War, the United States government had a

shortage of dried oak needed for carriages, caissons, and

limbers, which prompted John Stevenson and Company to begin

experimenting with steam kilns in which the steam was




47Horn, op. cit., pp. 132-133.
48Ibid., pp. 129-130.

49John Garner, Lecture on Wood, February 8, 1984.












circulated within a closed system. These first experiments

met with an acceptable level of success, though there were

many problems with this method as it neglected humidity con-

trol.50 The advantages of course were that southern pine

such as was used in the Lozano Factory could be converted

from green to a 6% moisture content in three to six days,

whereas air drying took 40 to 60 days to reduce the wood to

a 20% moisture content. Yet it is doubtful that the wood

in the Lozano Factory was kiln dried, despite the difficulty

in visually ascertaining that it was not, for at the turn of

the century, very little structural wood was being kiln dried
52
or even completely air seasoned. And by 1930, the major

part of the lumber produced was still air dried, with the

use of dry kilns only then beginning to replace the use of

drying yards.53 Also, lumber yards with milling capabili-

ties in Ybor City during the period when the first two phas-

es of the Lozano Factory were constructed did not have any

enclosed structures designated as drying sheds and had large

yard areas.54



50Horn, op. cit., p. 151.

51Brown, Lumber, op. cit., p. 150.

52F.E. Kidder, Building Construction and Superintendance,
Part 2: Carpenters Work, New York: William T. Comstock,
1899, pp. 18-20.

53Phillips A. Hayward, Wood, Lumber and Timbers, New
York: Chandler Cyclopedia, 1930, p. 34.

54Sanborn Maps: Tampa, 1915 and 1922













Other processes which are visibly absent and which were

probably not used due to the historical context of the con-

struction of the first two phases of the Lozano Factory are

fireproofing and wood preservation treatments. Though it

must be noted that the commercial development of preserva-

tive treatments began in the 1870's with the first treatment

plant in the South being established in Pascagoula, Mississip-

pi in 1876 by the Louisville and the Nashville Railroad Com-

pany for creosote treatment and there were three such plants

in the South by 1880, creosote treatment was used primarily

for marine and railroad applications. Also, the charac-

teristics of darkening, oily residue, and smell associated

with creosote are not apparent in any of the wood.56

Similarly, zinc chloride, though cleaner and relatively

odorless, probably would not have been used. Though its use,

developed in France, was brought to the United States in the

1870's,57 at the turn of the century its use was still lim-

ited. At that time, the general practice was to paint wood

surfaces in contact with masonry,58 evidence of which is gen-

erally lacking in the Lozano Factory. Thus, if the histori-

cal perspective of wood preservatives is taken into account,



55Horn, op. cit., p. 234.

56Kidder, op. cit., p. 32.

57Horn, op. cit., p. 231.

58Kidder, op. cit., p. 33.












as well as the powdery mildew residue and the sponginess of

the wood (See Figure 16), which are characteristics of dry

rot (a fungus which is usually retarded by wood preserva-

tives),59 it is obvious that the wood in the Lozano Factory

was not treated with preservatives. Likewise, there is sub-

stantial evidence that it would not have been treated with

fire retardants. The earliest treatment for fire retarda-

tion was paint with additives such as Borax to retard fire60

but the wood is obviously not painted (See Figure 16). And

the impregnation of wood with fire retardant chemicals,

though practices in New York as early as 1895, was prohibi-

tively expensive. Costing $75-$100 per thousand board feet,61

fire retardant wood was five to six times the cost of un-

treated wood.62 Subsequently, until after World War II, when

its cost was reduced to a level commensurate with creosote

treatment, it was rarely used except in New York, where fire

codes were established in 1899 requiring its use in build-

ings of 12 or more stories.63

In summary, it can be concluded that the trees used to



59G.W. Hunt, "Century of Engineering in Wood Preserva-
tion," Proceedings of Wood Symposium on One Hundred Years
of Engineering Progress with Wood, Washington,D.C.: Timber
Engineering Co., 1952, pp. 66-69.

60Horn, op. cit., p. 237.
61Ibid., p. 238.

62Kidder, op. cit., p. 45.

63Ibid., p. 238.












produce the lumber in the original part of the Lozano Factory

were felled with double bitted "Yankee Axes" and cross cut

saws. The logs thus produced when cut to length were probab-

ly yarded with either teams of mules and oxen, using carts,

bummers and slip tongue, a steam donkey, a steam skidder, or

a combination of these. Similarly, the logs would have been

hauled overland with teams or steam engines to the mill,

which used a steam-powered circular head saw, which was pro-

bably portable. After being trimmed, the resultant lumber

was air dried for two to three months at the lumber mill or

at a wholesale yard and then sold without further treatment

except for the treatment of the columns and bolsters, which

were run through a cylinder plane of some sort, obscuring the

original marks of milling and thereby leaving the way they

were milled open to speculation.

The processing of the lumber in the third floor would

have been similar, except in a few aspects. By 1917, the

use of tractors for yarding was possible, though not proba-

ble, and trucks would have been used for hauling. Another

difference is the circular saw that was used and that could

have been powered by direct current or by a gasoline or die-

sel engine and it was most certainly a stationary saw or at

least the wood was remilled in a stationary mill setup. Of

course, the finishing of the columns and bolsters would have

been done by a cylinder plane as the earlier ones were and as

they would be today, but, like the saw, the power that was

used could have changed.












Wood Type


The structural wood in the Lozano Factory's first two

phases is in general non-porous, very hard, dense, finely

grained, and resinous with pitch pockets and smelling of tur-

pentine. The heartwood is orange to deep reddish brown and

the sapwood yellow and accounts for a low percentage of the

total, except in the roof framing where there is more appar-

ent. Where end grain is exposed resin ducts are apparent,

the growth rings are very narrow, and the summer wood well

defined and large in proportion to the spring wood. And,

when the center of a tree can be seen, the pith is usually

about 1/8-1/4" in diameter. Also in general, the wood, ex-

cept for the columns, is figured longitudinally (See Figures

5, 10, 11, 16, 17). All of this coincides with and reinforc-

es the indication of historical context that the wood is pine

and comes' from South Florida.

First, the smell indicates that it is a confierous wood.1

Moreover, its excessive resin indicates that it could only be

a pine or larch,2 though the larch, chiefly found in British

Columbia, can be discounted for its sapwood, usually only 1/4-
3
1/2" in thickness, is even smaller than the amount of sapwood


1H.L. Edlin, What Wood is That? New York: The Viking
Press, Inc., 1969, p. 70.
2phillips A. Hayward, Wood, Lumber and Timbers, New York:
Chandler Cyclopedia, 1930, p. 151.

3Ibid., p. 385.












4
found in the Lozano Factory. Reinforcing these findings is

the visible lack of pores.

Second, the orange to reddish brown color of the heart-

wood is limited in the softwood to the larches, Douglas firs,

and Southern yellow pines. And, just as the larches have

been discounted, so can the Douglas firs, which are coarse

grained and not very resinous.5

Subsequently, these eliminations leave only Southern yel-

low pine as the logical choice. However, a wide range of var-

ieties remain to be examined. The lumber types generally

classed as Southern pine include Longleaf pine (Pinus palas-

tris), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Shortleaf pine (Pinus

echinata), Virginia pine (Pinus Virginiana), Pond pine (Pinus

rigida serotina), Slash pine (Pinus caribaea), and Spruce

pine (Pinus glabra).6 Another variety of pine common to

Florida, Sand pine (Pinus clausa), is not included as it was

never commercially used.7 Of these, the Spruce pine, found

as far south as Alachua County, can be eliminated because it

is fairly soft.8 Another, the Shortleaf pine, moderately





4Hayward, op. cit., pp. 150-151, 153.

5Ibid., pp. 361-362.

6Ibid., p. 410.

7Erdman West and Lillian E. Arnold, The Native Trees of
Florida, Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1947, p. 4.

8Hayward, op. cit., p. 414 and West, op. cit., p. 7.











soft and fairly free of pitch, can likewise be discarded as

a choice. Two others which can be discounted as possible

choices are Virginia pine, for it is light colored with a

pale orange heart, and Loblolly pine, which grows as far

south as Orange County, Florida, for its annual rings are

usually broad and its summer wood is not always clearly de-

fined.10 This leaves Pond pine, Slash pine, and Longleaf

pine to be considered.

In general, these pines' wood is very similar and all are

found in South Florida. And it is possible, regardless of

the primary wood used, that at least one of the others of

this group is intermixed with it.11 Thus, it is necessary to

determine the dominant wood type and to realize that other

species might be present.

The least probable wood type to have been used is the

Pond pine. Its brittleness has generally prevented it from

being used commercially, though when intermixed with Longleaf

pine stands it has been cut and sold as Longleaf.12 Similar-

ly, the Slash pine can be discounted as being the predominant

variety as it rarely has a pith of over 1/10" in diameter,


9
Hayward, op. cit., p. 162, and West, op. cit., p. 9.

10Hayward, op. cit., p. 413, and West, op. cit., p. 413.

11Hayward, op. cit., pp. 413-414; West, op. cit., pp. 6, 8-9;
"A Visual Method for Distinguishing Longleaf from Loblolly and
Shortleaf Pine," Technical Note #141, Madison, Wisconsin: For-
est Products Laboratory, 1936; and "Southern Yellow Pine,"
Technical Note #214, Madison, Wisconsin: Forest Products Lab-
oratory, 1936.

12Hayward, op. cit., p. 414.












though it is frequently intermixed with Longleaf.13 It is

possible that the columns are of Slash pine as it is straight

grained and not figural like the Longleaf pine, frequently
14
somewhat darker, and was often used for columns due to

its strength in compression.15

Thus, it would logically follow that the dominant variety

of structural wood in the Lozano Factory is Longleaf pine,

for its description agrees with that of the wood observed

except for the variations in the amount of sapwood present.

However, that can be accounted for. Second growth Longleaf

pine produces a greater proportion of sapwood than does first

growth16 and even by 1909, many of the best stands of virgin

forest had been cut and second growth was beginning to be

used.17








13Technical Note #141, op. cit.
14Simon B. Elliot, The Important Timber Trees of the U.S.,
Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1912, p. 152, and Hay-
ward, op. cit., pp. 413-414.

15Charles S. Sargent, Report on the Forests of North Ameri-
ca, Vol. III, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1984, p. 523.

16William B. Greeley, "Longleaf Pine," U.S. Dept. of Agri-
culture, Bulletin #1061, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agri-
culture, July 29, 1922, pp. 4-5.

17Nelson C. Brown, Preliminary Examination of the Forest
Conditions of Florida, Gainesville, University of Florida Press,
1909, pp. 4-5.












Conclusion


Though 29 brick buildings had been built in Tampa by the

time in 1905 that ground was broken for the Lozano Factory,

it was a tremendous undertaking. Built in less than three

months, the Lozano Factory cost roughly twice as much as the

average brick building being built at the time. Reflected in

its first two phases as well as in its third story addition

are the growth and hope that characterized the development

of the cigar industry, which had migrated from Cuba during

Cuba's Ten Year War to New York and then to Tampa in an effort

to escape unionization.

Similarly, the structural lumber of the Lozano Factory is

a record of the migration of the lumber industry, though the

reasons for its migration were of its own creation. Believ-

ing that America's wood supply was limitless, the lumber in-

dustry cut virgin forests and then moved on. Following the

development of the railroad, the lumber industry reached the

virgin timbers of South Florida about the time the Lozano

Factory was being built. Subsequently, the Longleaf yellow

pine used for the construction of the Factory records the

changing quality of wood available in 1905 when virgin timber

was being cut and 1917 when second growth timber was used in

that the wood used in 1905 was almost all heartwood, whereas


1Tampa Morning Tribune, August 26, 1905.












the wood used later shows a marked increase in the amount of

sapwood present, lowering the quality of the wood.

On the other hand, the quality of milling shows an im-

provement from 1905 to 1917. The improvement cannot be

ascribed to the advancement of technology as much as to the

type of operation that produced it. Though both would have

been fairly small operations in that both used circular saws,

the difference is probably a result of the wood used in 1905

being produced by a portable mill and the wood of the later

addition being produced by a stationary mill. And, although

it was not discussed, it is important to realize that the

standardization of lumber sizes was evolving during this per-

iod.2

Equally important, the wood could not reflect the major

changes in technology that were affecting the industry at

this time, for the major changes were not in the application

of power. They were in the sources of power used, which,

though embodied in the existence of the wood, is not visibly

discernable. Yet the effect of higher quality sources of

power was limited by the growth of trees planted in an effort

to maintain sustained yields of wood that can never equal the

quality of the virgin timbers used in the original construction

of the Lozano Factory in 1905.

Thus, the structural wood of the Lozano Factory remains


2Phillips A. Hayward, Wood, Lumber and Timbers, New York:
Chandler Cyclopedia, 1930, p. 55.





39




a record of the past and the changes that occurred in the

past, by which we can measure the changes of the present.






















































Figure 1. Lozano Factory.
Haner, Pictorial History of Ybor City, 1975, p. 13.





--- --- ______ -...,~
--- --------------------


0 H-
00ti mr0
0 ft- Ot
M Fl- H Ch
0 -
0P rt- t *
ri- H- H








H- En
(Dm W

rf 0 H-i h
H- -' I

0 0 -J
ohn CD 0
h rt- c
H- O h








(D3 ,
I CD 0 H-
F-1 H- :v r+-

rt- 'j
<(D 0
11 h i.



* HD (D
0
h



C" I

0 (0hP)
n-3
I P


MALP OF

FLO) R IDA
SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PINE FORESTS,
WITll SPECIAL. HEFEBENCE TO THE
LlUMBER INDUSTRY
('COMITiD I'Nfxli THE i)F RICTION UF
C...SAlRIGENT, SPECL\L AIENT.
liin.


* I'' a.

7~
*~ -


LI: ; :N 1,


*.^i


P


Scale
300___ o __ a.'


V


A>'- <7'


0~~ -j~-~ -~


" --- - .. -


w ___60 i "*




42





_II' H. : I
- i il -
-I 17
*- = ,r,_ _-_._. T -_-_--..-_ __._ ,' i _. _, !E _-' -- -' __-. _-- -_ -_ '- f- -,- _- -- -" | = .) --
I i 2j II JUL. ..1...
- tirklI .. -:, -_'I __ -,-; *" U ^ "- __ ,, ,, -,-- :, *- -7T'. --- "--- : --- I U. -. --_














2-0
- . i r o I 'i e .. . ,-- I .. . ---, -- -I
-- -I ,1 ,- _'- ....-i [ -- =- -.. -. .. ..- 1 l I






_ *- *-= ..' -_ *- -- : ,' .- ..-. ,~~' -, A ,













Figure 3. Left to right:

*A. A.E. Meek Woodyard


OD. Hillsborough Lumber Company

lF. Railroad lines
.... .- '- I .- _iv,- 20. 7 = I .-, ', ,. ,, I.. --' "'- : "- :- =' -- = . -
... .. .-- .. -- ...1 A .A 9l ,r-T
Figure..... 3.__ Left_ ;_ to right:- { -: ,= J ,, =C ,= J l---- ~ '.:
*A A __ Meek Woodyard t, = -- = -- .- : -7 ,]
eB. Jetton Deck 'l e Lu- mber Company,, .. =--=-1- 1 =, ,,1 1/ 1
*C Edenfie -: ld/- Building Manufactur :;.:..--- ing Co-.' &.7 Contractors =..{ ;= ;=l .: a--=-'
*D,.. Hilis oroug Lumber/ Company.......= : ... .. -, "
--F -. Lozano_ ., Factory ., 1:
-F Railroad lines 4; -" -"- -




43



































Figure 4. Column and bolster supporting the
third floor.














Characteristics of the Wood Related to Type


Structure

Basement

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Joists
Lintels

ist Floor

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Joists
Lintels

2nd Floor

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Joists
Lintels

3rd Floor


Pores End Long.
Hardness Visible? Grain Grain


hard
hard
hard
hard
hard



hard
hard
hard
hard
hard



hard
hard
hard
hard
hard


Fine
Fine
Fine






Fine
Fine
Fine






Fine
Fine
Fine






Fine
Fine

Fine

Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine


Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Lintels
Bottom chords
Rafters
King posts
Queen posts
Collar Beams
Ridge beams


Straight
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured



Straight
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured




Straight
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured



Straight
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured
Figured


Pitch
Resinous? Pockets


Very
Very
Very
Very
Very



Very
Very
Very
Very
Very




Very
Very
Very
Very
Very



Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very


Smell



Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine



Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine




Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine



Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine
Turpentine


Heartwood Sapwood Pith Summer
Color Proportion Color Diameter Wood


Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br



Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br




Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br



Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br
Org/red/br


Very
Very
Very
Very
Very



Very
Very
Very
Very
Very




Very
Very
Very
Very
Very



Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very


Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow



Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow



Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow



Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow


1/4"

1/8"






5/16"

1/8"






3/16"

1/4"






1/4"








1/4"


Distinct
Distinct
Distinct






Distinct
Distinct
Distinct






Distinct
Distinct
Distinct






Distinct
Distinct

Distinct

Distinct
Distinct
Distinct
Distinct


*As seen from


Figure 5.










Figure 6. Wood Characteristics Related to Quality and Milling and Based on Observance


Structure

Basement

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Fl joists
X Bracing
Lintels

First Floor

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
F1 joi-ts
X Bracing
Lintels

Second Floor*


Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Fl joists
X racing
Lintels


Third Floor

Columns
Bolsters
Beams
Lintels
Bottom chord
Diagonals
Ridge board
Rafters
Top plate
King post
Collars,
Queen Post
Sill in Wall


Dimensions
in Inches


Rings per
Inch


6 x 6
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
1 3/4 x 2 1/4 x 11 7/8
3/4-1 1/8 x 3-4
6 1/2 x 4



9 1/4 x 9 1/2 x 11-11 1/2
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
1 3/4-2 1/4 x 11 7/8
3/4-1 1/8 x 3-4
6 1/2 x 4



9 1/4-9 1/2 x 11-11 1/2
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
9 1/4 x 11 1/4 deep
1 7/8-2 x 11 1/2
3/4 x 3 1/2-4
6 1/2 x 4


1/2 x
1/2 x
1/2 x
7/8 x
x 8
x 4
x 12


7 1/2
11 1/4
11 1/4
8 1/4-8 1/2 deep


x 6
3/4-2 x 11 1/2
x 4
x 6
x 4
x ?


Knots


Almost none
Almost none
Almost none
Almost none
Quite a few
Quite a few



Quite a few
Quite a few
Almost none
Almost none
Quite a few
Almost none



Almost none
Almost none
Almost none
A few
Many
Almost none



More than 1st
More than Ist
More than ist
Almost none
A few
A few
A few
A few
A few
A few
A few
A few
Almost none


Surface Marks


Smooth
Smooth
Smooth texture
Smooth texture
Smooth texture
Smooth & top hewn



Smooth/champhered
Smooth
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced & top hewn



Smooth/champhered
Smooth
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced & top hewn



Smooth/champhered
Smooth
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Arced texture
Rough


Type


1,2,3
1
1 (2 at wall)
1 (2 at wall)

1,2,3



1
1
1 (2 at wall)
1 (2 at wall)

1,2,3


1
None seen
1
1


None seen
None seen
None seen
2 & 3
None seen
None seen
None seen
None seen
2,3
None seen
None seen
None seen
1,2,3


Deterioration
Amount


Some severely
Not severe
Not severe
Not severe

2,3 severe in some



Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor, except for some

Very minor


Very minor

Minor
Minor

2,3 not severe


Not severe





Not severe,




2,3 severe


but more than minor


.lP
1. Round Borings 2. Powdery Mildew=Like Surface Residue 3. Soft spongy
*Can be seen from these floors











































Figure 7. Pit sawers. From Younquist, p. 23.





47


Figure 8. Note the variation in size of joist of
the third floor and how the grain of
the column is straight.


Figure 9. Two story band saw mills.
Brown, Lumber, p. 77.


. ... .. ... ....... .... -. .




a^ .. .."^S~i^




48


Figure 10. Arced texture of wood on all sides of
beam and joists of the second floor of
the Lozano Factory.


Figure 11. Second floor structure at Lozano Fac-
tory showing the marks of a circular
saw mill.



















wed r or ^m 'MON
fiJnlU.,. -..T KO*DArY .o.I.. Yt. aCRNW A Son, 4, C-em.i. .* **. 5 *.. 84 -_
N I-S RI s t Il.S. VA,.I. O. :31. ,NEW 'l YORK. MON OI mA1 'lS 7 1.. OLD SERI8. VOL XVIll. N
__loom


--.-. .- .. %-. .* .i- I-r~t,=e -tr. .-
.. .-- ,.-_ -- -,. -, I- .
,. '..- -o-. -..-_ .' ..... .. .-.: --": '" .'-~ i...-v. : ..- -- 3-. ^. .


Figure 12.


Cylinder plane
able in 1878.
Life, p. 77.


and other machinery avail-
Younquist, Wood in American
















!.;t%

,AI



4
I


Figure 13.


Fellers or flatheads, as they would be called
in the South, with cross cut saw and double
bitted Yankee Axes. Younquist, Wood in Amer-
ican Life, p. 76.















































Figure 14. Steam
Life,


donkey. Younquist, Wood in American
p. 91.














































Figure 15. Steam skidder being pushed by a steam engine.-
Younquist, Wood in American Life, p. 76.




53


Figure 16. Joists and bracing of the first floor
show size of whitish mildew-like fungus
and are spongy, generally referred to
as dry rot.


Figure 17. Termite damage on column in the
basement.