Effect, Form, Affect

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Effect, Form, Affect An Exploration of Vernacular Landscape Form Change Using the Context of a Traditional Fishing Village
Physical Description:
1 online resource (743 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Frey, Larry Paul
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Design, Construction, and Planning, Design, Construction and Planning
Committee Chair:
WILLIAMS,SARA K
Committee Co-Chair:
TILSON,WILLIAM L
Committee Members:
THOMPSON,KEVIN R
CASWELL,THOMAS REED

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
conglomeration -- context -- cortez -- cultural -- effect -- experiential -- extended -- fishing -- form -- landscape -- traditional -- vernacular -- watercraft -- waterfront
Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Design, Construction, and Planning thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
My study explores historic significance and form change in the vernacular landscape of the traditional fishing village of Cortez, Florida, using context. It makes primary inquiries into landscape form change, determinants of change, and historic significance. My methodology is a qualitative exploration of landscape form pursuant to a historic study span from 1887 to 1946 that documents historic activities and interprets findings according to three form periods. It evaluates 14 contextual indicators within three sets that include village layout, building mosaic, and extended vernacular. This includes a subset of intangible forms that are not purely physical in character. By looking at these form sets across the periods, I recognized changes to both the physical and intangible form indicators. I performed a thicker analysis of certain forms to address my question of form change determinants, and to enhance intangible form discussions. My findings reveal elements of stability and instability among the historic landscape form sets. All but three of the 14 indicators changed or remained stable similarly across the spectrum. Eight changed significantly across all form periods. The form of the landscape was found to be more contextual, and perhaps more significant as it rolls outward from the dwelling area to the waterfront conglomeration. In spite of prominent form changes and losses of integrity and significance, early kinship cultural build-up in the village linked to commercial fishing allowed enhanced localized stability compared to regional counterparts. My findings also revealed four major determinants of landscape form change including, technology, encroachment, historic precedents, and individual decision-making, with the latter determinant appearing to be the most influential. This appears to have been due to personal freedom, preference, and economics reflected as part of the inherent fishing culture. The results of my study, while certainly not complete, do reveal certain determinants of vernacular form change, and also open up discussions about how forms changed over periods of time so that a better understanding of their historicity, and/or significance from a historic preservation viewpoint is better articulated.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Larry Paul Frey.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: WILLIAMS,SARA K.
Local:
Co-adviser: TILSON,WILLIAM L.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046072:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EFFECT, FORM, AFFECT: AN EXPLORATION OF VERN ACULAR LANDSCAPE FORM CHANGE USING THE CONTEXT OF A TRADITIONAL FISHING VILLAGE By LARRY PAUL FREY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Larry Paul Frey

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, and the host of individuals in my personal, professional, and academic lives who have inspired me and encouraged my appreciation for human and natural environments. Also, to Sunflower for her unending support through it all.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Kay Williams, who as my chair always urged me to dig deeper wider and outside of the box. be introducing to one of the most unique tradition al fishing areas in the world. Bill Tilson deserves many thanks for his early encouragement of my interest in working waterfronts. I also thank Tom Caswell for helping me navigate the density of archival data. Last but not least, I thank Laura Schuster for having faith in what I can contribute to a team dedicated to historical resource discovery an d protection.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 DEFINING THE PROBLEM ................................ ................................ .................... 14 General Background of Study and Overview of Findings ................................ ........ 14 General Background ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Summarized Findings ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Problem Statement and Research Questions ................................ ......................... 24 Academic and Professional Significance of the Research ................................ ...... 27 Loss of Integrity and Significance ................................ ................................ ..... 31 Historic Area Determination in Practice ................................ ............................ 34 Land U se and Design Issues ................................ ................................ ............ 36 Influence of Three Scholars ................................ ................................ .............. 37 Preferential Point of View by the Author ................................ ........................... 38 Delimitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 Key Terms and Definitions ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 Organization of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ .............. 46 Transition Statement ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 49 Overview and Organization of the Chapter ................................ ............................. 49 Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Vernacularism ................................ .......... 53 Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Cultural Landscape Studies and the Extended Vernacular ................................ ................................ ........................... 60 What is the Cultural Landscape? ................................ ................................ ...... 60 Cultural Landscape as a Unit of Analysis ................................ ......................... 61 Abbreviated History of Landscape Form Evaluation in the United States ........ 64 Role of urban morphology in understanding vernacular form .................... 71 Role of historical ecology in understanding vernacular form ...................... 75 Extended Vernacularism in the Cultural Landscape ................................ ......... 80 External TFVs Already Studied ................................ ................................ ........ 85 Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Form Based Structure and Concepts ...... 8 6 Workings of Vernacular Form ................................ ................................ ........... 86 A review of generative and environmental forms ................................ ....... 88 Determinants of Vernacular Form Change ................................ ..................... 105 Questioning climate ................................ ................................ ................. 109 Cataclys mic events ................................ ................................ .................. 112

PAGE 6

6 Topography ................................ ................................ .............................. 116 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 119 Other determinants ................................ ................................ .................. 120 Identifying Landscape Form Change ................................ .............................. 122 Consideration of Intangibl e Forms in the Historic Cultural Landscape ........... 125 Textual reading ................................ ................................ ........................ 127 Sense of place ................................ ................................ ......................... 129 The intangib le manifestations of form ................................ ...................... 132 Consideration of Visual Analysis Programs for Interpreting Form ......................... 134 Visual Aspects of Cultural Landscapes and Buildings ................................ .... 135 Documentation and Assessment ................................ ................................ .... 138 Graphics as a Tool for Conveying Form and Form Change ........................... 141 Transition Statement ................................ ................................ ............................. 142 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............. 144 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 144 Type of Research ................................ ................................ ........................... 146 Rationale for Selection ................................ ................................ ................... 146 Referential Study Community ................................ ................................ ......... 147 Phase I (Preparation) -Data Resource Review, Field Studies, and Terms ........... 151 Data Resource Review ................................ ................................ ................... 152 A note about vernacular ................................ ................................ ........... 153 A note about architectural and landscape form ................................ ........ 154 Benefits of Using the Traditional Fishing Village Context ............................... 156 Description of the TFV as an informative land use type and historic resource ................................ ................................ ................................ 157 Cortez as a preferred model of study ................................ ....................... 162 Understanding a Regional Area of Influ ence ................................ .................. 167 Initial Field Studies of Cortez and Other TFVs ................................ ............... 172 Photographic compilation ................................ ................................ ......... 173 Ma pping ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 174 Phase II (Descriptive Strategy Part 1) -Visual Analysis for Documenting and Clarifying the Physical Landscape Form of Co rtez ................................ ............ 175 How Will the Physical Landscape and Its Form be Documented? ................. 175 Photographic compendium ................................ ................................ ...... 176 Crea te sketch drawings of form over time ................................ ................ 178 How Will Physical Changes in the Landscape Form be Measured? .............. 179 Describing the Visual Landscape Form Changes ................................ ........... 182 Phase III (Descriptive Strategy Part 2) -Thick Analysis for Re[vealing]eading the Intangible Landscape Form of Cortez ................................ ................................ 182 Phase IV Findings: Interpretive Narrative and Discussion of Vernacular Landscape Form Change and Influences ................................ .......................... 185 Methods of Data Collection and Information Sources ................................ .... 185 Data sources ................................ ................................ ............................ 187 Transition Statement ................................ ................................ ............................. 192

PAGE 7

7 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY ................................ ................................ ........... 196 Ov erview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 196 Particular Problems with Form ................................ ................................ ....... 197 Treatment of Form as an Exploration versus an Epistemological Study ........ 200 Constructs of Vernacular Landscape Form and Form Change in Cortez ............. 201 Contextual Form ................................ ................................ ............................. 201 The contextual form framework ................................ ................................ 204 Explaining the Contextual Form Indicators ................................ ..................... 208 Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 210 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 216 Building mosaic form indicator set ................................ ........................... 218 Extended vernacular form indicator set ................................ .................... 234 The Evolution of Vernacular Landscape Form in Cortez ................................ ....... 264 Applying the Contextual Form Framework and Graphic Sketch Program ...... 264 Forward First: Twenty first Centur y Cortez ................................ ..................... 267 Historic overview ................................ ................................ ...................... 268 Natural/environmental background ................................ .......................... 270 Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 271 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 274 Building mosaic form indicator set ................................ ........................... 281 Extended vernacular form indicator set ................................ .................... 292 Discussion of the twenty first century form in Cortez ............................... 313 Presettlement Form Period Occurring 1887 and Prior ................................ .... 320 Synopsis of the period ................................ ................................ ............. 320 Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 323 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 324 Building mosaic form indicator set ................................ ........................... 336 Extended vernacular form indicator set. ................................ ................... 344 Discussion of the presettlement period form ................................ ............ 362 Settlement Form Period Occurring 1887 to 1897 ................................ ........... 364 Synopsis of the period ................................ ................................ ............. 364 Wate rfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 366 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 377 Building mosaic form indicator set ................................ ........................... 388 Extended vernacular form indicator set ................................ .................... 400 Discussion of the settlement period form ................................ ................. 414 Contextual Growth Form Period Occurring 1898 to 1921 ............................... 425 Synopsis of the period ................................ ................................ ............. 425 Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 428 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 433 Building mosaic form indicator set ................................ ........................... 44 4 Extended vernacular form indicator set ................................ .................... 456 Discussion of the contextual growth period form ................................ ...... 490 Discussion of the diminution of form event of 1912 ................................ .. 494 Contextual Recovery Form Period Occurring 1921 to 1946 ........................... 504 Synopsis of the period ................................ ................................ ............. 504

PAGE 8

8 Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space ................................ ..... 507 Village layout form indicator set ................................ ............................... 511 Building mosaic indicator set ................................ ................................ .... 518 Extended vernacular form indicator set ................................ .................... 536 Discussion of the contextual recovery period form ................................ ... 583 Transition Statement ................................ ................................ ............................. 587 5 RESULTS OF STUDY ................................ ................................ .......................... 607 Study Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 607 Statement of Findings ................................ ................................ ........................... 612 Form Change in the Vernacular Landscape of Cortez ................................ ... 615 A continuously changing character ................................ .......................... 615 Integrity and significance ................................ ................................ ......... 620 Determinants of Vernacular Landscape Form Change by Study Period ........ 627 Technology ................................ ................................ .............................. 627 Encroachment ................................ ................................ .......................... 630 Influence of major historical events on landscape form in Cortez ............ 633 Individual decision making ................................ ................................ ....... 637 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 639 Implications of Study Results ................................ ................................ ................ 646 Future Research ................................ ................................ ............................. 646 Perspectives on Later Form Periods ................................ .............................. 651 Critique of Method Used ................................ ................................ ....................... 653 APPENDIX A DISSERTATION RESEARCH CHART ................................ ................................ 660 B QUICK STUDY TOOL ................................ ................................ ........................... 684 C FINAL DEFENSE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRESENTATION ............................ 687 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 719 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 743

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Significant affect to form per indicator sets from 1947 to 2013. ........................ 594 4 2 Significant affect to form per indicator sets from 1887 to 1897. ........................ 601 4 3 Significant af fect to form per indicator sets from 1898 to 1921. ........................ 603 4 4 Significant affect to form per indicator sets from 1921 to 194 6. ........................ 604

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Generative form graphic.. ................................ ................................ ................. 143 3 1 Florida Gulf Coast Triangle areas.. ................................ ................................ ... 193 3 2 Set of Cortez waterfront conglomerations revealing early physical forms.. ...... 194 3 3 Example of the rolling out of the physical form sets from residential to the extended vernacular.. ................................ ................................ ....................... 194 3 4 Unpopulated graphic tile information system.. ................................ .................. 195 4 1 Cortez historic study area. ................................ ................................ ................ 588 4 2 Cortez aerial view. ................................ ................................ ........................... 589 4 3 The 2013 waterfront conglomeration of Cortez.. ................................ ............... 589 4 4 Comparison of historic Cortez boundaries.. ................................ ...................... 590 4 5 1995 Cortez historic district boundary.. ................................ ............................ 590 4 6 Historic shoreline of Cortez.. ................................ ................................ ............. 591 4 7 2013 parcel configuration.. ................................ ................................ ............... 592 4 8 2013 Cortez circulation pattern.. ................................ ................................ ....... 593 4 9 Historic activity center.. ................................ ................................ ..................... 593 4 10 Presettlement form depiction of the waterfront conglomeration.. ...................... 594 4 11 Graphic tiles illustration form indicator sets for the presettlement form period occurring prior to 1887.. ................................ ................................ .................... 595 4 12 ................................ ........................ 596 4 13 ................................ ........... 597 4 14 Settlement form period ( 1887 1897) waterfront conglomeration sketch.. ......... 598 4 15 Official subdivision plat of U.S. Government Lot 3, 1887.. ................................ 599 4 16 Graphic tiles illustration form indicator sets for the settlement form period occurring 1887 to 1897.. ................................ ................................ ................... 600

PAGE 11

11 4 17 Waterfront conglomeration illustration of the contextual growth form period occurring 1898 to 1921 reveals a denser waterfront as new fishers increased the commercial fishing activity in Cortez.. ................................ ......................... 601 4 18 Graphic tiles illustration form indicator sets for the contextual growth form period occurring 1898 to 1921.. ................................ ................................ ........ 602 4 19 The 1921 waterfront and bay construct.. ................................ .......................... 603 4 20 1946 waterfront conglomeration.. ................................ ................................ ..... 604 4 21 Graphic tiles illustration form indicator sets for the contextual recovery form period occurring 1921 to 1946.. ................................ ................................ ........ 605 4 22 Comparison of waterfront constructs between two period ends.. ..................... 606 5 1 Significant affect to form tool.. ................................ ................................ .......... 659

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECT, FORM AFFECT: AN EXPLORATION OF VERNACULAR LANDSCAPE FORM CHANGE USING THE CONTEXT OF A TRADITIONAL FISHING VILLAGE By Larry Paul Frey December 2013 Chair: Sara K. Williams Major: Design, Construction, and Planning My study explor es historic significance and form change in the vernacular landscape of the traditional fishing village of Cortez, Florida, using context It makes primary inquiries into landscape form change determinants of change, and h istoric significance. My methodology is a qualitative exploration of landscape form pursuant to a historic study span from 1887 to 1946 t hat document s historic activities and interpret s findings according to three form period s It eval uates 1 4 contextual indicators within three sets that include village layout, building mosaic, and extended vernacular This includ es a sub set of intangible forms that are not purely physical in character By looking at the se form sets across the periods, I recognize d changes to both the physical and intangible form indicators. I perform ed a thicker analysis of certain forms to address my question of form change determinants and to enhance intangible form discussions My findings reveal elements of stability and instability among the historic landscape form sets All but three of the 14 indicators changed or remained stable similarly across the spectrum. Eight changed significantly across all form periods T he form of the landscape was found to be more contextual, and perhaps more significant

PAGE 13

13 as it rolls outward from the dwelling area to the waterfront conglomeration In spite of prominent form changes and loss es of integrity and significance, early kinship cultural build up in the village linked to commercial fishing allowed enhanced localized stab ility compared to regional counterparts My findings also revealed four major determinants of landscape form change includ ing, t echnology e ncroachment h istoric precedents and i ndividual decision mak ing with the latter determinant appearing to be the most influential. This appears to have been due to personal freedom, preference, and economics reflected as part of the inherent fishing culture The results of my study, while certainly not complete, do reveal certain determinants of vernacular form change, and also open up discussions about how forms changed over periods of time so that a better understanding of their historicity, and/or significa nce from a historic preservation viewpoint is better articulated.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 DEFINING THE PROBLEM General Background of Study and Overview of Findings General Back g round Historic vernacular landscapes represent contextual human constructs that can be interpreted as points or periods of significance within a time continuum or even as constantly changing constructs that evolve at variable rates under seemingly endless i nfluences and adaptations. The inherent problems associated with analyzing any given vernacular landscape then, as something so fluid and consisting of a such a complex array of natural and cultural influences wei ghing on it at any given moment moves away from precise formulaic applications for studying it ; this is made more app arent when consider ing uniqueness as a subtype of the broader c ultural landscape though the recognit ion of landscape subtypes can allow more precise renderings of analysis since their overall construct has become typologized, assuming so mething in its construct or character has been whittled down. What often results from failing to understand a reasonable gamut of the available forms that are contextual and important to any given landscape, then, is a misinterpretation or perhaps an over statement of historical significance that these types of landscapes present in their late nt evolved forms The truer character of the historic landscape construct somehow becomes lost as a result of continual layering and excoriation. The effects on the l andscape from both natural and cultural perspectives, including determinants of the effects have also been fairly studied, and an applied an excellent guide for examining them. However, as of the date of my study, little work

PAGE 15

15 has been afforded to the concept of landscape form and its evolution in the milieu of historic fishing villages occurring along the Florida Gulf Coast dating from the late nineteenth century. This appa rent lack of focus on and attention to the broader landscape construct of TFVs leaves gaps in understanding the phenomenon of vernacular landscape form change, including, for example, the factors that have contributed to, or determined such change, and its varying degrees. These gaps then formulated according to my study as a planned endeavor, and as it revealed itself through an investment in the available discourse and my prim ary inquiries. In essence, my methodology explained in Chapter 3 unfolded according to a blend of approaches and the roadblocks that presented themselves along the way. This four phase research program us es a blend of historical, descriptive, and interpretive methodological programs based on contextual indicators that identify vernacular landscape form and chang e as definable and measurable entities It therefore assumes a qualitative methodological explorat io n of landscape form of the Cortez landscape Based on this system, I interpreted findings according to noticeable physical changes, the thicker analysis of the determinants my research found as causing change, and ultimately an evaluation of historic sig nificance based on the research to that point. One of the first problems I confronted at the beginning of my study was in how to handle the vernacular landscape in order to manage it as a unit of analysis. Under the NPS cultural landscape program, it is ap parent that the vernacular landscape represents a more precise distinction from the broader cultural landscape in that the latter does not always emphasize the verna cular as the primary construct. It is not

PAGE 16

16 uncommon to consider the multiplicity of forms that make up the cultural landscape a s manifested in an array of physical and intangible realms yet the application of these considerations is quite varied among multiple disciplines. In narrowing the cultural landscape down to size for my study, that is, as a historic vernacular landscape construct that is contextually rich u nderstanding the wholeness of something that continued to remain so large and multi dimensional presented my second dilemma of study. More recent inquiries examine a plethora of infl uences that extend to less familiar material objects and non physical, non visual forms that appear through human perception and cognition. Indeed, such analyses regarding buildings have been examined to a fair degree as well as, in nature oriented scenic areas, rural uplands, and in residentially developed places. Urbanized areas also have benefitted from such in depth studies, but only much more recently in the United States. Regardless, such available discourses seem to be lacking in the domain of the t raditional fishing village (TFV) context. The focus now turned to a second problem of how I was to employ a thoughtful examination of available form s, or indicators of form, complex in their own right, that were still part of the inherent complexities of the larger landscape whole The availability, or degree of availability of any given form in the landscape, is determined by its accessibility and ease for being studied, often represented as a huma n construct that may or may not be easily discernible or clear to the researcher Nearly every construct in the landscape is available for study depending on the research effort, though a full analysis of it may never be complete. Primary b uildings and certain other human made

PAGE 17

17 structures and mater ial artifacts in landscapes have been extensively studied and make up a large percentage of the scholarly work on vernacular form. It can be said that efforts toward ex panding the understanding of these individual constituent parts of la ndscapes have been robust as evidenced through important contributions that go beyond just lo oking at the physical nature of the objects themselves. The study of buildings by themselves, a necessary and important foundation of knowledge that contribut es to the erected and c rafted physical constituent of landscapes, represents a n incomplete facet of the multi faceted construct for understanding the structure and change of the larger landscape form. This limited pursuit leaves out the more co ntextually pertinent perceptive, intangible human constructs though they are often constantly we ighing heavily on landscape form In order to pursue research that was manageable under the constraints and limitations of a doctoral dissertation, I determined that successful s tudy of any la ndscape requires the additional, thorough analysis of certain constituent parts of it that are more contextually attributable to it ; this became easier by using best available methods adapted from several fields of study. Therefore m y study examines the w ider vernacular landscape of village geography and primary buildings, and also considers as equally or even more important, an extension of the se usual constructs of study to include commercial fishing industry dependent structures such as fish eries camp s, docks watercraft, and certain other forms, including some that I refer to as having intangible qualities, such as the act of fishing and the fishing grounds As part of this particular extended landscape form construct, I also look at form s of experience and changing traditional know how referred to as part of an elapsed experiential form that is

PAGE 18

18 typically of distinction found in historic vernacular landscapes, but developed out of, and appropriately framed as part of my s tudy explorations The third dilemma presented a challenge for presenting a timeframe to be studied. Since I am interested in how the overall form as a single notion, ha s occurred within the historic commercial fishing vernacular landscape, I also look closely at its change ov er time, using the selected TFV of Cortez, located along the coast of Manatee County, Florida as a referential study complex The benefit s of using Cortez lay in its known historical beginning or settlement period, and continued presence. Admittedly, this appears as being somewhat convenient since many other landscapes are much more mysterious and undocumented, and present greater challenges; however, this point does not seem to matter since I am looking at form as a fairly unstudied phenomena in the landscape, and for which little, if any scholarly study preempted mine, especially for Cortez. The fourth problem was in how to report what I found. Since I do not want to reinvent established or evolving terms and meth ods, an interpretive discussion lays out my findings based on what can be best described as an initial exploration of the landscape form concept. Explorations such as these look at poss ibilities, open up the broader discussion of nebulous concepts and weak programming, and sometimes result in future efforts that are more focused. Exploration is rarely a right or wrong method, especially when using other methods that have been successful for past studies, while revealing new ways of looking at or performing a study that is more subjective than scientific. The result s of my study then, provide possible explanations for how and why the vernacular landscape form changes over time by using the contextual basis of the

PAGE 19

19 landscape construct and c l oser examinations of the culture(s) that experienced and perpetuated it. Finally, it must be noted that b ecause Cortez is popularly referred to under such references and a few others in my study a s I intend them to be applied to Cortez, should be construed by the reader to mean the actual historic fishing village, as defined by its changing historic study boundary according to the time period under which it is being examined, herein. When appropria te, my study does attempt to distinguish between the chronological usage provides a more appropriate reference for one over the other. Summarized Findings In Cortez, I found a contextually rich cultural construct through a physical and textual narrative that has not yet been fully revealed regarding its historical development In understanding this narrative, the evolving landscape form and its influences in Cortez are better explained from a cross referencing of the found cultural context indicators with local and wider cultural forces. What is revealed is a vernacular form determined or effected primarily by culture, but certainly affected by natural circumstances. I n Cortez, there is a significantly diminished historic cont extual vernacular, though a fairly stro ng residential vernacular is still extant. Surprisingly, the setting as a historical vernacular place is still extant, in spite of a diminished physical const ruct. Many influences and changes were part of Cortez up to 1946, yet there was also a semblance of stability as the community recovered from a destructive storm surge that nearly destroyed its entire contextual construct, thereby having the effect of

PAGE 20

20 at l east reducing, albeit temporarily, its waterfront construct as its most defining contextual physical form in the landscape. Certain recognizable forms, such as watercraft changed significantly in their appearance, but mostly through a reduction of forms a nd the addition of others. While the basic form of the watercraft continues to hold into modern times, this more detailed effect affected other forms. Encroachment by outsiders represented another determinant of form, most often realized in Cortez as a sid e effect through regulatory implementation. The major finding from my overall research then resulted in a limited set of landscape form determinants that stood out among an otherwise long list. These include technology, encroachment, and individual decision making. These tended to be culturally deterministic and included varied factors or influences contributing to form change that were not always driven solely by traditions of the members within the given co ntext. In most cases, the occurrence of form change resulted in individual decision making opportunities, fostered by the above factors. The effect of change on the landscape often occurred slowly even when technological change was ushered into the larger societal framework. At first, relative isolation and the lack of available technology contributed to slower change in Cortez. The significance of major cultural events such as wars and depressed economies seemed to have stabilizing effects. The occurrence of catastrophic natural events such as storm surge, however, had the most significant immediate impact to the landscape forms though simple erasure of them, though it continues to remain unclear as a determinant of form precisely due to the impacts as deri ved from nature rather than culture. What results is a circular argument pertaining to

PAGE 21

21 the ultimate effect as derived by nature as the causing the effect, or humans who made decisions to construct the forms affected with the knowledge of this natural poten tial. As expected, an extremely diminished historic vernacular landscape form exist ed in Cortez by the end of my historic study span, and as of 2013 that questions its viability and importance as a well preserved historic maritime entity since most of wha t made it contextually significant as part of what existed in its waterfront conglomeration was found to be missing or otherwise not well documented. The diminished historic vernacular of the waterfront conglomeration is offset to a small degree from a fa irly intact vernacular group of dwellings internal to the village setting. However, I also found that Cortez held a fairly stable historic vernacular landscape form in its overall village setting at least up until the end of my study period of 1946 as part of its rural character, general feeling, and associations Noticeable change was documented for its altered shoreline regarding the village layout, and nearly all of its extended vernacular forms. Another noticeable change involves t he evolution of the vi llage waterfront boundary that now s trains to capture any of the original elements of the historic landscape since it has been filled in extensively over time, creating a misrepresentation of the water/land interstice as it occurred historically. This pres ents a difficulty for understanding the placement of historic structures in relation to land and water, a critical component when examining the erected contextual construct of almost any TFV. I found through my study research that historic maritime vernacular form in Cortez was inconsistently interpreted and assessed by others as having much more integrity than actually existed or as a historic place that had lost most of what made it significant. This tension is noticeable in the manner in which th

PAGE 22

22 nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) strained to capture what had been left of the historic maritime character beyond mostly its basic layout as a village and as a sporadic set of residential buildings and structures. While the setting and feeling of Cortez as a maritime place continues to survive into the twenty first century by many observers, the nomination appeared to be lopsided and imbalanced in not more fully detailing and consider ing context an d the extended vernacular as part of the landscape construct which could have improved it By adding t he extended vernacular landscape discussion it could have broadened or lessened the historic vernacular construct within the given context, which, in tu rn could have integrity. It was simply not enough to describe the individual buildings in Cortez, or to describe the remaining vernacular landscape visually or in comp arison to the chosen Ocracoke Island National Register nomination, as a comparable counterpart It would also have been more beneficial to look at the other physical and non physical forms such as the humanly altered shoreline village infrastructure, comm ercial fishing gear and equipment artifacts traditions cultural awareness, etc., that were constructed along with more notable buildings within the distinct context. The re liance on extant dwellings failed to account for the dynamics of the landscape and its over 1 00 year history up to that time These issues and concerns prompted, at least partly, to the generation of my study. The noticeable decline of the se historic vernacular forms began as early as 1921, when most of the contextual erec ted vernacular along the waterfront and over the open bay was destroyed by a hurricane storm surge up to approximately eight feet above

PAGE 23

23 normal high tide levels These dramatic changes to the waterfront represent realistically irreversible alterations, that now hide the true original past of Cortez, though such changes can also be considered as part of its historic TFV dynamic and resulting legacy as a lived in, cultural environment. It is not possible to determine nearly a century later how the landscape in Cortez would have evolved alternatively if the 34 years of vernacular accumulation up to that time would have been left to continue unimpeded. Yet, this is an important discussion relevant to all historically rich communities vulnerab le to destructive disasters that could be a ddress ed as part of separate, ongoing study programs Unfortunately, there is scant evidence of the earliest village construct remaining from the settlement period occurring 1887 through 1897; however, what is referred to as t he first permanent dwelling unit built during that time is still extant albeit in a highly altered condition. While t he primary cause of limited early extant waterfront construct can be attributed to the 1921 natural disaster impact other consideration s reveal that the impermanent nature of mu ch of th is erected form along with the economic and technological challenges that go hand in hand with commercial fishing are second third and fourth causes. While it can be argued tha t non cultural influences such as natural disasters can cause built form to physically change almost instantaneously, such events do not necessarily alter the human minds et that processes form outcomes. Therefore, m y study includes some scholarly grounding related to how culture ultimately decides vernacular form as part of an ongoing, living process, in spite of the natural forces that constantly apply friction to it

PAGE 24

24 Problem Statement and Research Questions There is an apparent dea rth of clear understand ing regarding landscape form and its evolution over time in coastal, vernacular working waterfronts in the United States; however, it is has surface d as part of sporadic stud ies from time to time ( M. P. noticeable along Florida entire Gulf C oast with some limited form studies available for the more prominent historic towns such as Key West (Shiver, 1988) and Apalachicola (Marshall, 1975) and to a lesser degree Cedar Key (Carney, 1963) With the exception of thes e few descriptive writings, it is my contention that studies related to the kinds of vernacular landscapes and the material culture historic working waterfronts consist of have not sufficiently come together to adequately explain the base of knowledge rela ted to historic vernacular landscape form change, or some of the inherent problems that challenge the real world study of it. In addition, there does not appear to be a clear understanding of how historic vernacular form as it changes over time is releva nt when dealing with certain historic preservation issues such as significance and integrity My primary study question seeks to reveal the determinants of landscape form change in historic vernacular settings in th e TFV context While the basic question of what determines form has be e n studied early on by scholars such as Amos Rapoport and Victor Olgyay, little has been addressed with regard to the landscape of TFVs. Part of the dilemma is that s uch a search for answers to the basic questio n of determinants creates additional subordinate questions These questions require a nswer s or meaningful exploration in tandem with other outstanding questions deriving from the available scholarly literature and commonly accepted historic preservation p ractices, which have rarely delve d into the more esoteric issues of form prompted by the earlier

PAGE 25

25 scholars. For example, both study arenas of architecture and landscape architecture are able to define what a vernacular building or vernacular landscape may c onsist of but seem sluggish in specificity regarding w hat the form of each is, and therefore constitutes. It appears that much less study has been devoted to the latter, though some progress has been made to date. I found many references to form, yet, the y seemed to always be delivered under an apparent implied or generally accepted meaning or framework which, I could not quite grasp as a thorough and useful tool In attempting to understand the determinants of form, I could not quite get a grip on what f orm meant or consisted of, especially from the landscape perspective. Even buildings, as physical constructs w ith their pure geometric shapes are not always afforded easily understood form definitions when being described by scholars and practitioners alik e Instead, form is often explained using varied stylistic definition s that evoke visualizations of distinct form sets to be sure but seem to stray too far away from the simple form notions such as gabled, square, flat, round, projecting, etc. In ma n y cases, form cannot simply be expressed using the convenience of a representable style since hybridization and individual input flourish as layers added on to, and confusing distinct style programs. In considering the wider landscape, attempting to desc ribe and explain the form and form changes based on prescribed styles reveals little since style is simply not specific enough with its inherent variations and overlaps Needless to say, I found that commonly used descriptors of vernacular and cultural lan dscape at the same time hold different meanings within disciplines, as well as, without. Therefore, my study not only asks what form is, and how can it be applied to the landscape, but also seeks to

PAGE 26

26 uncover at least minimal clarification of the questions p roduced by the intent and mean ing of the now more diluted and elastic imprint of form as it appears within the concepts of vernacular vernacular landscape, and cultural landscape. The lack of clarity from reading the literature brought me to also questio n if form in the landscape is only physical. This inquiry led me to another possibility that form could indeed be intangible or not only visual, which demanded clarification by me in order to create a richer understanding of form and the questions swirlin g around it. While I am interested in clarifying landscape form and the determinants of it in order to better understand the evolution of form I also peer into the nuances of w hat constitutes a change in form and how it can be measured without holding too closely to matters of minute degree and subtlety Instead, my inquiry reveals answers that allow a rather quick and simple measurement of form in the landscape to better understand change. When considering the wider landscape perspecti ve, th e seemingly daunting challenge for evaluating and measuring it is therefore simplified through basic analysis under the framework I provide and can be adapted to other landscape contexts. It provides a useful tool for interpreting the landscape form over time based on the context, and which can be modified or adapted to suit other areas of study. Perhaps my firs t three primary questions result in the final primary query of the significance of Cortez as a historic vernacular landscape. For example, h is torically and contextually speaking, is Cortez really a significantly intact vernacular set, or has too much of its vernacular integrity already been lost whereby it is no longer significant? As the basic framework of my study unfolds by addressing the se primary, initial questions, the research then opens up the opportunity for ask ing additional subordinate

PAGE 27

27 question s revolving around my referential study community of Cortez These include questioning how the landscape can be read to common purposes, the ro le context plays in reading, understanding, and interpreting vernacular landscapes, and if significance continues as an evolving concept itself. For the latter, has a new si gnificance replaced some older significance? Asking how the landscape changed over time is obviously important. The role of natural influences that tend to be catastrophic is another query that deserves discussion since cultures do not necessarily cause this type of sudden death form destruction, but may have a role in it based on decisi ons made culturally. The effect of post natural disaster forms then is interesting since the previous form is affected somehow, but not necessarily or absolutely changed. Obviously, the questioning could never end as the minutia of constant query and explo ration begin to bog down the primary research focus, so the more manageable impetus of my study is reflected in the questi ons already proposed, above. Academic and Professional Significance of the Research To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive, current scholarly literature dealing This is especially true as part of a close examination that methodizes how such landscapes are consider ed c ontaining the multiple levels of artifacts as clues across the cultural flux over a timeframe that goes beyond a conveniently prescribed chronology Glassie (2000) noticed this was still lacking, even 60 y ears after ground breaking work tha t considered the diffusion of the dwelling as a revealing artifact geographic expressions or distribution of culture through its built dwellings and the determinants of form, while also linking it to specific cultural conditioning (Rapoport, 1969).

PAGE 28

28 From an urban structure perspective dwellings again were placed as the foundational form from which the study of landscapes was implemented ( Conzen & Slater, 1990). Therefore, much of the academic thrust originally focused on buildings used for living rather than working. The study of vernacular landscapes, while having an early thrust under W. G. Hoskins and as part of the prolific queries and reports of J. B. Jackson began a s rural exploratio ns into ordered places even though t hey may have grown organically S cholars seemed to neglect the dirty, smelly, barely accessible spaces that arguably form the foundations for much cultural enterprise and activity Indeed, Lippard (199 7) wrote that significant studies o f the more industrial settings did not really begin until the 1960s though one can find occasional modern narrative descriptions of them dating back to the eighteenth and n ineteenth centuries by such writers as Benjamin Franklin and Charles Farnham, respectively. It is in these places then, that daily life and context of a culture is equally or maybe even more prevalent revealing, and important for understanding it. While T FVs have been popularized through expanded oral histories, scenic pictorials and as sub ject matter for reams of sketch pads and rolls of art canvases detailed studies and descriptions with scholarly bents toward the working areas or the seemingly less ap (M a cCannel 1973) are simply la cking. I n using a distinctly different focus. Shiver (1988 ), examined successfully the role that ethnic groups had on the vernacular character of Key West up until the early twentieth century However, he did not appear to merge the notions of physical form and form change with the cultural factors as they applied to the overall landscape as my study does since h is was concerned with to drive my earlier point home, primary buildings i nstead of landscapes

PAGE 29

29 There are some additional popular and scholarly writings including ethnographic accounts of TFVs; however, more holistic examinations, of the wider vernacular artifact, especially within a Florida Gulf Coast context is apparent ly lacking ( Chiarappa, 2005; Clark, 2007; Eaker, 1994; Green, 1985; Jepson, 2004; Mellin, 2003 ; and Varney, 1963 ). The vernacular landscape form and its change over time, while tangentially discussed by other scholars to date, appear to lack any solid ground ing or significant theoretical underlayment. During the 1960s and 1970s Lynch ( 1960; 1972) understood t he importance of the changing physical environment as he strolled through urban places while unfolding the esoteric yet available elements that define d those unique spaces and place s The same holds true in the twenty first century for unde rstanding landscape form change; it must now also include the construct s that are intangible as part of the formula (means to an end) for getting to a complete understanding of it, rather than as an end in itself. It is my hope that my study focused as it is toward the specific context of a vernacular fishing village will a dd meaningful groundin g to this sparse compendium of literature. It is therefore important to not only document and analyze how vernacular landscape form change occurred over time, and from where such change originates, but also to analyze how it may have remained stable, if a t all, and what role, if any, local, inherent adaptive strategies nurtured by localized tradition played in stability ( Lansing, 2003; Matthews, 1928; Noble, 2007; Olgyay & Olgyay, 1963; and Rapoport, 1969). Crouch (1989) expression; in this case, the individuals use the opportunities and constraints of the context within which they are part to construct and manipulate the artifacts around them.

PAGE 30

30 Matthews (1928) hinted at, and now offers a research clue for considering a stable vernacular form in Gulf Coast TFVs between 1878 and 1928 by writing that there was little change in equipment, vessels, and methods during that 50 year period. His basic observation remains tenable because of the typically slow mainstream conversion process that seems ever present in culture at large However, the economic and technological activities taking place during most of that time in Cortez, some of which were applied akin to a slow patina of change over time do no t seem to support that notion in all categories of form, and instead, creates a rather strident opposing view of wholesale cultural change, Form in the landscape fluctuates in its st ability depending on a wide variety of influences and determinants, amidst a cultural flux constantly being applying pressure and friction to it. While one assumption I held prior to embarking upon my study accepted a stable vernacular occurring in Cortez over at least part of its lifetime, it is somewhat skewed between periods of stability and dramatic change, as well as, a fracturing of its most contextual vernacular components. Slow change in certain contexts is sometimes part of a merged traditional or entrenched cultural identifier, that when considered along with external influences becomes understandable as Heath (2009) discussed in detail in his discursive related to vernacular regionalism With regard to certain Florida Gulf Coast TFVs, a critical regionalism does emerge through the forms of environmental requirements, limited building practices, and extended vernacular constructs that are related, yet are localized and specific to each comm unity. Conversely, and equally critical is understanding the nuances of non historic vernacular and non vernacular landscape form s, and any value or detriment they

PAGE 31

31 produced in cases where at least one may have replaced an earlier, perhaps more vernacular historic vernacular form. For the sake of definition and consistency, my study identifies historic vernacular generally as a construct having an identified significance or age of at least 50 years though this is not a set rule since associated significance sometimes trumps age The apparent dearth of available information regarding these issues leaves decision makers and stakeholders in local communities hard pressed to integrate or effectively treat landscape forms from a historic or reuse appr oach, noticeable in protective policies applied haphazardly or after much historic fabric and understanding of the vernacular construct is lost. The results of my study could provide guidance for, and influence future treatment considerations, policy, and decision making am ong scholars, practitioners, and communities regarding historic preservation, vernacular architecture, and cultural landscape studies by informed applications of more appropriate values to vernacular significance based on better contextua l understanding of setting, or, in other words, the wider landscape form. Loss of Integrity and Significance As with many historic constructs, their accurate documentation, intactness, and ultimate survival are pressing matter s of concern for researchers in the valuable evidence they provide for a variety of research programs It is no secret that much of the historic vernacular construct in the United States, especially in places where rapid twentieth century development booms s uch as Florida, has been demolished and replaced rendering a sterilized historic landscape where only its trace elements of historicity may be left. This is not surprising to those who study such phenomena as Glassie (1968) pointed out early on when he suggested that folk culture as an artifact is not a sustainable historic resource or product, and has been in decline since the

PAGE 32

32 eighteenth century. While his wider message meant that folk cultures as defined at that time were disappearing rapidly, it is also reasonably true that historic vernacular landscapes though somewhat less folk in character are also diminishing. Folk and vernacular cultures may still exist today, but many of them have become conflated entities, purged of some things that are comfortably thought of as historic, while at the same time continually developing with new notions of historicity greatly affected by heritage tourism and postmodernism Nevertheless, and with other muddied concepts such as authenticity aside, the TFV as a historic vernacular resource that reached its pinnacle in the mid twentieth century is in jeopardy and fast becoming a much changed or lost maritime landscape. Such losses imply that some communities currently recognized for their apparent extant hist oricity may actually when examined with carefully applied scrutiny, be severely lacking in both integrity of the remaining fabric and the physical significance they are supposed to exemplify Most scholars, as well as, those historians, community leader s and descendants having intrinsic ties to TFVs have been opining for decades about the sense of urgency needed for documenting and study ing them in order to memorialize their contributions to the historic al record This is not to say that TFVs as lived in places should always be preserved in some perfectly defined historic state ; t here really is no such thing. Instead, some scholars w ould agree that conservation of such resources that accepts chan ge, rather than outright protection as a sort of sto ppage of time and restriction of inevitable change s provides a better mirror of the cultural nuances that effected their making (Lynch, 1972). Though somewhat tongue in cheek to suggest, documentation is perhaps the best available tool for preserving and u nderstanding history since their

PAGE 33

33 ultimate susceptibility to influences of change remains constant, regardless of preservation and conservation measures that attempt to keep them physically intact However, even with documentation, the message is quite cl ear that TFV settings, as both historic and contemporary cultural resources, have long been regarded as highly diminished and quickly disappearing Popular literature during the 1920s gave testimony to a disappearing traditional Florida co mmercial fishing construct ( Robie, 1921). Purdy (1980) recognized that many maritime heritage were already missing at the time of her writing over 30 years ago. Cato and Sweat (1980) agreed with Purdy and suggested that the fishing i ndustry, and the elements that therefore define it, were simply not preservable due to the pressures constantly being placed upon them. By the turn of the twentieth century, writers such as Lovel and Lovel (2000) continue d to opine about the dramatic marit ime losses as a form on and a lack of community support for commercial fishers (p. 217). The complaints about loss continue today. Because of the pressures, and the resultant changes that often take place, some see the revival or preservation of supposed historic fishing village constructs as more of a nostalgic re creation since most of what was originally part of the active historic fishing village is no longer extant, having memories of what they once were (Dunlop, 1986, p. 8K ). Bour ne (1989) described the saga of the 300 year old American TFV tradition As late as the t u rn ing of the twenty first century, Smith et al., (1997) reiterated the lack of description attributable t C hiarappa (2005), though advancing the study of the extended vernacular, echoed the

PAGE 34

34 same inadequacies of available resea rch regarding certain Great Lakes fishing communities. The literature is rife with accounts of fishing villages being lost or affected by dramatic changes in almost every region, repr esenting a collective call for i ncreasing the knowledge of this particul ar past construct but still lacking in consistent findings in most regards, especially when it comes to vernacular landscape form change. Norton (1989) identified this problem precisely enough as due to a lack of a common framework and the differences tha t persist among research design s and methodologies. Historic A rea Determination in Practice In the United States, as referenced earlier, the NPS takes a lead in program ming for evaluating and treating historic vernacular landscapes, generally speaking ( Page, Gilbert, & Dolan, 1998) Other than academic methodologies that have been around for decades now that utilize various methods of visual analysis for looking at the deeper landscape, and others that read their non physical attributes, there is no othe r consistent ly applied program or formula for evaluating their historic evolution and form that can be followed as a consensus tool However, t hrough established guidelines developed in the 1990s, combined with the guidelines for considering historic resou rces originating from the 1966 Natio n a l Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), a thorough evaluation of the historic vernacular landscape that includes context and the extended construct is possible. This is not very evident though, as my review s of several of those that have been approved for historic designations rarely discuss these two factors sufficiently, if at all though both formats leave ample room for such discussions. In fact, these two programs, and most of the others available in the United States are virtually

PAGE 35

35 silent regarding how form is to be dealt with and addressed which, in itself, demands a stronger insertion of the topic into historic determinations Even under the present formats provided, d etermining the significance of a single building or structure is rarely an eas y, self evident task for academic s or historic preservation practitioner s Prescribing a historic designation to the wider landscape such as a district containing multiple individual buildings and sites is that much more diffi cult ; This is due to it having the additional contextual elements that must somehow be connected linked together as part of an overall consideration, based on a particular period of time and context It also must meet a number of standards for being signif icant that go beyond the often cited NPS recommended standard of being 50 years or older For example, ot her factors of integrity such as design and construction, materials, feeling, association, etc., play into the significance of historic resources as co ntributing elements though these are already widely understood guidelines It is often difficult to find intact or extant groupings of historic resources that have retained sufficient integrity, which often results in meandering landscape or historic dis trict wide boundaries. In some cases, such as in my referential study of Cortez, the most important contextual resource of bui ldings, structures, and lesser artifacts that at one time occurred over the wa ter and along the waterfront were mostly left out of the existing historic distr ict approved there in 1995 ( Fulford Green & Piland, 1995). This occurred simply because most of the waterfront no longer retained historic fabric and integrity. While a decent collection of vernacular housing did exist in relatively good condition at the time, thus ly determining where the boundary meandered, the significance of the approved historic district as a distinctly and obvious

PAGE 36

36 maritime vernacular construct is lackluster The lack of specific con textual constructs belies a false integrity in spite of strong feelings and associations of a historic maritime setting that might remain. This is not a critique of the researchers, nor is it necessarily due to a fault of the available historic programming itself; instead, it appears as a conundrum that is inherently part of decisions that move from being objective to highly subjective proc edural processes. My study attempts to help clarify and correct this conundrum, by making a strong case for the role of context and form and the importance of the wider landscape as part of a n extended historic construct and setting, in spite of a lack of physical integrity. Land Use and Design Issues Lacking a prescribed historic designation or other land use control, ma nagement of landscape wide historic areas remains a difficult challenge for those working in the preservation field and serving as caretakers for historic districts, sites, and individual structures. This is especially poignant where multiple owners with d iffering views are represent ative of a designated historic district. One of the most common and recurring challenges to both historic districts and individual buildings is the issue of design and compatibility brought about by new development proposals and undertakings that directly or indirectly may affect their integrity. For example, the proposed construction of a new two story structure required to meet base flood elevation standards within the historic setting whose significance is realized from its sc ale of single story non elevated structures poses important questions regarding the integrity of the district moving forward under protective standards It is no secret that many historic settings have been diluted or negatively affected through non historic, insensitive development activities Pursuant to my study and research, t he addition of a more thorough context based

PAGE 37

37 evaluation of the original historic district approva l, as well as, the significant findings of its extended construct may hel p to clean up and clarify compatibility issues in real world scenarios Influence of Three Scholars Emerging scholars undoubtedly can attribute at least shades of their scholarly i nquiries to those who have explored and inquired before them The interests and unanswered qu estions that derive from those i nquiries and the accretion of updated information are necessary component s of knowledge work is really never completed. Lacking the achievement of an ever elusive utopia, n ew knowledge should always support quests for even newer knowledge. In my case, the influence s of various scholars that have come before me are relevant and perhaps even obvious in the research contained herein. My interest in the phenomenon of a fishing who were already peeling back layer after layer of landscape elements that had not previously been visible or revealed to my eyes and thinking mind Prior to my pursuit of scholarly stud ies the aesthetics of the fishing village had already revealed its superficial and hidden layers that were more esoteric to my aesthetic perceptions than most others could understand. However, exploration into vernacular form and cult ure was the earliest prompt for my pursuit of context and in understanding ordinary historic landscapes, even though the individual dwelling was his main focus early on The additional questions, which Rapoport readily acknowledged remained unanswered, re presented a distinct trajectory of inquiry for him that has allowed me to understand to a limited degree, how scholarly study can build upon itself even as contradictions are part of the course. Even John Ruskin famously

PAGE 38

38 stated his own dissatisfaction of e xploring a subject until he had contradicted himself at least three times. extended contextual construct in maritime settings set the stage for my more purposeful and deeper explora tion of it here. Kingston Heath, who also looked at the extended realm of form provided the essential end frame for my vernacular construct triumvirate with meaningful explanati ons of it over time using his overlay theory o f cultural weathering in consid ering how place also evolves, and how it can be looked at from a regional basis, another important part of how the vernacular landscape should be dealt with from almost any discipline. Of course, many other scholars and practitioners in a variety of disci plines have provided invaluable input, to my inquiry into vernacular landscape form. T he robust literature in the discourses of historic preservation, vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, urban morphology, and cultural geography opened up new, alter native avenues for me to travel in seeking explanations to my answers about vernacular form and the historic integrity of what I gazed upon. Nevertheless, the above three authors deserve this special credit for their contributions to the literature, t hat, in my opinion, are truly significant to the discipline of historic preservation. Preferential Point of View by the Author The study of form elements as they reveal themselves in the vernacular landscapes produced out of natural environments by human cultures cannot consist of a purely scientific endeavor, if they are to be truly understood. The academic debates and uncertainty that surround this type of study topic provide proof to the resilienc e of

PAGE 39

39 landscape as a mysterious human product, but also show the countless ways in which new studies can imbue innovation in how they are considered. My study reflects my own point of view and preferences for looking at form in the historic vernacular landscape based on my perceptions of it as guided by how it has been considered in the past and from the available knowledge dedicated to it to date I am simply adding another brick to this structure of knowledge. While I hope to contribute significant findings that influence or guide the points of view of esteemed colleagues and collegial forebears as well as, those just beginning in such a field of inquiry, or who simply have a keen interest in such matters, it is through additional, ongoing, and stea dfast fu ture research that my contribution here will likely matter to any meaningful degree. Delimitations of the Study My study involves a focus that has not been extensively researched or applied within the proposed context. There is simply not enough a vailable information known by me from which specific applications for vernacular form change within the wider landscape of working waterfronts can be used to support and solidify research that My program of study is an exploration that does not attempt to redefine any fields of discipline or the structures under which they may operate or inform themselves Neither does it attempt to change the meanings of commonly accepted de finitions and major concepts found within the various disciplines referenced. The cultural landscape or more specifically, the historic vernacular landscape as one of its subtypes is a complicated concept of which I am mo st interested in the common historic form s that render its contextual significance. I am also interested in

PAGE 40

40 how its vernacular form s changed over time so that I can better understand the issues of its h istoric integrity and significance. Therefore, my study is not intended to serve as an official Cultur al Landscape R eport (CLR) or landscape treatment plan, as defi ned by the NPS though my analysis does borrow some of the depth of a CLR inquir y for doing so In addition, my study focus looks to the human built construct without any meaningful discussion o f the vegetation aspects that often involves landscape studies. It must be noted that some cultural constructs in the landscape of my referential study community, though extremely significant forms from certain other academic, professional, and intrinsic v iewpoints, may be somewhat ignored since they are less relevant to the contextual nature of my objective. This is likely to open up debate about which cultural constructs I use. Since I am looking across various fields of study, other individual concepts are also borrowed and blended to formulate the best approach applicable to the complex task of understanding cultural landscapes, which inherently represent mosaics of multiple disciplines because of their human effect s My study does not isolate an exhaustive and all encompassing set of findings or common patterns that fully explain or confirm my research questions and problem It also does not purport to represent the best solution for reading or understanding historic landscapes, as it is mainly an exploration into a method that also changes as my study progresses to reveal its own inherent problems and caveats, as applicable. Additional study is required to build upon my findings not atypical for a qualitative study derived from a p referential point of view, as present ed, herein.

PAGE 41

41 The inadequacy of alrea dy published literature requires that I seek out less common and exposed accounts of my referential study community (Cortez) and the t opic of the extended vernacular construct Even m ore challenging was that m uch of the vernacular landscape is now nonexistent, rep resenting a n arduous task of reconstructing the past built environment that has no direct evidential foundation Therefore, some conjecture is an inherent part of my findings. Since I chose to incorporate the underlayment of context as a major framework for finding determinants of vernacular form change, my research cross referenced other communities, cultures, and study disciplines that aided in limiting this conjecture. In re ading and describing the vernacular construct and its associated landscape, there is some difficulty in achieving total objectiveness, though qualitative research allows for the insertion of some personal values. However, I am able to combine the available historic photographs with prevalent building practices of the historic period, along with initial settlement land purchases to reveal a physical landscape suitable for a fairly accurate scholarly study though there some gaps and inconsistencies that rema in vague Due to the ongoing debate regarding vernacular definitions and the changing understanding of landscape s in general, I understand that my research will not likely have universal acceptance. I use a loosely adapted for m of thick description to examine possible influences to or determinants of vernacular form as part of the Chapter 4 contextual form framework and evaluation program but this should not be construed as a strict standard or absolutely vital measure for how deeply I delve into a form or influence ; instead, it should be considered a s a generally useful tool that helped me generate a better understanding of it in order to guide the research and expose the potential of additional

PAGE 42

42 findings. Any dependence of thi ck description is lessened since the constantly changing landscape often defies its use (Lippard, 1997) The depth of inquiry for any given question, clue, or finding is often unlimited, but is almost always guided by the constraints of format, expense, and time. There ar e additional limitations of the methodology used that must be acknowledged as part of exemplifying my findings First, in studying the physical and intangible human artifact s there is a high probability for an etic/emic conundrum. That is, my understanding of what I visualize and perceive in Cortez, and the results I interpret may not accurately reflect that of any member of the referential study community of Cortez, or the other TFVs studied. It is likely that some of my descriptions will be found to differ from the recollections of those with direct links to Cortez. Some of my conjectured points may, therefore, be incorrect. In addition, I do not assess herein the quality of the cultures being studied, only what has been revealed through archival documentation and possible interpretations of the documentation. The only way to really know and understand a culture is to live in it, and experience it over time. I readily admit that I cannot suggest that I have a thorough or expert understand ing of the intricacies of the social structures that took place in the community of Cortez since I never lived there and whose historic study spa n ended well before I was born. Instead, I explore possibilities that allow an outsider to better understand such places and the rich landscapes they are composed of. Hopefully, this can be adapted to other settings. Second, I did not rely on any new interviews, surveys, or oral histories to co mplete my research, since it is my contention that the work has been u ndertaken sufficiently by others and is easily available to other researcher s In my opinion, new

PAGE 43

43 interviews w ould not necessarily address my research questions any further ( for some clarification of my thought here, see Emmison & Smith, 2000, p. 110). Th ird, in attempting to build upon the contextual and extended vernacular method for looking at historic vernacular landscapes beyond just vegetation, natural lands forms, and primary buildings, I do not expect all other thinkers of this topic to readily acc ept or adopt my methods or findings since they broach some new territory, and especially since at least some of my visual thinking is based on my own, unique visual acuity, which has been partly formed through fine art studies an eager eye with a penchan t for the abstract, and personal experience. Fourth, an d finally, I am not endeavoring to find meaning or harmony in the cultural landscape through purely symbolic implants in t he hidden parts of it or through some construct that differentiates between low or high styling of built structures. The landscape, though complex as I have already suggested, need not be a drudgery of complex inquiry when using context and when the goal of the exploration is known. In fact, t he relative simplicity of my study for exploring form in the landscape, though bolstered by a research design that does not appear t o be as simple, is intended to separate the obvious from what is less obvious, but still readily available for those who can understand the explanations of the re search as it unfolds Key Terms and Definitions My research in historic ver nacular studies of form requires that I elaborate on certain terms (words or phrases) and definitions incorporated into my study which, heretofore have caused a modicum of schism a nd dialectical foreplay. In some cases, certain terms throughout time and as a result of a usage overlap have become either over defined, or are newer terms/concepts that lack historic definition, especially as they

PAGE 44

44 relate to the traditional fishing contex t. In some cases, they reflect a hybridized approach toward their usefulness to my study. While I operationalize most of the terms as part of the Phase I methodology, it is important that I include a selected list, as follows, to enhance early familiarity and quick future reference as needed Affect and Effect: Affect is used as a verb and is something that causes a change to or impacts something else. Effect is the result, or for the purposes of my study the resultant form caused by the affect. Artifactual: Pertaining to physical and intangible constructs derived and produce d by culture. Building Mosaic: The individual and cumulative components of the erected environment with in the historic vernacular landscape that includes habitable buildings such as dwellings and all non residential buildings that may or may not be context specific including their a ppurtenances such as garages, water tanks, sheds, and other outbuildings exclusive of fish eries camp buildings Critical Juncture: A point in tim e or temporal dynamic recognized as having, or po tentially having a major influence on the vernacular landscape form. Elapsed Experiential: A n intangible form in the historic vernacular landscape that is p e culture, past memory or condition, such as how things used to be done, or how a tradition is reflected upon as being changed. Extended Vernacular Landscape: Those physical and less than physical constructs (forms) that extend beyond the typical landscape constructs of village layout and building mosaic but remain interrelated with the m, and that add distinction to its historical context; in the case of a TFV these features may include, but not be limited to piers, wharves, fish camps and net camps, fisheries equipment watercraft, and certain less than physical constructs such as fishing grounds the act of fishing, and the elapsed experiential form s Fisher: The term fisher replaces fisherman and is gender neutral Form: The physical and less than p hysical shapes that give structure and character to human activities in the historic vernacular landscape Historic Study Period: Referenced as one of the three identified time periods occurring in the Cortez TFV to include 1887 to 1897, 1898 to 1921 (pre storm) and 1921 (post storm) to 1946.

PAGE 45

45 Historic Study Span: The study focus time continuum occurring in the Cortez TFV from 1887 and 1946 inclusive Historic Study Area: The study area means the village of Cortez as generally delineated by its northern boundary of Cortez Road, east boundary of the 1912 School and 119 th Street West and the shorelines of the south and west boundaries. Intangible Form : Neither purely physic al and visible to the human eye or totally invisible. Instead, it connotes a form th at is rarely fixed in place, may continually change its appearance, location, or the way in which it i s thought of, and is linked to a human perception or thought process. Regional: A generally defined geographical area represented by a similarity of characteristics that considers the natural environment and the cultural constructs expressed within it. TFV (traditional fishing village): For the purposes of this paper, a TFV is a smal lish community that has evolved and developed physically, culturally, and socially around a central enterprise of commercial fishing. It is a place where the fishers and their families typically live and work, and their enterprise is noticeable in their st yle and manner of living. That is to say, it predominantly consisted at one time or another of vernacular housing often built by their fisher owners or local builders; yards used for storage of watercraft traps, netting and other fishing related tools and equipment; a waterfront that reflects obvious fishing enterprise such as fishing watercraft and equipment, seafood processing facilities, piers and wharf systems; and other ancillary uses, buildings, and structures. Of course, to also be vernacular in thi s vein, the fisher way of life would have been generally handed down from generation to generation. Usually, much of the characteristic features that identify a TFV are leftover from earlier periods and have been blended with modern commercial fishing ent erprise. This is acceptable and does not disqualify a community from being traditional, as industries and the cultural landscape often change over time in response to market conditions, competition, or to changes in technology or other outside influences. Even the more specific cultural aspects of a traditional fishing village are subject to change and influence over time. The key indicator for a ssessing the existence of a TFV commercial fishing, as opposed t o sport fishing or recreational boating, and a desire t o sustain the historic setting as its number one core community value. Vernacular: Places, buildings, structures, objects, and processes constructed, performed or assembled through a localized knowledg e by relatively unspecialized builders, grou ps, or individuals within a setting established as part of a recognized tradition often referencing long standing methods of craftsmanship and uses of materials that tend to characterize the traditional setting. While designed or engineered products are usually disqualified from inclusion as vernacular, their widespread use and application may be considered

PAGE 46

46 dep ending on how they were applied and by whom (Adapted from Seamon, 1986). Vernacular Landscape: Non lite rary form of design of a place or setting evolved through use and activities by the people who have occupied it, manifested in physical and less than physical features, materials and their interrelationships, including shapes and patterns of spatial organi zation, land form and land use, circulation, vegetation, structures, objects, and processes. (Adapted from The Cultural Landscape F oundation, 2012 ; Hubka, 1986; Page, Gilbert, & Dolan, 1998). Vernacular Landscape Form: The aggregation of vernacular element s in a landscape that act upon the mind and the eye resulting in a combining of, or or mentally depicted as characteristic shapes, textures, points, lines, or outlines, or thoughts, whether unified as a whole or not. (Adapted from Hamlin, 1947; Santayana, 1896; Yeomans, 1986). Waterfront Conglomeration: The land and water interstice that merges the fishing construct with the non fishing construct of the available landscape setting as a frenetic jumble of context specific objects and forms such as fishing watercraft and equipment, seafood processing facilities, piers and wharf systems buildings, structures equipment, vegetation, space, etc. The waterfront conglomeration i s the quintessential form element i n the TFV that is contextually fed with an olio of industry specific informants that are physically manifested It is a strikingly similar and common form generally found throughout most fishing village constructs in the U nited S tates Organization of the Dissertation My study is formatted into five chapters that enhance a logical flow of the research focus and program for achieving my findings The intent of the cha pter flow is to lead t he reader through the m e thod of my study and the ways of thin kin g I imported into it This is accomplished by providing an overview or summary as part of each chapter followed by the main thrust that each requires, and conclud ing with a brief transition statement for each Th is recap ping and transition ing is intended to clearly lead the reader from the main po i nts of each chapter to the subsequent overview and thrust of the next chapter. Hopefully, this format creates a more seaml ess dissertation

PAGE 47

47 Chapter 1 provides a set of preliminaries that set the stage for the overall dissertation such as research overview and justification, how the research was constructed, clarification of language used, and how the chapters are organized w ithin the entire document. Chapters 2 and 3 provide the requisite literature review and a detailed description of the research design used, respectively. The bulk of the research construct is located in Chapter 4 as part of a contextual form framework In order to preserve the integrity of understanding for the previous chapters, Chapter 4 begins with an overview of the vernacular landscape form change problem that prompted the research. Each of the identified historic periods include s a discussion statemen t in order to present a preliminary set of findings Finally, Chapter 5 reviews the research findings and presents conclusions, along with implications for past, present, and future studies and applications in academia and professional practice. A critique of the method used is also included Transition Statement The problems associated with understanding cultural landscapes and the historic resources that can be part of them present numerous inquiries to be explored and clarified. Not surprisingly, these include seemingly simple unde rstandings of the meaning of for m, vernacular, and how to measure changes t hat occur t o them. The inherent complexities they present when trying to evaluate their significance from both a historic and cultural perspective reveals forms that are both physical and intangible This represents a dilemma to researchers that currently requires using techn iques from various disciplines organized according to academic and practical prob lems outlined in this first chapter. Therefore, a thorough search of the available literature is required to create a basis from which a method can be provided. The next chapter provides a good

PAGE 48

48 grounding that covers these complexities, and also offers insi ght into how cultural landscapes and their subtypes are considered and where some of the gaps exist pertinent to their study.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview and Organization of the Chapter While vernacular building form in various contexts has been discussed in the literature for quite some time now ( Edw ards, 1983, 2009; Glassie, 2000 ; Kniffen, 1936 ; Noble, 2007; Oliver, 1997; Rapo po rt, 1969 ; Upton, 1991; Vlach, 1986), it is rare in the United States to find scholarly literature on the evolution of communities beginning with the ir original cores (Hoskins, 1955 ), let alone the determining factors of change in the overall landsc ape settings of t raditional f ishing v illages (TFV s ) Several scholars have written about the importance of using the wider landscape as a unit of analysis favoring c ontext for vernacular form ( Jackson, 1984; Lanier & Hermann, 1997; Litton & Tetlow, 1974; Stilg oe, 1982; and Upton, 1991), but significant study under this paradigm that s only beginning to emerge (Heath, 2009). Smardon, e t al. (1986) did suggest early on that context in the la ndscape was critical to understanding change. The unfolding of the landscape concept has been used since at least the M iddle Ages when it referenced a distinct area inhabited by a particular group of people. Its evolution through th e sixteenth century Dut c h and Italian worlds of physical aesthetic expression is well studied and further clarification here would be mere regurgitation and is therefore, unnecessary. Today, the word landscape is used to describe virtually anything that does not have to be physi cal and directly in view. For example, it is acceptable for a person to refer to the landsc ape of professional football, conservative politics rap music or mortgage financing, etc.

PAGE 50

50 European scholars including the Italian architects Mu ratori (1959) and Caniggia (1963 ), native German geographer M. R. G. Conzen (19 60), and English geographers Whitehand (1981; 1992), M. P. Conzen (1990), and Kropf (1993) have made significant strides in this endeavor as it pertains to the geographical interpretation of urba n morpholo gy as urban area evolution cases Fortunately, M. P. Conzen (2001) in relocating to the academic community in the U nited States has worked diligently to bring an emphasis on urban morphology studies here in the interpretation of cities and place s. However, Conzen also brought to light that the study of form in the urban landscapes of the U nited States was less than strident resulting in part to the notion that urban areas have been viewed by Americans most importantly as economically prioritized systems This capitalistic priority seems to have take n a front se at approach that initially fostered a less than stable construct on which a free for all individualism is intensely applied on it through multiple veneers of expression. T he Co nzen referred to the typical urban construct in the United States was not wholly loved and valued by Americans when compared to areas more nature oriented and therefore more inviting to scholars for study (p. 1). Understanding what vernacular landscape form is, as well as, the determinants that influence it within the TFV context are, rather than from generic viewpoints and from individual buildings, may allow a more revealing scenario of how and why such form change takes place generally. Though a clich d take at this point, l andscapes are fraught with complexity and are highly subjective when it comes to our views of them; and my study is cognizant of this fact.

PAGE 51

51 interpretive essay where he f ound at least 10 diffe rent perceptions that could be affixed to a single landscape scene that was in front of him (1979). Changes to v ernacular landscape form along a manageable continuum in a definable context involves understanding both temporal and spatial aspects of the inhabited human construct, from which form determinants can be revealed (Akcan, 2006). However, reading historic an d extant vernacular landscapes to understand such change is a more intensely complicated endeavor, and requires interdisciplinary approaches ( Conzen in general; Moore, 2000; Saile, 1990; Schein, 1997; Whitehand, 1992), which are incorporated into my study Examining the vernacular cultural landscape goes beyond just reading the architectural landscape discussed by Carter and Cromley (2005). Because vernacular, as a construct is so pervasive on a global scale (Davis, 2006), my research can be drawn from at least nine overlapping areas of study, including historic preservation, cultural landscapes, vernacular architecture, land use planning, cultural geography, urban morphology, archaeology, landscape architecture, and ecology. The organization of the litera ture reviewed for guiding and supporting my research unfolds in four distinct categories of discussion that complement each other. Since my research began with an interest in vernacular architecture and its definitional composition, the first category is f ramed around its use and meaning. The genesis of how form takes shape in vernacular worlds begins to be expo sed here, while also delving into the various notions of what determines vernacular form on dwellings. The widespread and syncretic use of vernacula r that is highlighted in the following literature review then encourages a robust discursive for my study that incorporates concepts

PAGE 52

52 fro m various disciplines. As such, some disciplinary work is well established and will be referenced more than others. Cult ural landscape studies and l andscape vernacularism are reviewed as part of the second discussion category in order to understand the differences and similarities between individual built human constructs and the wider places and contexts in which they are included. Similarly to the confusion caused by the vernacular term, cultural landscape is also reviewed to better define its history and meaning across academia and professional practice. The two interdisciplinary fields of urban morphology and historical ecology are also discus sed under this category since they helped to influence the research design, and offer improved methods for understanding landscapes. The notion of a landscape that is extended beyond its typical conceptualized constructs or usual suspects of constructed ar tifacts is discussed in spite of the relatively quiet discourse it is part of to date. Here, the TFV is presented as part of both scholarly and laic research agendas in order to understand the breadth of the discourse on this particular type of working wat erfront as related to the landscape and the forms inherent in it. Applications of form and its structural background in both architecture and landscape architecture are given weight as part of the third literature review category. This is helpful to my st udy since there is little consensus on what the term of form signifies or how it is used, other than what is often implied or assumed Available discourse on what determines form and form change is included with a special discussion to natural determinants such as storms and topography. The last part of the category on form and its structure discusses the non physical forms that are also

PAGE 53

53 important to the context of landscapes. It is my understanding that form has both physical and intangible manifestations in the vernacular landscape that can be read and understood, so the available literature found that considers textual reading, sense of place, and other similar concepts is a critical foundation to a substantial portion of the contextual form framework re vealed later. The fourth literature review category opens up the various viewpoints pertaining to how architecture and landscapes have been evaluated and analyzed both visually and non visually through the applications of academic a nd professional jurisdi ctions. My ability to document and then express the entire landscape form set benefits from this literature analysis and was formulated in reference to some of the available readings dating back to the 1970s Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Vernacul arism My primary research question of what determines vernacular landscape form change prompts a clear er understanding of the concepts of vernacular its architectural basis, and vernacular landscape form in the context of my study A s one reads between the lines of the discourse, it is easy to understand that vernacular architecture, or whatever name it went by during its growing stages, has been a point of discussion for several hundred years maybe even back to Vitruvius (Rykwert 1972 ). There is writ ten evidence that in 1602, Richard Carew, in his written descriptions of the English countryside, waxed semi architecturally about common buildings there. In 1755, Marc Antoine Laugier et al. referred to the primitive hut in the reissue of his Essai sur l (Essay on Architecture), with an interesting dialogue about origins of architecture, and a rather cosmologic view of vernacular form (as described by Ryk wert 1 972 see pp. 43 45). The nineteenth century saw a plethora of activity and dialogue

PAGE 54

54 regarding ordinary artifacts and buildings as found in the works of John Fanning, Henry Mercer, and Norman Isham, as well as in the phenomenal drawings and descriptions in the 1880s of pre Columbian Mexican architecture by William Holmes (1968). According to Oliver (1969), George Gilbert Scott and th e Reverend J. L. Petit ( Associated Architectural Societies, 1858, ) were discussing vernacular architecture among elite groups in E ngland prior to 1860. Serious and collective discourse regarding vernacular arc hitecture is said to have geographic approach to studying Louisiana housing (Davis 1991; Upton 1990; Wells 1986); however that research appeared to bypass the origi ns of vernacular architecture, instead concentrating on culture, geography, and construction materials used (Vlach 1976). The corpus of subsequent literature expanded fruitfully since then, with notable strides in vernacular research occurring outside of the United States, as advanced during the 1950s by Istanbul Technical University (Meir & Roaf 2006). Clear reasoning of vernacular architecture that nurtured the still lethargic debate amidst high style architecture movements continued slowl y into the twentieth and twenty first centuries ( Oliver 1969). However, even with all of the research to date, there still seems to be no consensus of definition for vernacular, expanding the disconnect further as many latent scholars pursue lines of thought that explore new adaptations for vernacular that understand the thought processes of the makers, but without a reliable and consistent framework ( Asquith and Vellinga 2006; Glassie, 2000; Lawrence 2006; Lewcock 2006; Vellinga 2005). N ot surprisingly, th is leaves scholars and practitioners to adapt their own definitions of vernacular to meet the

PAGE 55

55 needs of their research frameworks, while still asking the central question of what is meant by vernacular. Scholarly usage of vernacular with regard to built forms reaches back to 1830s England where scholars there used it to describe its rural areas (Alanen & Me l nick, 2000). Soon after, its use expanded as a demarcat ion from more stylistic architect ure so that in order to be considered vernacular, a building wa s to have been constructed more purposely to meet local needs, based on the resources immediately available and the traditions ingrained in the culture (Noble, 2007) It then gained traction and popularity of usage in the U nited St ates by 1900, finding a concentrati on on building s to be studied as architecture. There is a good measure of the literature suggesting that most of the global popul ation (perhaps up to 98%) dwell in vernacular building s today (Davis, 2006; McGoodwin & FAOU N, 2001; Oliver, 1969, 2006; Rapoport, 1969, 2006; Upton & Vlach, 1986; Vellinga, 2005). Yet, a consistently applied meaning of vernacular still remains elusive with no clear direction for the various forms it takes (Carter & Cromley, 2005; Lawrence, 2000 ; Noble, 2007 ). For the purposes of my study then I accept the resulting confusion that revolves around the use of vernacular This leaves me open to also adapt it into my study for understanding the evolution of built form in the landscape b ased on a def initional construct by Seamon (1986) It is not my purpose to examine the ultimate meaning of the word vernacular ; instead, I will use it based on a hybrid definition that layers the word to include p laces, buildings, structures, objects, and processes constructed, performed or assembled through a localized knowledge by relatively unspecialized builders, groups, or individuals within a setting established as part of a recognized

PAGE 56

56 tradition, often refere ncing long standing methods of craftsmanship and uses of materials that tend to characterize the traditional setting. While designed or engineered products are usually disqualified from inclusion as vernacular, their widespread use and application may be c onsidered, depending on how they were applied and by whom Some care and attention to semantics is required when using vernacular and some of the other words that swirl around it. For example, v ernacular is often confused with folk, and sometimes referred to as a style of architecture, which is, as most scholars would agree, a debatable issue. I view the two term s as characterizing a difference based on entrenchment or infusion into a culture. T o Glassie (1968), a thing that is folk meant that it was then n ot part of the wider mains tream cultural construct, and was in contrast deemed to be intrinsic to a inherent to an isolated group Though many folk communities are separated from more populous or interconnected are as either by size, distance, or lack of easy access, Wallace (1978) reminded us that in the modern era, there are always outside influences that can be read from them. In Cortez, the rather broad influence on the built structures there and the intermingli ng of participants using a wide range of materials and methods lead away from a folk application since there are only limited examples of a unique, localized tradition other than fishing Of course, I recognize that t here may be some elements of the cultu ral construct such as music and adapted forms especially given their relative isolation from more developed areas, that became more folk like after several decades of their formation in Cortez; however, th e intricacies of this type of folk character and condition is beyond the scope of my study since I am concentrating on a limited set of forms in the landscape

PAGE 57

57 have also distinguis hed between the two. Rapoport (1969) and Lewcock (2006) were more supportive of the cognitive view that a vernacular building is part of a system of characteristics, more easily defined as how a construct first appears as an idea that undergoes a form of p rocessing in the mind, and then applied, or constructed outside of the mind i.e., more akin to a process Rapoport further distinguished between a vernacular building and a primitive building, in which a primitive building is a construct appearing under t he domain of the anthropologist, further opin ing that it is thereby best left to their study uses Yet, Rapoport went on to suggest that primitive constructs are eir fullest extent (p. 3). This tended n 1910 that folk architecture was the artifact into th e environment ( Oliver 2003, p. as supported by Adolf Loos wa ence guided the builders (p. 9). In referring to Rapoport again, he included folk and popular architecture as being types of vernacul ar, whereas, Oliver (2006) lumped in primitive (tribal ) architecture. In defining these s ubsets of vernacular, Rapoport then distinguished between the two, citing that vernacular arch (p. 8). Noble (2007) also established firm distinctions between primitive, folk, and vernacular. V ernacular b uilding s are represented by simple ordinary constructs that may even have been formally designed and even community sanctioned but lacking individualization ( Groth, 1997) Pe rhaps Hubka (1986 ) captured the truest sense of what

PAGE 58

58 vernacular means when he suggested down through tradition and kept in the mind as local know how, within the context of e (p. 432) Hubka (1986) articulated that it is from this notion and from which place that the designs, or more appropriately, their stored, drawings (p. 429). In this regard, Glassie (2000) noted that the memory of handling materials by the craftsper son was part of the vernacular tradition of using local materials and copying handed down forms; the use of (p. 45). Rapoport (1990 ), in a later version of the term, wrote that vernacular architecture (p. 274; also see Rudofsky 1964). Rapoport went on to suggest that such a view also implies some identity, some recognizabl e qualities or uniqueness that makes (p. 274) Davis (1991 ) typified the broadly swiped almost directly from nature deeply rooted in cohes ive traditional culture (p. 45). Oliver (1997 ) also provide d his own def inition of vernacular that read as or community built, utilizing traditional p. ii; reiterated by Oliver in 2006). Later, Oliver (2006) added that vernacular architecture occurs without influence from architects or design professionals. This is sup ported by Upton and Vlach (1986 ), who consider ed that the builders of vernacular architectur posses s (p. xvii). Oliver (2006), however, again was sure to point out that his term, and

PAGE 59

59 most likely others, wa s not well defined at the time and rather generalized, such that he continues to pursue a course toward solidifying and narrowing the meaning even further. Because of the indecipherable nature of vernacular, it stands to reason that it may represent an isolated occurrence of tradition rather than as a process manifested in the plac es and structures and the people who create and use them. Mei r and Roaf (2006) look ed at folk as having a purely ethnographic premise, while vernacular became a procedural method for construction that evolved within a specific community, being perfected o ver time due to limitations of locality. However, Heath (2009) wrote that vernacular architecture could also be defined as traditional, regional, or indigenous in that each focus es appropr 40). Vernacular then, to certain scholars represents a specific way of considering or doing things rather than a s a building or landscape that results from a group or culture It is then not surprising that m any scholars identify the ability of vernacular studies to incorporate multiple viewpoints from a wide ranging gamut of academic and professional fields of study (Upton, 1983), and this is important to my own research, herein. M any current scholars have b een steadily pursuing lines of thought about vernacular by making the term fit a wider array of ordinary structures such as mobile homes, tract housing, gas stat ions, shopping malls, etc. ( J ackson, 1984; Lohof, 1982). Some scholars already recognize such m aneuvering as adding to the confusion that already exists to vernacular studies (Asquith & Vellinga, 2006; Hubka, 1986; Lawrence, 2006; Lewcock, 2006), but since I believe vern acular to be

PAGE 60

60 representative of constructs that are consi dered to be, or have become common over time there is credence in latent expansion s as all scholars muddle through the terminology and contribute to the research and literature Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Cultural Lan dscape Studies and the Extended V ernacular What is the Cultural Landscape? It is widely understood from the literature that cultural landscapes became a scholarly course of investigation and study when the concept of landscape was linked to its cultural influence ( s ) as introduced by Sauer (1925 ) in the 1920s. His now standardized assertion of culture (human activity) being the agent acting upon the natural area (medium) that produces the cultural landscape is timeless and at its most basic, for mulizes the cultura l landscape process. Lewis (1979 ) referred to this result as landscape studies, and thusly, cultural landscap es as important units of analyse s repr esent even now a constantly improving method for discovering the complex nuances that derive them. All landscapes, as strictly human, synthetic constructs for the purposes of my study, are extremely complicated entities (Jackson, 1984). From early on, any attempt at explaining them has always appeared incomplete since no single explanation could possible cover the immeasurable facets of which they consist (Savage, 1952). The NPS defines the cultural landscape as and natural p. 12 ). It is further

PAGE 61

61 broken down into four distinct subtype s to include historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Obviously, Cortez in this case would best meet the NPS definition of being a historic vernacular landscape. However, I would not simply defer to the NPS definition for my study since their definition tends to favor a more inclusive landscape that favors the natural vegetation and landforms that surround historic structures. In addition, the NPS also looks at the animal context and activity that affect landscapes. The overarching goal of the NPS format is to provide the important aspect of inventorying and documenting important landscapes, followed by plans designed to preserve and protect them through appropriate treatment plans. As alluded to earlier, the NPS cultura l landscape program is extre mely comprehensive, and is well suited to the NPS mission, and certainly represents a program par excellence for managing cultural landscapes. Therefore, some but not all, of its definitional construct is used for the purposes of my study. Cultural Landscape as a Unit of Analysis According to Groth (1997), J. B. Jackson was perhaps the first American to embrace cultural landscapes from a populist point of view and first began studying landscapes based upon their visual characteristics and elements; that initial focus changed for Jackson as he forayed into deeper cultural and political discussions about them, understanding them to be more interesting, and more revea ling as collective social constructs rather than as aesthetic works to be critiqued. This is not to say that I, nor anyone else insist that cultural landscapes are not aesthetically important or inclusive, only that their aesthetic natures represent one f acet of a larger compendium of elements (Meinig, 1979; Robertson & Richards 2003). Even the decidedly infinite

PAGE 62

62 individual characteristics that make up the landscape have their own in numerable facets, so it is easy to get bogged down in this apparent compl exity that the concept of cultural landscape fosters. However, the literature is quite clear in exposing that well crafted theory for considering and evaluating cultural landscapes serves well to eliminate most of the problems generated in scholarly studi es through lenses that may inadvertently include the likes and dislikes of a landscape by researcher s (Rapoport, 1992). Rapoport further explained that a much better evaluation would certainly include why a certain cultural land scape evolved in the way it did or how it is subject to change. Phenomenological landscape and clarify its intertwined issues, but there is no clear evidence or research to support any complete ana lysis (Saile & ICBFCR 1986). sedimentation a composite of diversity and unfolding events, institutions, power struggles, etc. (Pred, 1990, p. 198). Heath (2009) refer red to this similarly as cultural weathering or as Upton (1991) put it, as and vantage points from which to look at them, especially for out siders who have not spent any reasonable amounts of time interacting in them yet, who may try to capture their intrinsic essences and meanings for scholarly purposes. Vance (1990) recognized how t his constant flux presents academic challenges to creating v isual vantage points of st udy that once resolved, is immediately presented with the additional challenge of analyzing such a flu x T o understand how a landscape became a village consis ting of

PAGE 63

63 myriad built forms, it becomes n ecessary to critically examine t he human conditions that underlie its process of formation. This too is critical, as ma ny extant landscapes determined, as they were, to be derived from an original human undertaking, may actually have been influenced by prior non contextual or related hum an extancy. As Kropf (1993) suggested here, additional aspects must also be studied including the natural environment, spatial and temporal considerations, and the more obscure concept of form process consisting of energetic aspect s One of the challenges discussed by Litton and Tetlow (1974) was that a best fit program for determining which elements in the cultural landscape are most important for studying was still elusive by then and this challenge adheres to the present blend of studies that seem to defy cohesion One scholar debated this dilemma in trying to understand whether continuity in the landscape, or its actual change was the higher priority (Kropf, 1993). This primary challenge is lessened, in my opinion, by a more thickly read analysis, which can help guide a researcher to the most important elements. For example, th e waterfront conglomeration ( Chapter 1 for a definition ) is one such physical element in the TFV cultural landscape that allows contextually based v antage points fr om which forms are visually present and are available for reading, and from which meaningful study can take place. This is based on an obvious physical indicator set that can also be used for those clues in the landscape that ar e intangibl e ( Phillips, 2003 for a discussion on community indicators). In looking beyond just buildings and structures, which is still a heavily directed research program where most academic inquiries continue to explore according to Thompson ( 2012), I embrace the n otions of plurality and multiplicity as having

PAGE 64

64 substantial effects on most, if not all landscapes. Rapoport (1992) seemed to agree when he suggest ed earlier that cultural landscapes, or more precisely, the forms they take, result from the constant flux of decisions involving multiple players abiding by their own systems of inclusion and application. He saw cultural landscapes as multiple, study focus of the vernacular lands cape form accepts cultural landscapes to be more inclusive of a wider array of physical and intangible elements, and therefore, more adaptable to TFVs, as do Chiarappa (2005) and Mellin (2003). Upton (1991) also cited the cultural landscape as the best un it of analysis for scholarly study since it encompasses many modes of perception as part of human experience. Because the cultural landscape is context ual Upton saw this as becoming part of the new, improved method for studying architectural history. In m aking available all of the available elements in the cultural landscape my study can capture a more significant essence of the TFV form through a modified versi on of community indicators ( Phillips, 2003) Perhaps Mitchell (2008 ), in taking a different approach from (1979) original landscape reading axioms, supports this best in his suggestion that landscapes simply do not make as much sense when they are studied only in relation to their nearby surroundings. Abbreviated History of Landscape Form Evaluation in the United States Cultural landscapes are contrivances of human interface, to which only a relatively few interested scholars pay close attention. The study of forms that make cultural landscapes an integral whole beyond th eir natural backdrop s and the confined nature and character of individual buildings structures and designed plots has a meaningful history, though not as richly defined in the United States as it does in

PAGE 65

65 Europe. While architectural form abroad also has a rich scholarly discourse dating back centuries, and since at least the eighteenth century here in the United States landscape form analysis has a lesser depth of study Human constructed f orms in the landscape, and how they have been both affected and effected in it, the primary focus of my study here, have been studied since the late nineteenth century in Europe as part of an urban morphology discourse although there are some interesting parallels between European and U nited States counterparts. In Europe, interest in the landscape form of developed places derived from a German geographical base occurring near the turn of the twentieth century until about the 1940s. During that time, M. R. G. Conzen emigrated to Britain during the 1920s where he w as able to develop his geography based methods for breaking down the form of landscape into a widely accepted paradigm of study, albeit mostl y restricted to suit European academic profiles Similar to how Carl Sauer helped to establish the University of Ca lifornia Berkel e y S chool of G eography and the influence it would have on numerous scholars so did Conzen with regard to some European traditions, and roughly at the town of Alnwick in northern coastal England provided other scholars with a workable framework through what would surface as an urban morpholog ic discourse for analyzing how fully develop ed towns evolved over a period of time. Here in the United States, landscape study evol ved in similar fashion, also through the general geograph ic discourse, with some nuances of direction credited to more social pursuits. Again, attention seemed to be directed at the wider landscape of the most developed areas of cities and those sections that create the patchworks found

PAGE 66

66 in them. As the hand in hand spoils of industrialization reached an urban crescendo in a small patchwork of American cities, Riis (1890) certainly enlightened readers to how the blighted landscape of slums in New York City were exacerbated by tenement housing Here Riis seemed to have set a stage for evaluating not only buildings, but also the wider outcroppings of problems their decline produces and represents socially. Urban areas became more noticeable for their inherent problems of slum and blight, generated by overcrowding, lack of infrastructure, and otherwise unhealthy land use practices, which encouraged a strong emphasis on improving and ultimately changing the configurations of those areas. However, early work sat areas as he strolled those back regions 11 years earlier in 1879 and reported them to the popular reading public. J ames B rinkerhoff Jackson amazement at a previously un thought of landscape. Amazingly, Richard Hurd completed one of the earliest applied studies of the larger landscape in the United States in 1903. Hi s Principles of City Land Values was a stoic work for the time that resulted from his frustration of not being able to fi nd any significant, helpful in f o rmation on the forces that affected and perhaps controlled how land in urban areas originated and evolv ed. Though he focused on land costs and capital ization, Hurd reckoned that the shaping of land was m ostly established by its cost. During the same year, Albert Brigham produced a historical geography of the Unites States by merging the natural environmental features of the various continental regions with their individual historical development. In it, and as a coincidental

PAGE 67

67 background pursuant to my Cortez landscape form discussion, Brigham parlayed the national thoug ht toward Florida at the time as still lingering with thoughts for being an open, natural sanitarium for people suffering from the physical and mental ills of the time; th ere is much evidence of this in Cortez with regard to some of its early settlers who also sought relief in the local briny climate. Yet, while the warmer climate and fresh sea air appealed to many for the extreme coastal areas in Florida, there remained a t the time the strong contempt for the inundated lands of swamps and estuaries, still viewed as hostile evil, and useless. Restating some of my earlier discussion, Sauer in The Morphology of Landscape ( 1925 ) brought to the forefront the concept of the cu ltural landscape and its culturally changing nature during the 1920s While progressive in its application, the use of cultural as an adjective influence on the landscape, avoiding any significant findi ngs that allowed for their desc riptive exploration In breaking away from the structuralist paradigm of geography used by many of his contemporaries of the time though Sauer proved that geography could have a more humanistic interdisciplinary side to it. Other notable and highly contributory scholars such as Donald Meini g, Peirce Lewis, and Wilbur Zelinsky followed after Sauer well into the 1980s, providing additional grounding for the strong programming he set out from the Berkeley Scho ol of Geography he researched from According to M. P. Conzen (2001), Mumford (1938) was also an other early American evaluator of cities and the cultures that created them. After World War II, architectural interest in urban morphology emerged through a finely detailed form typology that sought a broad, yet usable classifying system of urban form in the

PAGE 68

68 landscape. While Hoskins (1955 ) provided the first real in depth analysis of the English landscape using the urban morphology approach and its necessary histor ic al approach as the basis for interpreting it, J. B. Jackson pursued a similar line for evaluating landscapes in the United States by looking at them through a more experiential perspective, as they began to change dramatically from their pre W orld W ar II c onstraints, even amidst the multiple crises that defined the first half of American twentieth century culture. Also in landscapes, Jackson became a founder and explainer for studying the landscapes that insisted on close examination of the agency and the result While historic preservation efforts were already well established mostly at the local grassroots level, and focusing on individual buildings and properties, and at the national level in regard to natural monuments and park areas, the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century ushered in a gamut of landscape idealization, undoubtedly brought about by the rapid change of pace the country began to experience as it embraced the wider national values of historic preservation and environmentalism. This post war attitude was popularized through the writings and musings of Jackson whose prolific and continuous narrative began by ex tolling the virtues and appeal of rural landscapes shifting their presence as distantly viewed scenes, to ones that could be experienced, and rendered extraordinary through narrative His own perspectives on the ordinary landscapes also evolved as he saw the changing cultural milieu around him. His views were being nurtured by rapid economic growth and prosperity impact s rendered from new land development designs focused toward the dual American Dream of house and automobile ownership, two inalienable for ces that

PAGE 69

69 were to shape the landscape toward what some thinkers today regard as g eographies of nowhere ( Kunst ler, 1993 ). Undoubtedly, M. R. G. Conzen was the major force behind looking at wider landscapes, albeit in urban areas, under the European paradigm. However, this ha d implications for future morphological study in the United States. As contemporaries of this early work by Conzen, there was an interdisciplinary conjunction occurring as two Italian architects, Saverio Muratori and Gianfranco Caniggia were also formulating urban structure typologies (Moudon, 1997) The interdisciplinary nature of looking at landscape form evolution really g ained ground during the 1970s with the solid merging of architectural views of form with those of geography under a European blend. A well written dissertation by Kropf (1993) found that the two disciplines actually formed common ground in the areas of for m that came together in unwitting emphasis on how form was broken down and therefore transferrable between the two. The formal recognition of this synchronicity did not occur until 1994, however, when European scholars and practitioners met to merge their thoughts as part of an international forum for studying urban form ( International Study on Urban Form) As a descendent of the European morphological discussion, M. P. Conzen (2001) suggested that Vance (1977) was t he first American geographer to integra te morphology into the American academic dialogue for evaluating urban structure and its evolution over time. Conzen soon followed up with his own application of urban morphology to American cities with two 1980 writings titled, What Makes the American Lan dscape and The Morphology of Nineteenth Century Cities in the United States During this time, the physical forms of the landscapes in the U nited States were

PAGE 70

70 b eginning to be read through the meanings they held by the cultures that created them. This is no t to say that the artifacts as objects and physical entities found in the actual, reality of a landscape are meaning filled by themselves but instead as meaningful when linked to the ecological reality given to the m by their human producers ( Gibson, 1979). The physical f orms in the landscape were then found to be laden with cultural meaning and indicators that included signs and symbols that were too elusive for understanding based only on what was observable visually. At this point, landscape form and culture was being synthesized in order to distill such meaning s (Whitehand, 1992). The notion that landscapes could indeed be read as texts bolstered several new foc i and discussions about them ( Duncan & Duncan 1987; Groth, 1997; Lewis, 1979; L ey, 1988 ; Meinig, 1979). In order to clarify this better, Lewis from the group immediately preceding, explained the importance of getting to the meaning of landscapes through reading because to decipher meaning in ordinary landscapes is inherently more difficult than interpreting other kinds of historic documents. Written documents, for example, like diaries, essays, or newspaper stories, commonly a re signed by their authors. These are of course meant to be read. If scholars are in doubt about what those written documents mean, they can ask the author to explain, or they can read what other commentators have written on the subject. But most ordinary human landscapes carry no signature and certainly cannot be attributed to any single person. Nobody can be tagged for the responsibility of making most commonplace landscapes, and there is seldom any identifiable person we can ask about what those landscapes mean ( Wilson & Groth, 2003, p. 89) Lewis was obviously suggesting that landscapes as created by human s were therefore suitable for reading by humans who shou ld be able to reveal for themselves the ir own inlaid stories that have become ingrained o nto the landscape tablet ; the stories became a sort of written diary. Because humans created this landscape ta blet, it was open for

PAGE 71

71 them to begin reading it, although it was not necessarily meant for their discerning perusal. Diagramming is a technique espoused by Francaviglia (1997) for reading cultural landscapes and separating the reading (identification) of a landscape from its interpretation (shaping forces) and perception (overall meaning), each ask ing d ifferent questions. He wrote that, asic patterns and relationships M. P. Conzen (2001) aptly suggested that the reading of any given landscape was due in major part by its being an authored work that could therefore be studied and read for the perceptions, intentions, actions, motives, etc ., which were inherent in the minds that created them, and placed into physical existence as valid works to b e read However, this socialized geography of places seemed too narrow to be use ful in explaining form, and s ub sequently form change in the built environme nt (Kropf, 1993) Role of urban morphology in understanding vernacular form The study of urban morphology renders to readers a discussion that forms produced in the human land scape are physical expressions of the humans as an aspect of the culture that m ade them Because of the necessary human influx into origin and generation, modification of form, and the nuances it represents can be interpreted with regard to those circumstances. This is akin to the artistic and meaningful authorization of the l andscape by humans, which fosters the idea that they can be read as texts, also subject to interpretation. However, urban morphology, as its name suggests, tends to sink into established city constructs that have long histories of change and development. I n my opinion, parts of urban morphology with its relevance

PAGE 72

72 to landscape study and consideration of change over time is quite useful for the purposes of my study. The built up character and development of small scale TFVs especially akin to those like Cortez, are not typically considered to represent the urban formation though extensive develop ment at the waterfront is fairly common. They are often isolated from the more dynamic incorporated areas that practitioners of urban morphology are d rawn to study. Yet, as highly developed town and village constructs, they have become urbanized over time, just not to the degree that the typical land use planner would think. Regarding Cortez, and its gridded street pattern, dense residential mosaic and active waterfront with specialized fishing industrial uses, the argument that i t has become urbanized is not difficult to maintain Whether this descriptor may be debated among built out form is easily analyzed under an urban morphologic al approach, or a hybrid of it, namely because the field considers the evolution of a place over its lifetime from its formation. The underlying premise of urban morphology then offers three requirements for studying form of the urban landscape, which can easily transfer to the study of the vernacular landscape. As cited by Moudon (1997), it first offers a working construct of urban form as consisting of buildings and associated s tructures, streets and town patterns or layout, and other spaces not included in the former. The construct that appears during particular timeframes is looked at as consisting of tissues that make up each large r area However Kropf (1993) identified this third aspect of other spaces as l and use, which he later suggested as being too unstable as a characteristic for defining form, rather antithetical to the purpose of his 1993 study. Second, it allows the built

PAGE 73

73 construct to be viewed under varying degrees o f focus, or resolution. For example, while form can be looked at from the smallest of artifacts, it can also be measurable and equally or more educative when considering it from b uilding/lot, street/block, city wide, or regional perspectives. Third, conside ration of any measurable resolution must apply a historical perspective since only what has been sufficiently accomplished can be studied as opposed to something that is still in the making. Since the landscape is rarely if ever, complete, that term was no t used here. So, urban morphology is applicable to my study because it completes the gap left from simply reading the landscape for its form determinants, by filling it in with the morphology background that has been fairly silent in American landscape studies, generally speaking. Sauer (1925) suggested that reading a landscape requires an eye pective and analysis. On the other hand, Peirce Lewis (1979) suggested that anyone can be trained to read the landscape as long as they know which questions to ask first. Whether a dynamic city or a small fishing village such as Cortez, both represent land scapes consisting of measurabl e, definable forms that result from the successive accumulation of the actions and activities of the individuals and groups that interacted with them, and perhaps most importantly, over a defined period of time that can be ana lyzed ( Moudon, 1997). Becaus e it has built in flexibility, urban morphology c an be used to study vernacular landscapes in a descriptive manner that elicits explanatio ns for form evolution and why they changed in the way s they did.

PAGE 74

74 Yet, a strict urban morp hological protocol also has shortcomings that do not completely fulfill t he requirements of my study though it is able to allow an appl ication of a partial consideration of form For one, it appears to retain the assumption that a planned site is consider ed to have form, although it is considered to be an un built form occurring as a committed design only I am hard pressed to conclude that a plan on paper with no physical implementation is representative of form as part of the evolution of a place though it has significance once acted upon Such inert representation is too vulnerable to alteration, with potential for not coming to fruition in the real world In the same study, Kropf also suggested that the pattern s of land utilization attributable to town formation are the least stable of urban morphology aspects. This means that the buildings encompassing land use schema change less frequently than the uses which control their non structural functions, which is a re asonable point, however not an absolute. Further, the building fabric would generally change faster than the overall town plan, including its street system, which are very resistant to change in the urban context (also see Larkham, 2005). This hierarchy ma y also lend one to believe that a town plan is subject to quicker change than the regional character that surrounds it, and so on. In addition, urban morphology seems to limit itself to a physical form construct that is otherwise visible and not suggestiv e as a form that feeds the contextual character of the town being studied. Admittedly, the programming reaches a wide explanation of how and why urban forms are created over time, which provides insights into the human actions. But, it does seem to fall sh ort of identifying many of the physical and non physical forms that separate one town from another. Therefore, the program

PAGE 75

75 appears to be incomplete unless additional programming is adde d as part of a hybrid approach, as proposed by the methodology of my study albeit toward a different purpose for answering certain research driven questions Role of h istorical ecology in understanding vernacular form Adherents to historical ecology espouse a deep multidisciplinary approach to understanding and stu dying the historic cultural landscape through events occurring over a time continuum (Crumley 1994). As Crumley further articulated historical humanities, and the Similar t he historical ecologist views humans as agents of environmental change, always transforming, creating, and managing landscapes and the structures within them as part of landscapes to su it their own needs and purposes. However, thi s control of the environment is not considered one of adaptation or limited opportunity, rather the human agents control and manipulate it to the degree they are able (Erickson 2008; Nich olson 2000). This is often in spite of the premise of c onstraints and opportunities put forward by Rapoport (1986; 1992) regarding vernacular architectural constructs in natural settings. Historical ecologists, as a group, are careful in their approach to using a dogmatic concept such as adaptation that has b ecome subjective and tautological vying instead for the more temporal and spatial terms such as mosaic and resilience that speak in terms of history with present and future implications ( Winter h alder 1994). In looking at vernacular archi tecture as part of the historic cultural landscape from a multiple scale, multiple source, cross referential and historical approach, an enhanced and perhaps more accurate understanding of it ma y be possible ( Andrzejewski 2007; Cole 2001; Egan & Howell 2001, p. 14; Jor dan & Kaups, 1987).

PAGE 76

76 The major benefit from considering temporal and spatial contexts is that they can 2008, p. 159). Because historical ecology avo ids viewing systems as always being stable, the same thought may be of interest when looking at vernacular architecture and landscape form, which should also be considered as an unstable, always changing entity that questions any notion of an optimal condi tion ( 1998; Lawrence 2006). In looking at the evolving character of Cortez as my referential study area, the historical ecologic approach becomes useful for looking at points in time where form could have been most or least s table such as before or after a major disaster, prior to certain tec hnological advances, or between economic booms. While I admittedly accept stability as a measure of degree rather than as a full blown length of time, the notion of cultural or form entrenchment offered by Hea th (2009) works well here as a manageable application. At present, historical ecology is considered a research program that operates sans paradigm under four postulates ( 1998; Egans & Howell, 2001) that include n early all, if not all, of the non human biosphere has been affected by human activity ; h uman activity does not necessarily cause degradation of living and non living species and systems, nor does it crea te a more habitable biosphere ; s ocieties impact lan dscapes in different ways, perhaps without having to adapt to them; and the interactions of multiple communities, cultures, and landscapes may be studied as total phenomena and hold clues to understanding the future. All told, historical ecology always i ncludes the necessary historical component, whereas, other approaches do not (Crumley 1994). It must be added here that cultural ecology and environmental history are two other fields where confusion exists in their

PAGE 77

77 differentiation from historical ecology The former has a tendency toward determinism and attempts to understand societies as they ultimately adapt to their environment, while historical ecology veers away from deterministic assumptions and attitudes (Carey 2007; Nicholson & 2000). H uman interaction with, and alteration of the environment is not typically viewed as a positive interaction under the cultural ecology paradigm (Lansing 2003). Environmental history, on the other hand, does look at human interaction with the natural world over long periods of time; however, it can focus on history as being the primary agent of change, or in the background as a secondary tool for studying human behavior ( 2006; Claxton 1985; Hughes 2001). Historical ecology attempts to identify inte rrelationships between humans and the biosphere in which they live and encourages regional answers to global issues ( & Erickson 2006). A n pproach to understanding vernacular f orm The historical ecologist has an opportunity to look at vernacular architecture and its culture and the environment, rather than on the adaptation of human beings to the 1998, p .14 ). Because of this, it may be better adapted to studying human built environments that are vernacular, and are often referenced as being more intimate with the environment (Noble 2007). The settle d history o f Cortez spans approximately 125 years. The historical ecologist would likely go further back in time in evaluat ing previous cultural landscapes as my study d oes, referring to it as the pre settlement period where the generative mind may reveal clues to the evolved form. Prior contexts are necessary considerations in

PAGE 78

78 order to understand how they may have influenced conditions that in turn, may have influenced subsequent agents using the landscape Because of the early fishing rancho activity documented along the Gulf of Mexico fringe uplands from the seventeenth century until the settlement period of Cortez during the late nineteenth century, t here were likely extant antecedents that contributed to its later form s that would typically go unnoticed under traditional review parameters. In examining the historic vernacular landscape of Cortez, where its recognized historical period as a vernacular village is established according to a prescribed formula, some scholars may be comfortable in precluding all segments of time outside of this parameter. Howeve r, as part of any attempt at understanding the origin and changes to the localized form, this limited view does not seem to work. For example, the publicly significant and recognized historic period for Cortez as prescribed in the 1995 National Register N omination, represents a time period of 1889 through 1944, inclusive The historica l ecologic view in looking at any surviving vernacular constructs would include the additional timeframe of anthropogenic interaction with in, and perhaps surrounding the vil lage landscape up to this historic period, and then evaluate what has happened since the historic period in order to provide reference points for activities before and after. For example, there is evidence that American Bahamian and Cuban fisher s occupie d the lands prior to the historic period now occupied by the Cortez settlement back to the eighteenth century, and of course, Native Americans befor e that (Fulford Green & Piland 1995 ; Stearns, 1887 ). Historical ecology is interested in how their constructs or impacts to the lands there have encouraged or influenced the way in which the peninsula of Cortez was

PAGE 79

79 altered. While my study does not include all human occupation periods, t here are several time periods that could add to the knowledge of the present vernacular construct in Cortez. For example the time periods included in the list below, offer a sampling of how time could be considered individually, and then synthesized for newer insights beyond j ust t he established historic period: 1995 to present (historic district effects such as design guidelines) ; 1970 to 1995 (policy, legislative controls, e.g., fish net bans environmental ) ; 194 6 to 1970 (p ost war g rowth) ; 1941 to 1945 (wartime influences); 1 921 to 1946 (post disaster event re covery ) ; 1887 to 1921 ( pre disaster original settlement) ; 1800 to 1887 (settler origins Civil War, rancho influence statehood ) ; 1500 to 18 00 ( Colonial, ranch, and aboriginal activity ) ; and Prior to 1500 (midden evaluation and paleo scientific analysis) From an intensive historic ecologic perspective, a n examination into a more inclusive timeframe could reveal more information of the existing vernacular constructs, the missing vernacular constructs along and over the waterfront, and the pre historic period built according to a prior vernacular or transferred knowledge In spite of references suggesting building traditions being brought from North Carolina, to date, t here is scant data regarding the origin of the influences of construction technology and local know how that was used by the Cortez settlers in constructing the vernacular landscape The 1995 Cortez National Register N omination (Fulford Green & Piland 199 5) Cortez National Register Historic District Design Guidelines ( Stevenson Architects, Inc., 2001 ), and published narratives include stylistic descriptions and basic materials information, but do not sufficiently consider overall vernacular form as it may have been derived from the local climate, topography, materials or earlier transferred traditions and resources. The value of incorporating at least some of the depth of the

PAGE 80

80 historical ecologist into my study is, therefore, self evident, even though I ha ve provided only a limited discussion of it here. Extended Vernacularism in the Cultural Landscape It is my contention that nearly every physical construct including those forms not typically obvious in the landscape, and that are then sometimes intangibl e are relevant to understanding both form and form change In some cases, this less noticeable form set may be able to provide the most important explanatory component of the overall vernacular landscape form, and therefore must be considered in order to tell a more complete story. For example, studying the vernacular houses or individual objects in a TFV without consideration of other contextual references that are available cannot possibly tell an adequate and meaningful story of the wider vernacular com munity, which may be less related to the dwelling than to the objects they used There is much more to a community, and a culture, than just the dwellings in which they live a notion that as I have already alluded goes beyond what some scholarly explora tions limit themselves to While my study may be very interested in how form changed in a single house, or even a whole grouping of houses, the wider influences of form change are not likely to be forthcoming from that form set without looking at the wider landscape. Yet, many writers of historic districts build context without the benefit of input from the wider landscape perspective J ackson (1984) urg ing to look at the expan ded vernacular to include those various developments of post World War II boom s such as ordinary rural landscapes of fields and front yard lawns, and even gas stations, dense mobile home parks and strip shopping malls opened up the possibilities of what landscapes were offering in terms of aesthetics, history, and meaning My study also choose s to go beyond the long

PAGE 81

81 standing limitations of vernacular as a type of building by extend ing the typical objects of study to now include lesser str uctures and artifacts, and intangible constructs that ntext ; this includes docks, watercraft, industry tools, the act of fishing, and the elapsed experiential form of memory and waning traditional knowledge. The extension of the vernacular realm, versus simply expanding the list of things described as vernacu lar, directs the researc her toward a more meaningful, connected and encompassing vernacular landscape ( Upton & Vlach, 1986). For example, a vernacular fishing village landscape may imply the inclusion of various tools and artifacts of the trade, but rare ly has the broad research boldly discussed such examples as part of the vernacular form that has waxed or waned in importance over time. This may be especially true for fishing grounds that appear to be disconnected, or removed from the commonly accepted consideration of what a landscape is supposed to consist of. However, Chiarappa (2005) did finally bring this into the discussion. It is also true for watercraft, which have certainly changed dramatically over time as technology moved along, but again, on ly few researchers such as C h iarappa (2007) and Mellin ( 2003) have focused on them as integral parts of the contextual vernacular system By including the additional vernacular artifacts, the landscape a nd study opportunity now become extended beyond what has been typically tallied and considered as part of the overall set I recognize th e argu m e nt that these types of elements may have already been included in some of the vernacular discursive to date, yet other than the strides made by Chiara ppa and Mellin, I can find little research on the topic unless I make assumptions and attempt to infer from the literature that is already available In

PAGE 82

82 examining this conundrum, it is important to shed at least some light on what the literature does provi de in this regard since it is a critical element of my research. One of the earliest discussions falls back to material culture studies when, i n 1968, Henry Glassie discussed the 50 year diffusion of the flat bottomed skiffs called sharpies from their appa rent beginning in Connecticut to Key West. The se sharpies, as watercraft were also found by other researchers to exist in early Cortez, and are precise examples of the extended vernacular that reveal an additional and important facet in certain cultural la ndscapes. In this case, Glassie highlights how communication between fishers must have been extraordinary in that it allowed the watercraft artifact to become so common among fishers, along such a wide geographical range, and within a relatively brief peri od of time In my opinion, Glassie conveniently extended the vernacular landscape, and open ed up the opportunity for more thickly describing the element as part of a cultural landscape that is altogether and simultaneously local, regional, and inter regional. This type of discussion of the sharpie actually feeds the context of the TFV since the context itself was in part shaped by the sharpie. It takes only a small amount of historical knowledge of TFVs to understand the impact of the sharpie de sign on early fishing villages and how form was shaped by them across the vernacular landscape, whether it be the yards where they may have been consistently stored, the water/land interstice where they were accessed for daily use, or as part of the fishin g grounds where their configuration changed as part of a fishing team with other sharpies. Of course, t he sharpie represents only a single example of how the vernacular landscape extends beyond the typical primary building construct Other scholars

PAGE 83

83 recogn ized the importance of material artifacts as cons idered elements, but without necessarily connecting them to the wider form of the landscape. Individual artifacts may have been discussed, but more so on an individual basis. Oliver (1977) briefly brought t o light the influence of the shape of watercraft on dwelling form. Ley (1988), in writing about the consideration of structures and wider landscapes acknowledged barns, fences, and virtually every human made object as artifacts of material culture, which i n turn, become part of a particular cultural landscape that was driven by at least some contextual underpinning. Bourne (1989) perhaps unwittingly, provided excellent photographic documentation of the extended vernacular within the traditional fishing con text as well as, good descriptions of a changing watercraft technology that began prior to 1900 in his essays on historic fishing communities of New England; however, there is an apparent lack of scholarly inclusion beyond simply describing these extended features. In seeking to explain the strange pleasures of the senses stirring in his mind Farnham (1879) described the toil that was going on around him from his late nineteenth century walk along the docks and wharves in New York City Well over 100 yea rs later, scholars such as Rapoport (1992) were relating sensual contributors such as smell, sound, and temperature along with the usual visual elements in the landscape as not necessarily being part of the landscape, but as being able to influence how one experiences it, and in turn, how these influences could alter the descriptive experience of it. For example, the clear sounds of a bustling fishing village dock would likely change how some people would describe the surrounding landscape, versus a descrip tion completed while it was inactive and quiet, or at n ight. Yet, the idea of the intangible

PAGE 84

84 elements as a part of the landscape certainly emerges and supports my extended vernacular discussion. Getting back to more current scholarly work, Chiarappa (2005 ) was quite clear in recognizing how the gamut of material culture contributes to the local interstice of land/water cultural landscapes. Regarding Great Lakes fisheries, he wrote that the scattered vernacular building there may not have been a direct visual connection, I am impressed to interject here that direct visual connections do not have to be present since it is impossible for all connections to a fishing village to be visible at once, even those that are in close proximity. They are still essential parts of the vernacular setting, though Chiarappa was somewhat limited in his clarification of the idea, as he went on to suggest that certain artifacts such as the pound net fishery, which was closer to shore, and, therefore, In continuing his earlier discussion, Chiarappa (2007) alluded to an exten sion of the vernacular by looking back in time to the bushel baskets, barrels, shell piles, horse drawn wagons, etc., that made up a 1908 oystering dock at the land/water interstice. This is also a representation of the extended form that while less apparent is not necessarily less important as artifacts that contribute to the context of the wider vernacular landscape. In some fishing villages, this type of form was long standing and steadfast, and did not change quickly, representing a more stable t ype of form while other forms were changing. Chiarappa also extended the form to echo what Rapoport was getting at

PAGE 85

85 ificant sights and artifacts (p. 99). Walter (198 8) suggested that these characteristic sensory elements often contribute to the meaning of place. Heath (2009) recognized the importance of extending the household vernacular of a New England regional expres sion to include rear dwelling entry areas and yards for exploring the differences between the expected design of a building and that of the more vernacular social, or cultural reality that occurred through use and adaption. Muir (2007) al so recognized how artifacts in TFV the habitable village construct itself is contextually represented in the form of buildings, docks, and infrastructure a s extensions over the water and into the foreshore and beyond (p. 188) While the above scholars and presumably others appear to have already ventured into partial or incomplete expla n ations of the extended vernacular forms of contextual landscapes, some of which certainly relate to maritime landscape settings, they stopped just short of completing their examinations, though they certainly established a good founda tion for examining it further Therefore, at least some connection to previously published work and literature is applicable here External TFVs Already Studied There are several outstanding histories and ethnographic accounts of TFVs from areas outside of Florida that I researched as important referential data sets that contributed to a better understanding of the overall maritime vernacular form discussion. Lancaster (1972) wrote a remarkable study of the architecture of Nantucket that captured its historic importance as one of the primary fisheries of the Northeast. Later, fishing

PAGE 86

86 communities of New England captured some of the best descriptions of the buildings, structures, and extended form I was able to find during my entire research process. Michael Chiarappa and Robert Mellin, both professors at Canadian universities ha ve dedicated much of their research careers to TFVs and have provided outstanding descriptions of the vernacular architecture in the traditional fishing settings of the Great Lakes and Nova Scotia. I also examined very good descriptions (versus deeper anal ysis) of TFVs in European contexts such as Scotland (Nadel Klein, 2003), Ireland (Peace, 2001), and England (Savage, 1952; Muir, 2007). Theoretical and Applied Foundations of Form Based Structure and Concepts Workings of Vernacular F orm The handling of form is not an easy task as I state throughout my study. In spite of a wide number of academic and practical discussions of form as both a concept and a design feature, its use as a concept applied to the historic vernacular landscape is not easily underst ood or used consistently. In architecture, form could be understood as a particular style that conjures up images of buildings that look a certain way or reveal a trend of construction. The style becomes a form that consists of multiple forms of rooflines, projections, adornments, massing, etc. In landscape architecture, form may consist of how the physical land is shaped by natural and human influences, and the backdrop it produces. In art, f orm appears as an interaction between the artist, the medium, and the viewer. In cognitive science, form may reveal itself as part of a concept that the mind comprehends, but has difficulty expressing visually. Therefore, f orm is highly subjective and can be finite with a purely distinguishable shape and outline, or it can be boundless, subject to interpretation. Extreme v ariations of form appear in all disciplines, and therefore, in all cultures and in all settings

PAGE 87

87 The most basic applications of form consist of the appearance of an outward shape or definition. For exa mple, the form of a circle is usually implied to mean having a round form. Likewise, a cardboard box may often be thought of as square or rectangular, whereas, a cloud in the sky may be ex pressed as having an am o e bic or irregular form, but still outwardly bound. One definition of form found in The American Heritage Dictionary (Morris, 1991) as distinguished from p. 525). Unfortunately, there are 18 additional definitions that follow it, which the learner must choose as the most applicable. To make matters of form even more confus ing, some scholars, such as Miller ( 1939), open up open up the possibility that form may only be contained in the mind and not in the artifacts of culture. This i s understandable since it is culture that requires and applies definitions within its own rubric of cognitive and perceptual understandings. I prefer not to venture much further into the origins and variations of form regarding an extensive literature revi ew since it unnecessarily prolongs the focus of my research for exploring form in the landscape. While I minimally discuss this perceptual problem of form later in my study, some review of the literature regarding vernacular form is warranted at this point T here is a modicum of scholarly debate regarding vernacular architecture as a term, and there is also similar debate related to how vernacular architecture is evaluated in ligh t of the various forms it takes, within, among, and between regions, and acco rding to a variety of influences. This section is guided by the framework of Rapoport (1969 ), who advocate d for using multiple approaches in architectural st udies, as a basis for discussing an open theoretical approach to the form basis of dwellings.

PAGE 88

88 Howev er, Rapoport did not attempt to align strictly with t his particular point of view on all aspects of form but he did acknowledge its exploratory thrust In his early categorization of form influences, Rapoport identified seven broad contributors to vernacular form including climate, materials, site, defense, economics, religion, and gy, Nabokov and Easton (1989) also provided a similar framework but include d additional form contr ibutors of technology, society and history. While vernacular form can be a rather bias regarding the impossibility of coming up with an ultimate form determinant is evident in his work on Native American vernacular dwellings. Tho ugh he considered the entire list of possible form det erminants, Nabokov did suggest (p. 16). Fathy (1973 ), in looking at establishing a vernacular v illage, considered the (p. 17). A review of generative and environmental f orm s Ge nerative form. Before fully investigating the indicators of form in the TFV setting, a brief discussion is warranted to establish a familiarization with the origination and development of form in the human mind as a precursor to it in shaping the vernacula r landscape and cultural landscapes in general Overall context of the cultural landscape may be more rounded and have more meaning if connections can be made to the instinctual and original form drivers. Since vernacular architecture is suggestive of for ms that develop out of traditional knowledge experience, and localized cond itions, then it is conceivable that vernacular landscapes develop at least in part from already

PAGE 89

89 established precedents Therefore, in theory, the genesis of form in the historic ve rnacular landscape may actually beg in prior to the arrival to a site of the culture that began to create it. Lewcock (2006) discussed how the human mind references its memories and emotions as part of its expression into built form. This expression is a result that can either be individualistic and aesthetic, or it can be based on a collective whole, or cultural. It can be argued that a f uture form of a place pre existed in a small collective of e or a setting for establishing their worldview of trade and living. This preconception of form, that is, what ha s been already generated or pre is what will be carried forward and then altered as the multitude of form determinants such as environmental social, and political factors, as well as, individual events weigh in on the form building process Generative form amounts to experiential circumstances that are virtually unlimited in number and too complex and p ersonalized for detailed analysis here. However, the importance of origins to studying the varieties of form within any cultural landscape is worthy of some discussion since Cortez is a highly contextual entity. In Cortez, ference, there are clues that can be explored for revealing how and why form took the shapes it did there. While, difficult to verify, the close scrutiny of possibilities includes the forms brought with the origin al settlers from previous lived in and work ed places. Rapoport (1986) discussed built form as part of an already existing concept in the mind of the builder based on prior cultural experience. experienced.

PAGE 90

90 While thi s generative forming is an unwieldy subject to illustrate graphically, it can be expressed through drawings in order to provide a brief analysis of possible form Point Figure 2 1 borrows f rom the three indicator sets by illustrating th e influences that settlers may have been exposed to and experien ced. In this case, location as part of the village layout, erected structures as part of the buil ding mosaic and watercraft as part of extended vernacular are included as part of a form influence and conjecture task related to origins of form The sketches p rovide examples of the dominant vernacular forms t hat could have been established as part of the generative form building by the settlers. Though the graphics sketched as individual, yet orderly tiles are generalized without deep descriptive discussion, they provide possible references into how the landscape was informe d that eventually resulted in the TFV of Like many of the form graphics in my study, Figure 2 1 is a working quick sketch that assumes three types of dominant contributing form s. Highly sophisticated or perfected illustrations are not requi red since the drawn form is not the primary object of study; instead, it is a means to revealing forms for easy visual comparison. For the location tiles, f uture village layout is ultimately dependent upon topographical considerations so the basic coastal geographical formations are illustrated and compared between the origin Carteret County coastal system, to Cedar Keys, where some of the settlers worked for a time, followed by what appeared through the historical evidence within a few y ears after its settlement. The top row illustrates the three indicators as prominent and historically accurate to be found in

PAGE 91

91 their North Carolina origins of birth. In this case, the geographic forms of the Bogue and Core Sound ecosystem s near the Outer Ba nks where they supposedly continued the handed down fishing tradition formulated a precise pre settlement form for the act of fishing The basic fish industry structures prominent in the area are also illustrated, followed by the type of watercraft used in that area ; in this case, a spritsail skiff as part of the extended vernacular known to be common around the North Carolina coast The same treatment is applied to an aspect of building mosaic and the extended vernacular forms. In the case of the building mosaic, the typical building to have occurred in the village is outlined, while the watercraft form based on archival photographs is presented to illustrate the dominant form in that category. All of the forms found in the first two rows of illustrations in Figure 2 1 could have ultimately been reflected in the subsequent Cortez form elements sketched as part of the bottom row. The second row illustrates their exposure to the same indicators afterward, while in the Cedar Keys. This is then followed by the th ird row, which illustrates post generative documented forms again of the same indicators period. While no detailed analysis of the generative form is proposed as part of my study, it is certainly interesting, as basi c as it is in the illustrations, to understand the concept of the generative mind with regard to future form and its possible origins and influences. Now, to be clear, this discussion of generative forms is all really just conjecture as part of my study There are many conditions and circumstances that could have contributed to the generative minds of the fishers and settlers Researchers m ay never really know exactly how form originated before and during the

PAGE 92

92 s Point; they may have simply wanted a better life and had long talked of settling a village somewhere that eventually came to fruition through the simplicities of timing, synchronicity, and good luck This desire alone could have generated a form already preconceived in each of their minds or collectively while the majority of the settlers were still in Carteret County Up to 1880, the rapidly growing Menhaden industry was forming a s a post war economy with its new fishing and harvesting methods The struc ture of the indust ry, changing as it did from pre war mentalities, labor hierarchies, and traditional methods, may have caused many locals to become wary of an unwelcome shift in fishing on the local waters. In spite of available work and a rising economic infrastructure, the change of tradition alone may have caused many to seek new lives of prosperity elsewhere, in frontier areas, where tradition could be sustained and rebirthed. Surely there was tremendous opportunity for jobs along the coast of North Car olina as the maritime industr ies ramped up and g ot even bigger with the depletion of Menhaden in Maine by 1879 T his economic restructuring may have caused many locals to think of the emergence of the expanding industry as a savior to the local economy. However, t he may have changed their minds somewhere along the way based on how they experienced Florida when they got t here. According to historical records, three of the original settlers who were related as brothers were ra ised on a large tract of land fronting the Bogue Sound in North Carolina. Yet, the land was apparently used primarily for agricultural purposes; commercial fishing was not referenced as a primary pursuit, though it is highly likely that at least some forms of it were employed by family members due to location and

PAGE 93

93 subsistence needs. This could have kindled the passion for fishing as a vocation to be pursued by the brothers. Sev eral historians ( Green, n.d. ; and Hepburn & Bleyer, 1980) the difficulties of reestablishing available markets from the pre war fishing booms. Yet, this notion does not seem to jive with the historic record of the emerging Me nhaden industry. While not part of my stud y, a n even thicker analysis may reveal a reduced market system for fishers general ly speaking subject to a more controlling corporate influence This new structure could certainly have been a major threat to traditional fishers of the area, prompting many to reconsider relocation were part of a subdivi sion of land sponsored by a non fisher landowner pr ior to the purchases Not a lot of information is known about any inf luence the fishers had on its layout if any This could have happened as part of a simple discussion from another local while at a public square in North Carolina or in the Cedar Keys where they had access to well over 250 other fishers sp awn ing the idea in one of the settlers who then shared it with his kin and friends. Regardless, the important thing to consider here is that was already being generated in the minds of the settlers somehow, based on what the y had experienced to that time While it is known that most of the original settlers were from North Carolina, and that five of the original 15 were brothers from North Carolina, the re cord is unclear as to their pre settlement relationships with the others who were also from North Carolina. This renders an incomplete narrative without further analysis showing the amount of thick description necessary for many deep explorations into form and its influences

PAGE 94

94 Since there is documentation that the original set tlers hailed from coastal North Carolina as part of long standing traditional fishing families, then each of them has a lifelong association with coastal and maritime forms prevalent within that context. It is no surprise then that they gravitated to other coastal areas on their journey to settling Cortez. A researcher could overanalyze, or more thickly describe the roots of the journey by thoroughly studying the origin forms from North Carolina, as well as, those forms that could have influenced them in the Cedar Key s However, detailed study and graphic presentations of this is unnecessary since I am concerned with form change as it occurred in Cortez. However, it is important to note here that some of these experiences, as part of the generative formati on could have influenced subsequent form in Cortez, and this is good to know, and serves well as a referential consideration Establishing a village often begins with understanding its geography and topography as part of a physical location and area. Unde viewpoint then must also include studying th ese aspect s as well (Roberts, 1996). Typically, fishers look for small, safe, sheltered harbors, alee from extremely dynamic coastal influences that prior experience fondles with and suggests in the generative causing at least 40 deaths. With this event, and similar storms that occurred annually through 188 3 still fresh in their minds, it is easy to conjecture that the Cedar Keys primary point of activity was perhaps too vulnerable to such events for the North Carolina settlers to feel comfortable in establishing permanence As a group of islands connected b y a large estuary system, there could have been sheltered areas away from the main docks that the settlers would have found

PAGE 95

95 suitable but other factors appeared to have steered them from the Cedar Keys Out migration from North Carolina due to a series of major events including natural disaster and a reduced economy were likely powerful contributors to the generative mind. Certainly, the Cedar Keys experience did not to translate into its own fully effected form s the experience of severe natural events a necessary prerequisite to its subsequent form. It is easy to find documentation of fishers experiencing the destructive effects of tropical storm winds on the forms they built, only to follow up with a similar replacement. Regardin g the pre settler itinerary, a ll of the stopping points were isolated terminal points, all occurring on islands and part of coastal maritime fishing landscapes versus riverine type resources. While the Cedar Key s are directly located on the Gulf of Mexico with little shelter from the effects of strong wind and tidal events, Carteret County coastal areas and reflect ed a similarity in coastal topography in that they were each enclosed by a barrier island system. The barrier island band found al ong the ecosystem is strikingly similar to the Bogue Sound barrier island formation, albeit at a much smaller scale. While at first blush this basic understanding does not prove anything without the proper evidence, a thicker analysis could reveal an inherent desire by the settlers to mimic the familiarity of the environment in which they were traditionally raised and had at least a modicum of comfort for. In his book, Finest Kind Ben Green (1985) reported that the natural fo rmation and structure of the sheltered cove at were appealing natural elements for the settlers. Th ough there was no easy overland transportation yet available to y some of them as part of earlier fishing

PAGE 96

96 expeditions to the peninsula and its surrounding bays or as part of a word of mouth scenario. Further anecdotal evidence is provided by Green who suggested that the settlers found the re conducive for establishing a residence versus the unprotected, more volatile wind and tidal prone shoreline on Perico Island. The reference to Perico Island appears to be somewhat misleading. B ased on historical plat maps, only one of the original settl ers W. J. Foreman, appeared to own property or had family ties to Perico Island per se J ames E. Guthrie, J. T. Flowers, and Augustine Willis owned property east of Perico Island near Palma Sola erty there appeared to be well protected. However, it is possible though, in spite of prior investments, that this upper extent of Palma Sola Bay was construed by them as being not as productive, and certainly less accessible to the fishing grounds as the lands of whereas, in the Cedar Keys the bays were smaller, more enclosed, with a much lower energy coastal system. Now, early Carteret County fishers were no ted for their prowess as whalers. However, this does not mean that all of them were only whalers. It is likely that mullet were equally plentiful in the bays and sounds that inundated Carteret County and that mul let fishing already was a locally entrenche d activity for subsistence and commercial incorporations of the culture In fact, the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort provides an interpretive display that cites mullet as the most valuable finfish in the area until at least the 1950s. Its impor tance was, coincidental ly, only second to that of the West C oast of Florida supporting the mullet industry

PAGE 97

97 entrenched character in the coastal North Carolina culture as referenced later in Chapter 4 w popularized branding a s being etched into the local culture Some scholars would argue, such as Stilgoe (1982) did, that the waterfront accounted for the first view, the first experience by the sett lers who would create the human built forms on it. Since my study is not intended to be a n overly deep discussion of cognitive theory, I will not venture further about it here, but it is important to understand that cultural form on the landscape had to begin somewhere in the human mind and that form itself becomes so complica ted that not all of it can be considered as part of a study that attempts to understand how it changes over time. My study recognizes this limitation of landscape form interpretation under a single project, though a method that looks at context is a reason able start to a better paradigm of examination in this regard. In 1986, Rapoport s uggested that form derives from culture and the conceptual framework it already carries with it, though the culture itself is not necessarily what is translated into the form built. He saw form a s created individually through both orderly and random cumulative strategies guided by choice decisions and personal preferences. This is important in establishing a framework of form in the historic vernacular landscape of Cortez over time, since the physical evidence of form that remains, whether extant artifact or documented evidence, can rarely be attributed to a cultural steadfastness. The locale and the inherent materials, accessibility, weather, etc., all add ed to the original an d evolving form. The form was modified along the way

PAGE 98

98 incrementally as the scope of circumstances changed too. This included internal cultu re, as well as, external cultural influences Occupationa l motivations also produce conceptual images in the generati ve mind that lead to conceptualized form, perhaps most notably in the natural landforms where the study community will settle; in this case, the desire to operate and live freely to pursue a long standing family trade prompted the original settlers to envi sion a property that made that trade possible. Access to the waterfront and the larger harvest areas such as the bays, inlets, rivers, and coast was probably a strong element in the generative mind of those settlers. In the case of the settl ers, notions of landform were likely modified by the natural landforms found in the coastal area of Carte ret County, North Carolina, their place of origin. However, it may have been modified by their experiences on the way to As discussed somewhat earlier, e conomics also plays an important role in continuing and fostering form in the generative mind. The ability to earn a living must economic hardships enc ountered by many southerners after the Civil War ended. Many southern towns during the Civil War found their buildings and infrastructures destroyed requiring significant rebuilding, though reports suggest that the mullet fishing industry in Carteret Count y was still going strong, second only to the harvests from Florida waters. The drying up of m arket connections and linkages required long term recoveries. A necdotal evidence suggests that the original settlers had a strong desire to move to Florida to prov ide the growing lumber industry at Cedar Keys with fresh fish (Green, n.d.). The ready market of a growing industrial hub along with available land

PAGE 99

99 been strong inde ed. Rapid land development is another contributor Since the railroad provided direct linkages to Cedar Keys from coastal North Carolina there was an easier relocation incentive for them to end up there, as we ll as, a supportive foundation in the form of a growing economy However, the Cedar Keys was not a purely fishing economy, overshadowed by lumber, warehousing, transportation, and other industries. Mullet fishing, which the settlers were most likely culturally entrenched with, mingled with other types of fishing including sponging and oystering there. All of these overlapping industries could have created a commerce system that was too energetic and non conducive to the fishing oriented atmosphere desired by the future settlers; perhaps the Cedar Keys were simply just too crowded. Nevertheless, t he Cedar Keys may have been an intentional stopping point as the original settlers formulated bi gger ideas and concepts of self sufficie ncy in their generative minds that eventually brough t Environmental form. If geography and topography are considered part of environmental form, then I have already touched upon the impacts on the human constructed form in the preceding discussions found in the literature. Of course there are more quintessential elements of environmental form that can be applied here. from which b uilt form comes into being ( p. 29). M. P. Conzen (2001 ) reiterated th e

PAGE 100

100 development is shaped (p. 9). In both senses, a natural area was indicative of the cont extual form it would become, which deferred in a sense to the natural boundaries of lying topography, and placement within a bay system versus a riverine or open ocean system The effects of natural occurrences play an importan t, overarching role in a variety of the human cultural forms created. This is especially true of the vernacular village layout, which can be defined, limited or advanced, depending on the lay of the land. The natural features create an implied, almost de f acto form, though this is not always the case after the human generative mind begins working it. Because the debate on the built form continues to linger, it is looked at as an implied characteristic of the human form that follows. The ontological confusion that follows an exploration of form when attempting to determine an influence priority, i.e., the human less or human involved breadth, establishes two separate foci: first, one that follows a line of reasoning toward nat ure without humans; and the second as one that includes them. The former separates huma ns as distinct from nature (refer to the historical ecology discussion earlier in this chapter ). Several vernacular scholars after Glassie, from Rapoport (1986 ) to Muir (2007) referenced a sort of interdependence between the lay of the land and understanding the human built environment added to its natural ness. It is no surprise then that both the visual and non visual forms that become part of it may be highly influe nced by it. A highly elevated upland area that leads to a bay and the working waterfront will likely include forms that become important contributors to the vernacular landscape such as in the way of access features required by its topography, similar to h ow a flat

PAGE 101

101 shore/upland area could reveal its own unique form. Both dwellings and non residential buildings may be constructed similarly between topographies and along a wide geographic line; however, the minor components such as how dock systems are constr ucted and appear from the water or from the internal village may represent distinctions of form that require evaluation for determining over form change within a landscape. These extended types of form may be able to communicate both broad and community s pecific changes in form due to a variety of forces internal and external. While Jackson (1984) described landscapes as being synthetic forms as opposed to ones that are natural, there is an integration that occurs between various forms found in nature and the human constructs built on, around, in, or near them. In historic vernacular landscapes, it is safe but not always accurate to assume that the natural forms of topography, water frontage, soil types, water depths, etc., can be read as starting points fr om which to separate human forms prior to any integration between them (Stilgoe, 1982). Peace (2001) discussed how certain extended vernacular forms in some Irish fishing villages were shaped in part according to how the natural waterway floors accumulated silt. This limitation of navigable water depths defined watercraft size, which speaks to its form. If a new settler on an undeveloped natural shore carries forward from a prior place a certain watercraft shape, size, and function, already developed as a c onceptual form, it is obviously limited in this new place and may have to be modified accordingly, so either a new form develops, or an old, traditional form is modified or adapted to the new circumstances. Whereas, at the time of settlement of oint the form of the land began as an already human effec ted land, or pre settlement state, it can nevertheless be

PAGE 102

102 described as a southern facing, flat, low lying peninsula consisting mostly of pine woodlands over a palmetto scrub, which serves as a background to a human constructed artifact below a sweeping sky, surrounded (or approached) on three sides by a shallow bay of sand flats and estuaries, with an abundance of apparent fishing grounds (and therefore sea bounty) visible to the naked eye. Whil e some kind of natural form was present being purely natural (pristine) is a subject of much debate, but most likely it was in a state of natural ness with at least some evidence of human disturbance available for scruti ny. Now, it is arguable which form comes first, environmental or generative. It is valid to argue that the environmental form must exist before the human mind can conjure up forms to place in it and to avoid a tautological argument, it is left as that. Emb edded factors in the human mind such as shelter, the proper topography, and the apparent availability of building materials may represent the same forces that determine the form (Steen, Steen, & Komatsu, 2003). Such a purely environmenta l istic determini sm for is not likely since there are so many entrenched traditions that have played out within the weathering of their particular culture. It can then be argued that for latent environments, such as in Corte z, at least some essence of pre con ceived form is already laden in the human mind as a generative concept. Regardless, for the purposes of this paper, I am not too concerned with order here since I can cho o se one as occurring before the other and still sufficiently explore how vernacular f orm changes over time. I am also not concerned with the oft d ebated argument of whether human agency, as part of nature, represents a natural endeavor.

PAGE 103

103 These are topics for another research project. For the purposes of my study, I am separating the two as distinct from each other. While I already mentioned several reasons for why was chosen as a settlement location because of its sheltering character, its southern exposure to the light and heat radiation could also be contributing factors. Wh ile most of the upland areas are similar in elevation within the greater coastal Gulf of Mexico region, with much of it occurring at the three to four foot elevation above sea level, uplands can generally be ruled out for a thorough examination herein. In this case, I am not restricted to land based assumptions, but also must look at the available water resources. This also begets an intermediary system of lowlands that often serve as a transition between uplands and the water. Remember, there were no reco nnaissance flights available at the time to help bluffs, rock formations, or other natural topographic feature s that seem to differentiate the upland areas except the am ount of them. Instead, the intermediate lowland areas and the water become the most import ant. Intermediate areas consist of low lying occurring on a large part of uplands wo uld not likely have been preferred since they were not historically favored, and more likely looked at as darker, unhealthy places that fostered disease. T concurrently with the settlement of Hunt that would likely have played a role in how they were considered by the settlers In fact, by perhaps the most devout industrialist bent on draining swamps Hamilton Disston.

PAGE 104

104 However, t hat is yet another story outside of the scope of my research but worthy of mention Natural non upland features should also be considered as influencing factors However, the intermediate area of the foreshore, that transitional area between the uplands and the low tidal inundation was important. This is how access would be gained and shared so there needed to be a lot of it if an actual village community was to be established. A long stretch of tapering, sandy beach would have allowed reasonable The obvious waterfront conglomeration, to be discussed later in more detail, was p erhaps the most important consideration for requiring a suitable foreshore area. After all, the waterfront conglomeration is the quintessential mix of context feeding re volved. The inquiry into how buildings were elevated above the water speaks to overall form of the building mosaic and the piers and net camp systems that were obviously elevated based o n a particular form for extending the waterfront vernacular. Upland e levations of buildings are also relevant here since it is the influence, or confluence I should say, of the lowland and water resources that could allow for an effect of that particular form. Form here is differentiated as a distinct form since the degree of treatment toward elevating a structure may lead to an inherent and distinct form identifier. These are all inherent forms within the generative mind based on prior knowledge and experience individually or collectively

PAGE 105

105 Of course, the water or fishing grounds as the primary resource for their fishing activity was paramount. This is the obvious contextual parameter that is a value added benefit for researching form in a village, i.e., the water dependent nature of their activity and the form s that are identified from it. While it could suffice to say that any type of water would have been suitable as long as the bounty from it was available, the Sarasota Bay ecosystem provided a nearly unmatched bounty teeming with available harvesting output s that lacked the intense competition probably found in the Cedar Keys and even Carteret County with their longer established histories. The sandy, shallow flats came close to matching the types of fishing enterprise the settlers were accustomed to in Cart eret County, and where they could transfer both methods of fishing and fishing gear more readily, based on their own adaptations, if necessary. So, the form of the harvest area or fishing gro unds appears as a physical form that may actually be better terme d as intangible since they are temporal and changing, unpredictable, and where the actual element that defines them, the sea life, is rarely visible except in how one reads the water or follows shadows, or knows the tides. This is where the intangible fo rm begins to meet the physical form. The intangible vernacular extension is through the ways in which space is ordered, econo mics impact them, and how the cognitive relat ionships unfold about them ( Domosh, 1989). These obviously require thicker analysis programs that allow the subtext of landscapes to be read. Determinants of Vernacular Form Change Perhaps the most compelling foray of my study hovers around the rigorously debated inquiries to date into wh at the literature has uncovered regarding the

PAGE 106

106 determinants of vernacular form change TFVs represent distinct cultural enclaves with strong senses of local identity and unique sets of traditional knowledge (McGoodwin & FAOUN 2001; Smith, 1977). Some contemporary scholars theorize that certain architectural forms are not found to be determined by the convenience of any single natural or cultural factor and are instead, rather ca pricious (Edwards, 1980), while others have discussed that basic form is derived from socio cultural determinants that may have primacy over all other influences ( Lawrence, 2000; Nabokov & Easton, 1989; also see Rapoport, 1969, p.47). Rapoport (1986) late r tempered his earlier view by s in buildings ebb and flow according to at least six factors including site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and miscellaneous stuff. Glassie (2000) accepted culture as having a role in but saw cultural processes as being less i nfluential than the natural environment in setting the basis for it s ultimate realization The notion of any landscape, as a form coming to an ultimate fruition may be a fiction since the more comprehensive a form is, the less static it becomes That is, t he form of a ny landscape, serving as a repository for infinite influences and goings on could rarely if ever, be considered complete and finished This is in contrast to the smaller, material object for example, a fishing watercraft though part of the wi der landscape, that may be designed and serve its useful purpose, but could conceivably reach its end, never to be physically touched again. The question of whether the memory of it that d oes remain as some type of intangible form is another

PAGE 107

107 matter for exp loration. Religion ( Memarian & Brown, 2003), economics ( Rapoport, 1969), function (Carter & Cromley, 2005; Noble, 2007), and aesthetics (Lewcock, 2006; Rapoport, 1982) all contend with other modifying determinants of change suggesting the unlikely design a ttributed to that o f a single determinant. It is rare to find detailed discourse on form change within the TFV context over a broad scope of time. However, discourse of origins and diffusion, as well as, evolution of vernacular form of buildings can be found in detail (Edwards, 1980; Jordan & Kaups, 1987; Kniffen, 1936, 1965). Glassie (1968) discussed origins, but not necessarily vernacular form change, though he did address the notion of vernacular form from the wider landscape perspective through his i dentification of regional patterns (and some non regional examples), not only limited to buildings, but also including trade craft and vessels. This extension of vernacular description is highly s uggest ive of the extended vernacular form that underlies the focus of my research. Savage (1952), in discussing eighteenth century English towns referred to three primary determina nts of form change in the sea ports there to include the advances of industrial machinery and processes, methods of transport, and compe tition with other ports. Savage saw what appeared to be a rather healthy yet disciplined relationship between towns that spurred form change since they acted as living entities that had to keep up with the latest economic strategies that in turn, fostered physical, as well as social changes. Of course, he was sure to mention that environmental form changes were also evident in waterfron t areas as human sponsored environmental alterations such as shoreline reconfiguration, canal digging, and road and rail r ights of way resulted fro m the local and regional economic engine.

PAGE 108

108 However, in understanding vernacular landscape form change and its linkages to cultural factors, process and objectification must be closely examined (Robertson & Richards, 2003). A dispari ty still exists between scholars about whether vernacular (and perhaps its overall form) is an object to look at or a process to be explained, though the trend has steered toward the latter (Davis, 2006; Heath, 2009; Ingold, 1993; Mitchell, 1994; Ozkan, 20 06; Rapoport, 2000; Robertson & Richards, 2003; Wells, 1986). Larkham (2005 ) reminded scholars that examination s of form as part of a wide variety of processes have largely been going on since at least the 1980s. Carter and Cromley (2005) also recognized t Longstreth (1999) admonished scholars and practitioners when he suggested that vernacular, being a process and not a style or object, im proves how the wider landscape perspective can be viewed through the inclusion of meaning, whereby approaching vernacular from a stylistic point of view reduces the availability of meaning ful exploration. He went on to suggest that while it is appropriate to look at buildings and describe them, other factors are necessary for advancing beyond mere description such as building methods, industrial practices, economic concerns, and what he refers to as cultural patterns. All of this dialogue highlights the ong oing disparities that muddy the notion of what is actually changing in vernacular settings the process or the object. In 2005, Carter and Cromley discussed a dramatic vernacular building form change due to new technology occurring 200 years ago when the c entral fireplace of the main living area shifted to a stove unit for which a small addition was constructed; however, they recognize such a major shift as a rare occurrence (p. 15). Rice (2003)

PAGE 109

109 began to see dramatic vernacular building change in contempora ry contexts through insensitive redevelopment activities. Mellin (2003), one of the few scholars to address TFV contexts with regard to form, noticed how manufactured products began reshaping building form in Canadian fishing villages. While the above exam ples infer slower cultural changes over time, Chiarappa and Szylvian (2009), in addressing the already mentioned technology influence, suggested that maritime vernacular landscapes can and do change dramatically, citing, for example, the ability of the shi rapid e ffect on them during World War II; but they offer ed little explanation of the specifics. Price (2004) cited changes in the traditional fishing industry in general due to regulatory impositions implemented during th e 1970s and 19 80s, which alluded to vernacular form change also occurring, albeit well outside of my intended study period. However, the influence s of earlier political decisions and processes are relevant and reveal ed themselves through the thicker analys es of my research program Questioning c limate Vernacular form, as possibly derived from climate has a long histor ical discussion My discussion of here is only a brief foray of its potential for effects on the landscape form, but it has become a major topic on a global scale from a variety of points. It makes sense that human protection from climatic elements of rain, wind, and temperature is provided through means of interference between them, whether human built or occurring naturally. Evidence for purposeful co nstruction of shelter from earth soils that may have evolved in response to climate may go back as far as the seventh millennium B.C. (Meir & Roaf, 2006), but can certainly be traced back at least to Iranian courtyard dwellings occurring approximately 5,00 0 years ago during the fourth millennium B.C. (Memarian & Brown 2003; also see Lampl 1968). Renping and

PAGE 110

110 Zhenyu (2006) also cite d evidence in China of vernacular structures dating back several millennia that were apparently constructed in response to the climate there, sharing with Iranian vernacular builders a common folk ability in regulating temperature (Dunham 1960). is also worthy of mention from Japan, where he suggested they were particularly adapted to the climatic conditions there, Akcan (2006) reported related places as rational aspects of Oliver (2003), in describing earthen structures may have agreed with this notion. However, most researchers would question the assumption fr om these histories that climate related vernacular forms were similarly developed on a global scale Regardless of universal undertones, Rapoport (1969) did not appear to be convinced that climate served as an ultimate determinant according to his researc h over four decades ago. Since then, many others who may had long favored its determinism in guiding vernacular constructs may have shifted their views in line with subsequent research that more, or less supports his views, including Noble (2007) who felt that the surrounding environmental influence represented only a partial import on vernacular forms. Notwithstanding the expected nuances of form differences between vernacular structures that are affected by similar climates, but are in completely differe nt parts of the world, such a seemingly straightforward conclusion is tempered by the fact that completely different adaptations of vernacular architecture form can also appear wi thin

PAGE 111

111 the same regional contexts. This appears to represent alternative soluti ons to the same problems as mentioned above While microclimates and nuances in topographical features and resources imply subtle differences, Renping and Zhenyu (2006) identified four relatively different forms within the Lancang River valley of China. It seems this kind of variation represent ed positive approaches to a similar problem, but composed of stylistic differences as Aladar and Victor Olgyay (1963) suggested even before Rapoport (1969). In these four different cases, it appeared that humans wer e adapting to a climatic condition, when in fact, they may actually have be en controlling it, but not in the external, atmospheric way controlled by buildings After all, the air that is breathed within their built constructs have certainly been regulated or modified through the purposeful design of the construct, creating the new microclimate, and therefore cause changes to the environment, whether indoors or out. In controlling the internal, modified nature, Dunham (1960) provided an excellent early study of the more intuitive applications used by builders of courtyard dwellings regarding the principles of storing and distributing heat and cool air. While not providing evidence contributing directly to the shape of the courtyard form, it did refer to the size of the courtyard as being a key factor in its regulation. Because courtyard size reaches a maximum threshold for positive response to human comfort, form at the settlement or block scale of vernacular housing in this sense, is restricted or enhanced, depending on how one views it, through the approaches utilized such as replicating a second or even third courtyard construct for expansion of space, or abutt ing the structural elements to

PAGE 112

112 adjacent property constructs. This same principle may also be apparent in the native pueblo in the American Southwest where the Olgyays (1963) suggested that the uses of common wall construction also represented a response to reducing heat buildup, therefore dictating form, but only as scale increases, limiting the notion that climate con tributes to the ultimate form. However, this is questionable and highly presumptuous, with no reliable evidence in later research. It is poss ible that economy of materials and time, or common defense, or other factors influenced the small scale form rather than climate. Cataclysmic events There is a dearth of information regarding how vernacular form may be determined by protection from severe natural events such as earthquakes, floods, wind storms, volcanic activity, etc. The literature is not as robust regarding close examination of form diminution resulting from human made events that are cataclysmic. Of course, the literature is begin ning to expand regarding climate change, seal level rise, and residual impacts that are being questioned as human influenced impacts. Noble (2007) provided one of the most comprehensive overviews to date of vernacular form being influenced by cataclys mic e vents. He cited vernacular form alteration attributable to post event strategies addressing materials depletion, changing roof pitch, extensions, and materials, seismic flexibility, and separation of structures. Recent form pattern books that detail vernac ular influences are being incorporated into entire neighborhoods as part of post Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Oliver (2003) also suggest ed that anti seismic design of using a combination of materials for vernacular structures in the Hindu Kush regio n of Afghanistan and Pakistan provide d evidence of successful structural response s to seism ic activity. He also referenced vernacular joint flexibility

PAGE 113

113 design in Kashmir as another positive response. In each case, vernacular specifications for resilience m ay contribute to form, but they do not appear to dictate ultimate form; however these issues remain open for debate. In areas subject to storm surge and flooding, ultimate form appears to be partially determined by the aesthetic created from elevating st ructures several feet above the ground. In this case, ultimate form is partially determined by the floor component, one of the three major identifying features of a vernacular construct. If agreement can be ascertained that one or all of these three major identifying features represents an essential element of ultimate form, then perhaps construction according to certain cataclysmic events is a noteworthy contributor to vernacular form. Of concern to traditional buildings in the United States is the require ment of building codes that could contr ibute to ultimate vernacular for m, especially concerning dramatic first floor height increases and window/door minimum pressure dynamic standards. However, these issues are related more closely to cultural influences on form. In some areas, natural disasters affect materials and res ources, which in all likelihood could affect form This is either because of past events that have helped to establish the current resource base, or future events, which could limit or elimi nate materials and resources, thereby effecting a change in form. It is difficult to find other examples of vernacular form being determined by the range of cataclysmic events. In many cases, with the exception of water inundation, it appears that most com munities simply accept the challenges presented by all other cataclysmic events when it come to the form chosen for their vernacular structures, leading to the thought that form may be derived from adherence to other determinants

PAGE 114

114 There is some information related to l ocal climate and vernacular reference points. In the Cortez historical archive set, only meager references to climate exist, suggesting that they were both planned and reactionary, allowing me to understand at least some form decisions due to potential climatic affects. A contextual study consisting of a combined ecological cultural approach, similar to that done by Jordan and Kaups (1987) may have provide d some insight toward resolving unanswered form and design issues in Cortez, and perhaps o n a large r regional scale. Such a study c ould open up opportunities for evaluat ing historic narratives, tracing building form origins, earmark ing diffusion patterns, and discovering vernacular structure similarities. Of the few written narratives that have been published about Cortez, either a historic timeline or ethnographic approach was used to present its fixture on the landscape. It is known that many of the buildings, even going back to the beginning of the historic period were probably elevated on b rick and concrete piers or wood pilings B ecause elevated first floors were part of the wider vernacular tradition during that time in order to provide clearance from soil dampness, it was already a learned tradition Cortez is located within a special fl ood hazard area and is vulnerable to strong winds and storm surge throughout the year, being more pronounced between the months of June and November. Current literature suggests that the fishers and lay builders of Cortez copied the basic form and designs for their vernacular structures from their point of origin in North Carolina (Fulford Green & Piland, 1995). From a historical ecologic view, there is an immediate interest pointed at how the residential buildings and structures were placed as part of the first wave of construction, in contrast to the experience of the settlers from the cataclysmic storm event that occurred in 1879 while

PAGE 115

115 they were still in North Carolina. It is known from the archival record that most non residential structures in Cortez we it, and these were destroyed. However, there is little evidence suggesting that many primary residences were built in those locations, suggesting either a reasoning behind limiting dwelling exposure to a set of known vulnerabilities, or a traditional reservation of the area for purposeful fishery activities and constructions. In addition, based on historic photographs, the residences appeared to be better constructed, many o f them appearing to have double wall construction with horizontal lap siding for exterior skins, while the contextual fishing buildings and structures appeared mostly as single wall constructs, sheered together loosely with vertical exterior siding elements. Again, the simple dedu ction from this observation suggests a learned knowledge of building more permanent, and perhaps, more important structures away from the water, and limiting the quality, and therefore permanence of those structures erected closer to it. Humans, by nature are resilient to adverse circumstances and can choose between relocating or modif ying vernacular constructs ( Lawrence, 2006). Only after the 1921 storm surge is it suggested that the Cortez settlers modified their buildings by not rebuilding directly over or adjacent to the water, and by attaching them to wooden pilings driven several feet into the ground (Fulford Green & Piland, 1995). This certainly represented a change in design influenced by a response to climatic conditions, but it is unclear if this m odest change results in a change in form pursuant to the effect it may have had on one of the three major identifying features of a building as discussed earlier. It seems silly to suggest that the buildings needed to be elevated higher, for

PAGE 116

116 example to six feet or so to constitute an actual change to vernacular form, for the notion of being arbitrary comes quickly to mind. A change to an existing architectural feature such as a piling with different materials or nominal lengths may not necessarily change ch aracter or form, as supported by Noble (2007, see p. 182); ho wever, even this is debatable. The detailed information regarding the original vernacular buildings and structures that were destroyed by the 1921 storm would also help to understand how the late r vernacular forms evolved. However, there is scant information on these structures. While some of the extant buildings do exist from that prior, initial period, it is still an incomplete record. The historical ecologist would piece together the architectu ral descriptions for each of these remnant buildings and compare them with lot configurations just prior to the storm using map datasets, oral histories, and land diagramming through modified archaeological and land use planning methods. This would also se rve to better understand the orientation of dwellings and structures in light of south and west sun exposures in order to compare them with the traditional fishing culture issue of water access. Because it is known that many vernacular buildings and struct ures in Cortez were commonly relocated, a truer picture of all buildings and structures with regard to their vernacular layout over the complete historic period could provide useful information about how climate may be a factor in either individual structu ral form or Cortez, as a whole, as related to climatic conditions. Topography As suggested above internal climates can be modified from the larger, external phenomenon of natural atmospheric climate. Perhaps the same holds true for topog raphy and how it can be altered or mimicked by humans to accommodate their

PAGE 117

117 built constructs. Massive topographical alterations of the earth, perhaps older than vernacular dwellings, are still extant. Vernacular form, whether from climate or topographical points of view ap pears inconsistent when studying i ts origin. As Rapoport (1969 peculiarities as contributing factors of form (p. 29) For example, it is clear that swaths of raised buildings are found over both land and water, including along hillsides. An interesting query arises that asks if a site, as influenced by topography then become s more of a cultural i ssue, rather than a determinant of vernacular form. In arctic regions blanketed by year round snow, where the topography is only snow, water, and hard ground, and where igloos are ingeniously crafted as dwellings, it is the snow from the climatic conditio n that appears to shape the ultimate vernacular form, rather than the topography that consists of snow. These domed constructs certainly mimic the surrounding landscape made up of the seemingly endless horizon of mounded snow. However, in this case, the d ome is the architectural construct that works with the materials that are available, not necessarily the topography. Could a flat roof be constructed out of snow blocks? It is possible, to be sure, with the proper build up of the roofing system in combinati on with the dome system; however, this would not be a traditional answer since the climate (wind and snow accumulation) is a deterrent to having a flat roofed structure, since it is critical that they be deflected to avoid structural hazards, knowledge tha t would have been learned through tradition. Many vernacular communities, in their entirety closely resemble their surrounding topogr aphy, such as earthen and stone walled structures in arid, plateau surroundings

PAGE 118

118 such as the Draa Valley in Morocco where b oth flat and vertical shapes echo each other ( Oliver, 2003 ). It could be said that small, primitive huts made by bending long, flexible branches into a rounded shapes that mimic nearby bushes, or more significant buildings that are constructed of vertical tree limbs resembling the surrounding forest also mimic their surroundings, and therefore, are ultimately dete rmined by their topography. Cave and cliff dwellings, subterranean constructs, and other types of excavations that have been shaped and altered o r as Oliver (2003) referred to as resulting from American Southwest could be considered ultimate vernacular form (p. 86). H owever, three seems to be an uneasiness about the use of topography under this context in that these types of dwellings have a preconceived ultimate form that is primeval and perhaps, resulting from forces prior to human interaction (Rudofsky 1964). Of course, the human builder adds to them in ways t hat could be considered vernacular. Initially, it seems diffic ult to consider such originally fixed, readily available natural constructs as part of vernacular structures that have been built from scratch. However, this may be a subject for future debate, considered along with nomadic vernacular constructs, which are not even considered in this paper. Topography appears to provide the place related to the vernacular structure by providing a handy form that is already extant in nature, and has less to do wit vernacular altogether, though some of the instances provided above provide enough fodder for future discussion. The question of whether vernacular form is purely derived from climate, as wel l as, from topography, however, is unclear. Some TFVs such as Tilting in Newfoundland,

PAGE 119

119 Canada, reject the notion of topographical influence to vernacular form there (Mellin, 2003). Through a historical ecologic approach, an exploration of the land mosaic o ccurring in other similar topographies could identify linkages with vernacular form. Building orientation and connections to the water through other built constructs immediately come to mind as part of such an examination. Since there is little evidence su ggesting that the settlers laid out the form of the vil lage circulation system, there i s merit in analyzing why the streets were not laid out according to an east west orientation or with the inclusion of a parallel right of way along the waterfront, rather t han the resulting north/south terminus alignment. While topography may be a readily accepted form determinant for many waterfront communities and the physical margins created from the land/water interstice, especially with re gard to vernacular dock systems, it cannot by itself explain the olio of structural design s that were constructed during the historic study span in Cortez Materials Materials are another popular determinant factor, since they are largely the result of lo cal climatic conditions, and are often placed in context because of their local availability (Forsyth, 1997; Prussin, 1995; Rapoport, 1969). However, this assumption appears to have onl y limited applicability in post settlement construction, though regiona l considerations could still be applicable. The idea that pre settlement tenants of using only locally found materials is certainly plausible given the remoteness of it from developed areas and the documentation available that describes the use of such raw materials. It becomes more diluted as the new settlers institute a permanence to the village, and as nearby towns grow and develop, thusly reducing, if not eliminating, a predominance of local materials usage.

PAGE 120

120 Materials and resources, as pa rt of the topographical constituency of a region or area, and as a necessary ingredient in the construction of all buildings (as opposed to climate or cataclysmic events) suggest strongly, that they are important contributors to vernacular form. One restri cting factor lies in the extent to which the three major defining features of a building (floor, walls, and roof) are designed according to types of materials and resources. Another restricting factor depends on what is available, and what is reasonable in getting it to where the location of the building is to be constructed. A building constructed of earthen materials certainly is going to be formed according to its physical properties such as tensile strength and reactions to things like rain and sun. It seems that such constraints are de facto causes of ultimate vernacular form. When dealing with natural materials (as raw materials), vernacular form also results from the technologies and the limitations associated with the economy of time. The same shoul d hold true for a vernacular building s constructed out of precut timber and corrugated metal sheets that are also readily available, even though those materials deliver a completely different vernacular form. However, regarding the latter, it is less likel y that ultimate form is a determined by the materials since the saving of time may result in creating vernacular form meant to satisfy another determinant such as climate or topography. For example, the vernacular builder has come to know that a slanted ro of with extended eaves will probably protect him better than a flat roof with depressions in it. Other determinants In addition, it is necessary to examine local decision making, as part of the socio cultural political processes that influence, and perhaps explain and separate vernacular of change over a continuum ( Jordan & Kaups, 1987;

PAGE 121

121 Chiarappa & Szylvia n, 2009). There is no doubt, based on a review of political legislation and determinations that landscape form is heavily influenced by subsequent actions or inactions of those acts. This is especially noticeable in how transportation and navigation infras tructure comes to bear upon a locale or region. Explanations of process certainly advance what can be understood about form and perhaps how and why it changes in the landscape, but it falls short of defining form sufficiently for all purposes of academic inquiry ( Kropf, 1993). Some scholars have pondered the notion that vernacular form change (architecturally) was a response to individualistic tendencies that eventually effect cumulative change in the overall vernacular landscape ( Lewcock, 2006; Whitehand, 1992) Again, the concept of cultural weathering holds specific interest here. For e xample, does the imposition of a single environmental regulation sponsor more communal changes in the landscape form wholesale or as a snowball effect beginning with a sin gle individual in spite of a forced rule? Are their specific points in time when the tradition of vernacular, i.e., where some type of form that remained unchanged for decades suddenly experienced wholesale change? If so, the questions deriving from the l iterature include identifying those determinants, and how were they fostered and how they proceed ed It is productive and scholarly to bring as many of these relevant ideas together to properly analyze vernacular landscape form under the rubric of TFVs, a nd in light of the apparent gaps in the literature regarding the ove rall landscape perspective ( Norton, 1989). Indeed, at present and without the benefit of further research at this point, hard lines appear to be minimal or even non apparent for understan ding determinants of vernacular landscape form change in general, let alone in regard to myriad specific

PAGE 122

122 contexts such as TFVs. The long list of determinants that effect most types of form change remain complex to understand, yet vernacular form often fall s victim to its own simple nature, i.e., its change is often noticeable in its surficial features of building materials, personal architectural ornamentation, and new structures, all of which, of course add up to changes in the landscape form itself, with or without considering appear to have produced only subtle, hardly noticeable layers of vernacular landscape form change as part of typical community progression, in spit e of dramatic events, technologies, natural system degradation, and a host of cultural influences (Edwards, 1980, 1991; Lanier & Herman, 1997; Lowenthal, 1997). Identifying Landscape Form Change Identifying change in the historic vern acular landscape form within a TFV context is not a straightforward process. Some s cholars have suggested that beginning around the mid twentieth century, rapid diminution of long standing, historic form character began, not only in the U nited States but also on a global scal e due to technology, economics such as tourism and deve lopment, and public policy ( Chiarappa & Szylvian, 2009; Green, 1985; Kottak, 1992; Nadel Klein, 2003). Literature has proven elusive regarding how this change specifically reveals itself, and how it ma y have occurred prior to that time. This may now suggest that a marked difference in the rate of vernacular landscape form change was present prior to the mid twentieth century; however, to date, there is scant data supporting this assumption. Certainly, v ernacular landscape form change was steadily influenced by the earlier transportation achievements of the railroad, steam power, and navigational aids, as well as, by the advances of building methods, methods of distribution, and commercial fishing economi es (Matthews, 1928).

PAGE 123

123 In order to understand vernacular landscape form change fully, there exists a compulsion to examine and consider any presence of a stable vernacular form affecting a study area. If vernacular architecture and its various forms do indee d make up over 90 % of adaptive successes in a variety of contexts not necessarily related to each other that may reveal determinants of stability, as well as, change. As already referenced above, Heath ( 2001; 2009) cited a stable vernacular as being an entrenched building practice that is still always changing, albeit at a slow rate, and perhaps still subject to what he ca lls cultural weathering This concept of c ultural weathering is visible as a layering of different elements on traditional ones over time. Kropf (1993) appeared to suggest that many of the built forms in any given cultural landscape reflected an inertness, or inherent stability, whereas, it is the human m ental processes of desire and intention for an object that represent what is actually changing in the landscape. Perhaps a stable form is simply one that is more resistant to change, though it is still changing, for example, as in being part of an identif iable contextual vernacular such as a TFV versus existing in a less contextual area such as a large city, or in a suburb. Still, the sudden instability and effects that caused the mid twentieth century form changes in the U nited States as evidenced by wha t may no longer be visible, is not adequately explained. Now, most scholars would agree to some extent that while landscapes and the artifacts within them are in a constant state of change, there is also a certain measure of constancy and static character in either the type of c hange or the speed of it (Kropf, 2001, somewhat agreed ).

PAGE 124

124 Ethnographies and generalized historical accounts that touch upon community character change can be found in both popular and scholarly literature ( Green, n.d., Green & Molto, 1997; Jepson, 2004; Mellin, 2003; Shiver, 1988); however, scholarly depth of discourse in this regard has been extremely limited. In fact, s cholars have long argued for additional discourse in this area (Lansing, 2003; Noble, 2007; Olgyay & Olgyay 1963) However, determining what stab le form is and defining may be an extensive endeavor, though some literature suggests it has relative importance to form ( Chiarappa & Szylvian, 2009; Hughes, 2001 Lansing, 2003; Noble, 2007; Olgyay & Olgyay, 1963; Rapo port, 1969). Many scholars and non academic writers have commented on the apparent loss of historic vernacular akin to a wholesale destruction. This brings to light the additional question of whether vernacular, as a highly histo ric form within the TFV co ntext, is also a bygone production The loss of tangible, contextual historic assets in TFVs is inadequately addressed in much of the scholarly literature, though many scholars claim significant loss of vernacular fabric in general (Chiarappa & Szylvian, 2 009; Glassie, 1968; Rice, 2003; Rudofsky, 1977). Glassie (1968) reasoned early on that the uses for the wide variety of vernacular artifacts that made up the overall landscape construct have been reduced to such a degree that there continued existence was indeed going to dwindle, becoming extinct in some cases. The s cholarly claims go mostly without detailed explanation s and without detailing the totality of loss beyond just buildings, such as village layout, access, commercial fishing storage areas, water front infrastructure, minor buildings and structures such as reel yards, vessels, methods,

PAGE 125

125 fishing grounds and the awareness or perceptions of them, etc. (Breen & Rigby, 1996; Chiarappa, 2005). In spite of the apparent losses of vernacular, there are newe r claims that vernacular artifacts can shed light on current problems, such as climate controls, energy savings, and cost reductions. For example, the use of historic sail power has been mentioned as an alternative to the modern fuel power for reducing cos ts. Another example involves the use of renewable wood products for buildings and structures such as bamboo and how the power of wind energy could be harnessed by structural design. All of these issues were part of the historic vernacular landscape constr uct Seamon (1986) suggested that referrals back to vernacular standards are an indication that modern societies and the technologies they use create an insulated, indirect relationship with the natural environment resulting in a forgetfulness to simple so lutions to common problems (vernacular methods and applications) that are also lost. The idea that historic vernacular is disappearing is barely debatable, especially with regard to the visible st ructures that remain extant from older generations. The less than physical vernacular artifact, however, is likely to remain indefinitely as present and future generations continue to look at their earlier antecedents for answering many of the issues and p roblems culture and societies face today and perhaps explore in more detail with usable applications in the near future Consideration of Intangible Form s in the Historic Cultural Landscape Attempting to understand the physical cultural landscape by look ing at what can be seen visually and then describing is only a partial effort toward the understanding of it. The limitation here is what Jakle (1987) called speculative and arbitrary. The personalized nature of it calls for, but constrains a t hicker under standing of what is

PAGE 126

126 being described. A fish eries camp may be described as being square, isolated, and flimsy but why does it appear in those ways ? What makes it different from other camps or buildings there, and i n other places? Why is it used in a partic ular way? For some, knowing that it is square or flimsy is enough; t here is no requirement for going further unless a thicker analysis is desired. As a historian, my first view of a landscape begins with finding cues or clues in its physicality. The deepe r, thicker understanding then unfolds per my willingness or desire to lay it out as part of my study The less than visual construct then opens up as more appropriately one of being intangible The historic landscape often includes an assortment of these t ypes of constructs that have become hidden, have disappeared, or are now part of a human endeavored construct formulated through memory, cognition, and perception. However, in some cases, they blend with the physical aspects of landscape so they are not ne cessarily found to be purely physical and surviving as viewable evidence They sometimes lie somewhere in between physicality and the conceptual. For lack of a better term at this writing, t hey become intangible. Therefore, my h istor ical analysis of Cortez form rev eal s itself through the depth of inquiry that addresses the c ombination of physical and intangible manifestations that I am willing to commit to it and then interpret. Now, this intangible construct is itself fraught with distraction and peril when linking it to the landscape form. It can be read as being less than physical, or even more than physical, depending on the construct. For example, the memory of one completely diminished and reflected upon by a subsequent generation that may still view it as part of the cultural flux, even though it is

PAGE 127

127 no longer fully present by all in the group, such as, e.g., long working hours, ethical behavior, or not steering wa tercraft between areas that are being fished. These are with a loose, undefinable physical aspect. They appear to be less than physical or intangible In contrast, the f ishing grounds could be physically defined by an area measurement, e.g., as an entire bay, or a section of river between two points. However, the meaning of the fishing grounds might extend beyond these physical aspects, and become special or even sacred t o certain fishers, whereby their physicality now becomes more than just physical. So, the dilemma here is my attempt to characterize these additional components of the vernacular landscape that do not seem to fit a precise typology. Admittedly, additional study of them in this regard may be required. Therefore, for the purposes of my study, the term intangible becomes an appropriate fit for the time being. Textual r eading Reading the landscape form does not clearly subscribe or belong to any one particular method. If they can be read, then TFVs are quite legible to nearly everyone since they include certain requisite elements that are expected to be found such as watercraft, fishing nets, traps, piers, etc. These forms in the contextual landscape allow the c asual observed to understa nd them as distinct places ( Emmison & Smith, 2000). (1960) notion that ordinary people are able to decode landscapes and places precisely due to their being legible. Lewis (1993) suggested that re ading the landscape should begin by looking at it from afar ( refer to how the waterfront conglomeration is used in Chapter 4). Once this is done, Lewis sug gested closing in on it by perusing its printed forms, followed by a search of the physical clues

PAGE 128

128 and forms that drive its culture. Lewis also warned that large parts of the historic vernacular landscape are probably already missing by the time we get to study them. Though we can more easily read what is extant, the visual half of the form that fieldwork finds is deceptive and incomplete by itself (Holdsworth, 1997). However, there is more to what a landscape reveals in reading beyond what is dominant and visible such as building shapes, styles, and descriptions of them. Upton (1991) suggested that vernac ular form, and I construe this to also include vernacular landscape form, through a formulaic, typology based program is rarely successful, or fruitful. While it can be agreed that culture creates a landscape form that is readable because they created it, any reading is possible, and every reading is not necessarily incorrect. Glassie (2000) pointed out that the British were early to study their landscapes as the p rimary text. His point is that culture can somehow force their plans into the land and making it work for their purposes, rather than fully adapting to it. However, Schein (1997) warned researchers early on of the instability of the landscape as text since it requires constant re in terpretation as it evolves ( p. 676). Perhaps this is why Mitchell ( 2008) wrote that reading the landscape as a stand alone analysis would never account to a complete read of it; instead serving only to direct a rese a r cher to what needs thicker understanding. The reader of the landscape is often confronted with the proble m of the senses attempting to decipher multiple facets through multiple sensory perceptions. In essence, there is often too much information to read and process (Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982). A normative perception through reading the landscape form is not likely to be forthcoming since any normative expressions that reveal themselves in the broad cultural landscape,

PAGE 129

129 are the result of combining physical constructs with generative and imaginati on driven conceptual images ( Upton, 1991). The eventual text that the landscape becomes is often the result of the confusing array of individualistic landscapes that compete with the interpreting landscapes. It is interesting then, that upon reading a landscape, one should be able to differentiate between these individual and collective landscapes. In many cases, this may be accomplished though a rounded understanding of the symbols established by a culture in the constructs they create. This includes those that are inlaid with specific cultural meanings, uses, and understandings such as the lost fishers memorials so commonly found in TFVs. However, any researcher should proceed with caution regarding the ben efit of using high ly visible cultural constructs that appear to be rich in local meaning, as a memorial would appear to convey. Even the most ordinary of artifacts or constructs such as a parking lot, isolated pier, or abandoned building can reveal fuller when uncovering the importance of a parking lot to the members of one community. Chiarappa (2007) also found much importance from the mundane construct of oyster barges in New York Cit y that, after reading t he landscapes they were part of, t old S ense of p lace The sense of a place, or the ability of a place to conjure p ersonal emotions and images more esoter i c in nature than not, is a n intangible form that is directly linked to a physical setting. In the case of place, the physical form coul d be real or imagined, or

PAGE 130

130 have elements of both S imilar to the cultural landscap e, Cannavo (2007) defined place as something that is a human construct of various human and natural interactions that is not static and is always changing. Place can also be a process in how it comes to the mind as a derivation of experience and considerat ion. However, Cannavo also noted that like the vernacular construct that becomes entrenched (Heath), or the village layout that has more permanence than a building ( M. P. Conzen 2001 ), place could exhibit degrees of stability. According to Cannavo (2007) the difference between place and space is that the former is specific and concrete, while space is more obscure. Yet, every space has the potential to become a place. In some cases, place may be lost easier than space such as in a changed vernacular con struct like a historic fishing vill age. The loss of some sense of place once felt kee nly by those who experienced it comes to light in almost every extant fishing village I have researched, including Cortez. During an interview, a third generation Cortez fisher was revealing a sense of place long lost s imilar to what I refer to in subsequent chapters as an elapsed experiential, when he opined about modern Cortez where the watercraft and docks loaded with fish, the fishers with the ir lunch buckets on the way t o the docks, and even nets hanging a yard had mostly disappeared ( Jepson & Flo rida Humanities Council citing Blue Fulford, 2006). In this case, a place beca me less of a place to some losing its sheen of personalized identity a nd character. Because of the connection to the water, the relative quaintness of the village setting set apart from the adjacent highway, and the activities reminiscent of maritime culture, it is not difficult that Cortez extols a

PAGE 131

131 sense of place to any num ber of individuals and groups. The keen definition of the images and feelings it evokes among them, however, is less clear. With regard to the less than physical landscape that extols place perhaps one of Place ways: A Theory of the Human Environment published in 1988. In this text, Walter assured the reader that there was still more to what is built than what physical appearance alone might convey which, in and of itself, often skews individual perceptions of it. In making his case Walter according to Ryden (1993) referred to place as being ly formed and particular ly placed, yet also consisting of sensual elements of smell, taste, and sound. While Muir (1986), in his readings of villages, appeared to disfavor the combining of more experiential factors with what is physically built, other authors such as Walter emphasize the value of it. Pursuant to my research, Walter (1988) discussed new ways for looking at how places derive and change, as well as, how the ir meanings and significance could be explained. Walter saw human experience, intuition, imagination, and awareness as 141); in such w ays, humans map their way to expressive spaces, whether they are newly found or in a state of dilapidation. Place, as an understanding that can still be understood today, according to Walter, does not suddenly depart as physical changes unfold, since it is more spiritual and of the mind, than physical and of the body. He was reluctant to treat visible assets as anything sive as humanly vital to plac e and consisting of personal feelings and the ability of people to grasp these feelings as part of inherent meanings (p. 2)

PAGE 132

132 However, the challenge of visually documenting a sense of place is daunting and not addressed by Walter. There is evidence that th e activities of isolated enclaves themselves evolve into externalized expressions of the culture that inhabits them. Cortez began as a fishing village and has been consistently regarded as such by the communities at large that have surrounded and interact ed with it. This is not an uncommon attribute for cultural enclaves as evidenced along the North Carolina coast where symbols of the fishing culture became part of the wider cultural landscape. For example, the mullet fishery s Gulf Coast mullet enterprise, is elevated in its meaning and importance to the Carolina Tidewater region through the attachment of names to local establishments and conditions such as calling the first strong wind of the year the transference of what drives a culture can be found in early Cortez where the local newspaper the Manatee River Journal, included an ongoing community column that The intangible m anif estations of f orm As referenced above, the sense of a place that one feels within a particular setting is akin to a special attachment made up of experience, emotion, sentiment, physicalit y, etc. It is physical non physical and intangibl e at the same time. While it exemplifies a particular setting that is typically constant or fixe d, it becomes more physical than other settings that may change, be in a state of constant flux, or move constantly Of course, this is not depende nt on any abs olute theory or formula and certainly, the constantly flu xing landscape renders myriad cognitive nets that capture sense of place too The notion of the intangible is used here in as a convenience in

PAGE 133

133 exploring the possibilities of looking at contextual vernacular landscapes and certain forms within the se landscape s that have the essence of physicality, yet are not necessarily fixed. The landscape is never a simple, solid, universal scene. Its inherent mixture of physical an d intangible elements leans mor e toward a place set up by the mind, but with a reference to a place or an act or a physical structure For example, the act of fishing is a n intangible form in the contextual vernacular landscape of Cortez. It is a physical activity that includes manua l dexterity and stamina to be sure. Yet, it is incomplete without its direct link to components operated by the human mind, such as learned knowledge and experience. Since the act of fishing as really more of a process, no single image frame really captur es its complete form. The same could be said for nearly everything that has form, of course. The human eye does not look at all four sides of a building at once; it can usually only see one side at a time. The addition of the intangible is part of the mani festation that form takes in the contextual landscape. Since many scholars agree that context is a critical inclusion or attribute for understanding cultural landscapes, in general, the intangible is part of the continual and y, as discussed by Rapoport (1992 p. 41 ). The intangible forms of the landscape, which he described as physical, social, economic, and cultural. breakdown into explainable forms, I find the separation of the latter three to be a difficult and overworked proces s, even though I acknowledge this pluralistic quality as an inherent pa rt of their overall makeup ( Gottschalk, 1950) To make it more managea ble, m y breakdown condenses them to avoid the confusion prompted by separating cultural into its own category, since they

PAGE 134

134 are all really cultural. Even the physical, depending on how it is constructed, is cultural according to the historical ecologist, who would suggest that humans give form to everything once they consider it There really is not much literature on what I have construed to be a n intangible under taking of form in the landscape. The intangible character can be a highly subjective process that unfolds according to each individual mi n d that perceives it, struggles with it, entertains it, or tries to make sense of it. For the researcher, it does not appear at first blush to be a ubiquitous part of the vernacular landscape that Andelson (1986) described should be included in the study of landscapes, yet it becomes so when context is closed in on, and a thicker analysis is applied. Therefore, the intangible is represented as an exploration in my stud y that helps to identify essential forms in the vernacular landscape that use context and go beyond what is purely visual and physical Admittedly, and as indicated earlier in my study, this concept of being somehow intangible lacks preciseness, and may c ause confusion, since its elements can be considered as physical acts or structures that are then created or then applied within the human cognitive sense or cultural mindset somehow. Sense of place might be construed as being either less than physical or more than physical since it involves association of the physical landscape with non physical senses of perception, exp erience, emotion, etc. However, the quality of it, for the purposes herein a ppears to be more appr opriate as an intangible construct Co nsideration of Visual Analysis Programs for Interpretin g Form In any final analysis of a landscape wide form and its influences, the end result bears some iota of subjectivity and deference to experience, lack of experience, and

PAGE 135

135 personal views of the resea rcher, resulting in an interpretation of them individually and together. The primary subject matter here emphasizes visual analysis pertaining to cultural landscape and architectural form since the literature is concentrated within those domains The widely available literature is broken down into three loosely categorized subject areas to include visual aspects of cultural landscapes and buildings, documentation and assessment methods, and graphics. The visual aspects sub section contains 10 readings b ecause I feel the y most succinctly frame the content of what the documentation and graphics will describe and interpret in my research. The other two sub sections include the remaining nine readings, which outline how various authors approached documentatio n, assessment, and graphic representation. There is obviously, some overlap of authors between sections so the entire reading list i s included in the List of References Visual A spe cts of Cultural Landscapes and B uildings A major challenge for my study was in how I could visually display and present the vernacular landscape construct as I made my way through the physical and intangible components of describing and interpreting the available form. Built form in TFVs continues to prove elusive as an in dep th, scholarly discussion topic This is exacerbated by the fact that form, whether from an architectural or landscape point of view, is a term with little consensus of its meaning. As referenced earlier, f ew authors to Kropf (1993) u nder the urban morphology approach provide d an explanation of built form in order to establish consistent mechanisms under which it could be used across fields of study. This included the provision of a consistent definition of form broken down into

PAGE 136

136 types a fairly successful strategy when looking at, and evaluating purely built form in urban areas. By comparing and analyzing two separate theories of form using the architectural approach of Caniggi a ( 1963 ), and the geogra phical approach of M. R. G. Conzen (1960 ), Kropf successfully described and categorized form in the wider landscape in order for it to be approached as a convenient typology of forms under a us er friendly formula His description s of form in the wider landscape is an important and a significant work in that it clarifies to a degree, how it can be broken down into levels of acuity, or as his analysis highlighted levels of complexity resolution, and specificity. Part of the focus for my readings was to increase my aptitude for how scholars have consider ed form in both buildings and landscapes. Does form in these contexts simply mean the outward appearance of a thing? Perhaps form includes the visible lines and surfaces, or even pat terns as translated into reality from the mind. Form, from my viewpoint of the built vernacular construct begins with the outermost silhouette and works its way inward. Form is conceived in the mind, though a complex process, certainly, and I am careful no t to restrict my future discussions of form without knowing (1939) warn ed. But, it is the physical and intangible characters of form i n waterfront areas and how they can be expressed within my study parame t e rs that interest me in these readings. I n referring to place as the Ryden (1993) theorized that the material forms of a cultural enclave (or place) are actually the physical forms interpreted from its collective experiential knowledge. In 2000, Emmison and Smith appeared to concur somewhat with Ryden. The ir research was at first guided by the v isual through

PAGE 137

137 an initial description of the obvious object s and players, followed by the less tangible forms in the landscape. It is only in doing this prerequi site task of establishing data that an analytical framework for subsequent evaluation and analys is (interpretation) can be explored further under a coordinated, more easily understandable structure Arguably, Zube (1976) may have set the stage for Emmison work by suggesting much earlier that the landscape must be viewed from a vari ety of perspectives. Laurie (1976), from the same volume, contended that the best evaluations were possible only by looking at the whole through the most intimate details, natur al and human made. Laurie a lso warned that the researcher must be aware of his or h er own innate vision, imagination, tastes, experiences, moods, etc., in order to avoid succumbing to a lopsided personal narrative. strategy for assessi ng visual quality is to first determine the unit of landscape, describe it beginning with the w hole down to t he finest detail, and then finalize it through interpretation that includes graphic detailing whether through photographs, sketches, and probably even had he written this material later, computer animation. In continually refer ring to the l iterature by Chiarappa (2007), though much less to Breisch and Ho a gland (2005), and Peace (2001) I f ind the se resear ch sets paralleling mine in a familiar wa y. Vernacular form to them also seemed to go well beyond buildings and across t he wider landscape. They too wro te about traditional waterfronts and the associated entities that make up the character of places such as shell piles, barrels, barges, docks, fishing grounds, and even intuition. These tangible and intangible artifacts could all be considered exten sions of vernacular form that easily fit into the framework of my own research questions Chiarappa (2007) extended this

PAGE 138

138 vernacular to the daily sounds and smells of the docks, where, in paraphrasing his own words, he aestheticize d the vernacular (p. 93); thus allowing the reader to better conceive the larger vernacular landscape as a particular shape or pattern that is fixed at that moment. In 1989, Bourne, in his interesting account of historic New England fishi ng villages, also captured some of th e most relevant detailed descriptions of what could constitute the extended form pursuant to my research. In just one his toric fishing village, and he was our nationa e described (p. 39). Bourne seemed to understand that the ordinary stuff just lying around also lends support to the importance I place on the extended vernacular construct of a context. Documentation and A ssessment Several authors have documented methods for evaluating buildings and lands capes. Fei lden and Marks (1996) edit ed a compendium of articles that remind the reader that there is simply no universal approach that meets the needs of ev ery context. In most every case; however, it appears that a predetermined formula for description and interpretation is required. In one example, Cox ( 1996 ) wrote that the formula should consist of three main stances beginning with an avoidance of interference with the community studied. This should be coupled with the researcher being independent of previous judgments, and moving forward with an open mindedness that is receptive to new insights and considerations.

PAGE 139

139 Perhaps the most appropriate chapter for my research from F e i lden and M 1996, pp. 253 271) considerations for assessing historic landscapes an d gardens. Goodchild understood that landscapes continually adjust and change and therefore, for a complete visual analysis, the landscape a ssessment must reflect its character over the context of time. Lanier and Herman (1997) wrote during the same period regarding concepts advancing the interpretative approach, but from an archaeological perspective where they excavate, or the lay on buildings and landscapes and then place them 5). Only after having done t his necessary step could they then proceed with uncovering what had been hidden in interpreting a building and its co that remains (p. 2). Build ings, according to them ). I n looking at the historic fishing village and the notion of extending its form as part of the contextual landscape construct and in going back to Fei lden and Marks, Goodchild provided a good remind er that the physical landscape extend s well beyond the vis ual acuity and field of humans However, it prompts the question of what happens as the observer move s around. The landscape view must change as the observer moves from one vantage point to another, which implies that any descriptive evaluation must also change. Goodchild suggested that the landscape view, or at least its outer boundary could be fixed, but only as long as the unit of analysis is not changed. In this case, the unit of analysis would be a prescribed route, a particular tract, and defin ed space, etc., that translates int (p. 257). The core area,

PAGE 140

140 when one is e stablishes in it, somehow delivers through a unification of it with adjacent lands the entirety, or wholeness of the o verall landscape to that person as the observer This appears to be restricted to include the visible, physical elements, but not the invisible discussed by authors ment ioned elsewhere in this paper. The proposed cultural land scape study model suggested by Ko rr (1997) presents what he call ed main elements, including description, boundaries, dynamic relationships, perceptions, and cultural analysis. This model is not dissimilar to how I approached the referential stud y of Cortez where I first determine d boundaries as an initial form element, followed by an intertwining of the descriptive essay with the perceptions and dynamic relationships within those boundaries. The c ultural analysis finished the analysis to further include form, as a findings interpretation that, as Robertson and Richards (2003) suggest ed investigates underneath the typical surficial features. Some discussion is necessary regarding the two readings on public documentation and analysis pro grams. In response to the Vlach (1993, see Graphics section, below) reading which was reliant on research using the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) I read a historical ana lysis of it by Lavoie (2006/2007 ). The importance of HABS as a tool for academics is its primary focus on informing rather than merely illustrating. The content provided through field research in the past can now provide foundations for expanding further analyses of both buildings and landscapes with regard to culture. In other words, H ABS products are suited well to not only describing built forms, but also for interpreting them, and in wider contexts of the landscape as proved by Vlach. Cortez, my case study, has at least one HABS drawing

PAGE 141

141 limited to a single structure, which is benefi cial to my research for understanding how some vernacular buildings in Cortez were constructed, but does not offer up a tremendous amount of data regarding a contextual and mimicked form from any wider perspective. Graphics as a T o ol for Conveying Form an d Form C hange In an in depth study of rapidly disappearing plantation slave houses Vlach (1993) articulated a narrative produced mainly from the evidence provided by HABS drawings. In a way, Vlach looked at an extended vernacular by using images in addition to mere verbal description. This speaks loudly toward my desire for a thorough visual analysis a tradition of explanation that has been lessened of late in light of the less tangible studies of place and meaning Of course, Vlach did not link up the images and the stories connected to the non physical applications they reveal with elements of sense of place created by the apparent manipulation of the plantation landscapes and the purposely constructed hierarchical landscape ensembles created within. As part of these physical ensembles, Vlach includes meaningful discussions of the yards, outbuildings, and machinery used by the slaves and planters o f the time. In the end, Vlach was able to deliver a well define d story that was fairly thick in description by depending on a limited set of graphics that could be built upon and explored further This shows the power of graphics in analyzing building and landscape form from which the ideological and iconologic al processes of cultur e can be ascertained ( Robertson and Richards, 2003). While Vlach was able to articulate the less tangible landscape successfully, my first challenge was more straightforward to a degree, especially for the physical aspects of landsca pe form. Again, Gibson (1979) warned that while an outline drawing may

PAGE 142

142 (p. 288) since it lacks any rea l depth beyond just being a two dimension al representation. His argumen t still makes sense when attempting to understand the depth and texture of a distinct object such as a building or piece of equipment. However, for the purpose of my study, th e articulated form that does lie within the historic landscape is best understood for its integrity, and its degree of change more precisely through its built and existing footprint. Therefore, the outline drawing becomes an important tool for my study in providing the history of change in vernacular forms as they physically evolve d Transition Statement Based on the preceding literature review, it becomes clear that available information and programming for understanding the evolution of vernacular landscapes and how the forms it takes change over time is insufficient. I presented several models from whic h a good understanding in the vein of my study can be pursued; yet they are individually incomplete without some mechanism by which the practitioner can apply them to real world landscapes. Through an interdisciplinary approach, methods can be borrowed tha t form a collective program to achieve goals formulated around understanding how a landscape has changed over time something not convincingly accomplished in TFVs. The literature sets the stage for this methodology, as a hybrid that follows in Chapter 3, a nd subsequently as part of an exploratory application using an actual TFV, as part of Chapter 4.

PAGE 143

143 Figure 2 1 Generative form graphic. Sketches of location (left column), erected (middle column), and watercraft (right col umn) forms as part of the generative mind Point (Cortez). Source: Drawing by L. Frey, 2013.

PAGE 144

144 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overview As part of a four phase research program using a blend of historical, descriptive, and interpretive methodological approaches, my study focuse s on finding indicators that identify vernacular landscape form and chang e as definable and measurable entities It therefore assumes a qualitative methodological exploratio n of landscape form based on discoveries generated from comprehensive literature and archival data reviews. The descriptive process included accepted historical documentation using a variety of archival data to layout the Cortez l andscape over its 120 year time continuum. Due to the vastness of the landscape as a study subject, I incorporated a system of graphic sketches, tables, and charts for organizing and comparing the information while more thickly describing noticeable chan ges through 14 contextual indicators within three main sets as my main reference system The indicators, as more appropriately feeding the context of the historic vernacular commercial fishing landscape I was studying, were arranged using a basic, hand dra wn graphic in order to determine if I could evaluate physical changes to their forms in a comparative manner, as well as, get clues about any determinants through the thicker analysis of them when physical changes were indeed apparent. By looking at the same information sets for the different periods, I determined that I could recognize changes whether through variations in shape, size, addition, or subtraction to the overall and individual vernacular forms. Based on any changes, I could then perform additional research of them through a secondary thicker analysis so that I could improve my understand ing of what determined the change, and why and

PAGE 145

145 how a change might have occurred. Based on this system, I interpreted findings according to noticeable physical changes, the thicker analysis of the determinants my research found as causing change, and ultimately an evaluation of historic significance based on the research to that point. My research methodology was formulated to provide a pertin ent direction for looking at how form in the historic vernacular landscape changes over time by using a contextually rich environment of a traditional fishing village (TFV) It blends archival documentation with visual analysis programs from architectur e landscape architecture urban planning, urban morphology, geography, and material culture studies. T he methods put in place examine certain intangible cultural constructs as manifested in the notions of fishing grounds and acts of fishing, as well as, memo ry, or what I refer to as being parts of an elapsed experiential. All of these are further examined through a thicker analysis involving the nuance s and effects from politics, economics, and social layering in hopes of generating findings that are contextu ally significant from a historical basis It accomplishes this from the view of form in the wider landscape perspective, which many scholars believe to be more comprehensive and holistic in providing the rich contextual grounding just mentioned. The overall design incorpora tes a descriptive strategy ( Marshall & Rossman, 1995). These four pha ses include literature and archival data review, initial fieldwork, operationalization of terms and tools, and a contextual, referential build up of Cortez and o the r T FVs as explained earlier; visual analysis and documentation of the Cortez vernacu lar landscape; thick analyses of Cortez by looking more closely at cultural, social, economic, and pol itical underpinnings, as needed; and

PAGE 146

146 an interpretative narrative a nd graphic representation of findings. The following sub section details each phase as a mixed method for collecting and analyzing data pursuant to my research questions and problem Type of Research The design of my research includes a four phase qualita tive prog ram that explores the evolution of human made form as it occurred in a traditional, highly contextual landscape setting between 1887 and 1946 The first three research phases include blended, overlapping methods that follow historical (textual and preliminary visual analysis), descriptive (deep er textual and primary visual analysis), and referenti al study approaches. The study of forms and form change is enhanced through a series of sketch drawings undertaken as part of the thicker analysis of Phases III and IV. This supplement s the final phase an interpretive narrative so to speak in order to give my research a robust discursive that provides insight from both textual and visual perspectives. Rati onale for Selection Because my research is grounded in events that too k place over an irregular but prescriptive time continuum, the historical approach, especially c ritical during Phase I, provides the basis for examining archival records and data, and t he human constructed artifact that still remains. The aggregation of historical data and even t s during each phase then allows context to be built up around the vernacular landscape form studied. In addition, several of my research terms are operationalized during this initial phase Both Phases II and III are part of my descriptive strategy that uses a hybrid visual analysis of Cortez, followed by an exploration of cultural in fluences on its landscape form. Describing the built construct in Cortez require s an objective description of it over

PAGE 147

147 time using established visual analysis methods that were modified to suit my study However, as the literature continues to find, mere visual description also requires a deeper understanding of the intangible factors tha t have contributed to form changes over time such as economics, politics, tradition, etc. This extra delving into the hidden aspect of built form may be referred to as applying thicker analyses to the visual artifacts in that it goes beyond simply describi ng what is visible, and looks into cultural processes that are usually hidden but available in the landscape. Of course, the depth employed. The findings revealed from the descriptive strategy then allow s me to interpret how vernacular form from the wider landscape perspective evolved from the Cortez settlement year of 1887 up to about 1946, when the last comprehensive aerial photograph was taken fi sheries dependent artifac ts along its waterfront Referential Study Community The recognized fishing village of Cortez serves as my referential study community It is located directly on Sarasota Bay in western Manatee County, Florida, along a stretch of the intracoastal waterway of the Gulf of Mexico Cortez is commonly recognized as a small coastal village with distinct boundaries Currently and h istorically Cortez, as a physical place, included a much larger area than what the historic stu dy boundary of my study covers In fact, the refer e often meaning the same area, would have historically included the entire peninsula formation of which they are par t. The fact that Cortez was originally named Hunter Point is fairly known; however, the derivation of both names remains unclear. Therefore, for the purposes of defining and understanding my study area Cortez herein

PAGE 148

148 it may be referred to by other references including the co mmunity, or the historic study area Using its twenty first century boundary, the historical study area of Cortez g enerally consists of the approximately 70 acres of land developed south of Cortez Road, west of 119 th Street but including the grounds of the 1912 school, and the extent of its shoreline to the west and south. There are approximately 100 historic buildings and structures designated as contributing to the smaller historic district of approximately 25 acre s listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Most of the contributing buildings are considered vernacular in character and construction Multiple intrusions that do not reflect vernacular input or that are out of scale with th e historic character of the Cortez are now scattered throughout the village. Cortez was settled as a commercial fishing community in the late 1 880s and retains only a fraction of its h istoric integrity with regard to the commercial fishing constructs, thou gh a still active commercial fishing industry is still in operation As of the date of my study, t here was evidence of fishing enterprise in both forms of real use and ersatz adornments scattered throughout the v illage in residential yards and on vacant lo ts. Several former residences are now being offered as vacation rentals. Since the approved 1995 National Register N o mination survey of properties was approximately 18 years old at the time of my study additional properties may h ave become eligible for listing suggesting that the delineated boundary could now be expanded. Therefore, a reevaluation of the National Register Historic District boundary and non contributing structures is warranted. There are also signs of gentrification including major intrus ions that have seriously affecte d the overall character of the

PAGE 149

149 v illage; however, a response to these intrusions has prompted the formulation of a community vision and amendments to the local regulatory structure including creation of the Cortez Fishing Vil lage Design Guidelines. This is not surprising, since s ome studies suggest that even isolated enclaves that are characteristic of the small, waterfront communities may have a high probability for gentrification (Datel & Dingemans, 1994). Cortez is an examp le of a historic vernacular landscape, which is a type of cultural landscape recognized by the National Park Service ( NPS ) as worthy of interest, preservation, and protection. While no detailed study of its overall cultural landscape has been undertaken or adopted based on the findings of this paper, it appears to meet the N PS definition of historic vernacular landscape which i s a landscape whose use, construction, or physical layout reflects endemic traditions, customs, beliefs, or values; expresses cultu ral values, social behavior, and individual actions over time; is manifested in physical features and materials and their interrelationships, including patterns of spatial organization, land use, circulation, vegetation, structures, and objects. It is a la ndscape whose physical, biological, and cultural features reflect custom s and everyday lives of people. (Page, Gilbert, & Dolan, 1998 p. 12) The broader cultural landscape in Cortez as one that has historic vernacular character, appears to be one that i s still in transition. Any scholarly or practical r eading its cultural landscape is not a normative undertaking; i t is not intended to portray what the landscape should be. The cultural landscape reflects what the landscape currently reveals, which could be both past and present fixtures. There are noticeable changes in both culture and time in Cortez as well as, feeling s that evolving generations do not share the same values of the older ones (Green, 1985). Late nt land use regulation s and control s in Cor tez appear to be attempts at preventing more pronounced cultural and historic buildin g and structure changes and dimi nutions but such mechanisms may only

PAGE 150

150 delay change in the end by focusing on physical characteristics. Tinkering with culture and historic fabric in this way o ften creates a partially frozen cultural landscape that straddles the time continuum while other the other parts of it are permitted to move forward under modernized notions and applications. The success and result from these types of p rograms continue to be debated as to their efficacy To some, preservation of culture and its physical environment is akin to creating museum pieces for display that result from the efforts made to preserve them. Heath (2001) commented that preservation s ometimes denies history as an ongoing process. He looked at ordinary tinkering of the vernacular construct through common living as accommodating social change, It is unfortunate, but there is plausibility in thinkin g that some attempts at preserving a cultural landscape tend to weaken its integrity because somewhere along the way, some essential links in the chain of history and tradition have been skipped or become lost. This is usually the beginning of the end of o ne cultural landscape as it evolves into an updated, gentrified, or modified version of itself which in either case may not be easily r ecognizable (Frey, 2009 ). At first blush, Cortez exemplifies a historic vernacular landscape with a fair amount of physical integrity However, much of the physical integrity that once defined its context through easily recognizable forms at the waterfront interstice has been lost. Irrespective of this apparent diminution of historic character, several books have been written about Cortez, and data resources including both written and graphical text are also available. Its location near the mid Florida coast of the Gulf of Mexico places it within an important regional context where other traditional ly fish ing oriented

PAGE 151

151 communities are present from Key West to Apalachicola, allowing for comparative referential considerations that appear in my study My study of Cortez then, is not intended to be a case study per se ; instead, it is a referential standard or model of stud y. The difference is that much of the documentation of its vernacular history is already available through archival resources that allowed me to simply refer to those sources, and to observe and document it. If I was required to immerse myself into the com more social processes of direct interviews, oral histories, or ethnographic studies, then I could frame it according to the prescriptive process for doing a case study analysis Since lived in cultures are not always open to outsiders, the added benefit of my hybridized research method finds ways for critically analyzing historic communities through observation and the already available archival resources that in one way serves as a control valve for limiting addition al conjecture and guessing, w ithout requiring new discussions within the community itself. Ph ase I (Preparation) -D ata Resource Review, Fiel d Studies, and Terms The Phase I process was part of the preparatory phase of my study and will be referred to in th e past tense. Through a fairly exhaustive exploration of available research and fieldwork, I was able to coordinate much of the hidden data into a working set of notes, lists, and field tables. I also clarif ied some of the ambiguous terminology such as form and vernacular in the ex isting literature that present problems of ambiguity when looking at the vernacular construct. The operationalization of my research was also completed during this first, and in some c ases, preliminary phase.

PAGE 152

152 Data Resource R eview I reviewed all of the available literature and historical archives up to the present time for Cortez, and the immediate surrounding areas of Palma Sola and Bradenton To a slightly lesser extent, I reviewed the historical record for places that had known connections to Cortez including Sarasota, Punta Gorda, Gulfport Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Cedar Key In addition, I extensively researched much of the available literature and historical archives for fishing v illages as far south as Key West, and north to Apalachicola. I also made field visits to all of these communities in order to research their local museums of history, especially maritime museums, if available, and to compile a photographic collection of th e existing landscape construct. To increase my local knowledge of Cortez, I volunteered my time to the Florida Maritime Museum in Cortez where I provided two research papers to its former Executive Director, Roger Allen. Because many of the first settlers of Cortez relocated from coastal North Carolina, I researched traditional fishing histories from that area and visited the North Carolina Maritime Museum located in the coastal city of Beaufort an incorporated city of Carteret County I also familiarize d myself with the seminal and newly issued literature on the topics of form as it related to a multidisciplinary field covering at least nine areas of study including historic preservation, cultural landscapes, vernacular architecture, land use planning, cultural geography, urban morphology, archaeology, landscape architecture, and ecology. The resulting review of the available literature was formulated into a working Dissertation Research Chart a partial sample of which is included herein as Appendix A Th is helpful organizational tool while presented in its original, unpolished working form, whittled down the overall literature review according to my

PAGE 153

153 res earch questions, and also served as a repository and listing for other textual sources such as the gr aphics that may be included for referencing during the later phases. My research data included both primary and secondary source materials such as written literature, a plethora of public and private government documents, published academic and newspaper a rticles, maps, architectural drawings, brochures, websites, and non participatory observation and field documentation of existing settings and vantage points For the initial step of Phase I, much of the data was processed as a comprehensive literature rev iew around the four conceptual structures that support my dissertation research including : a) general vernacular studies ; b ) general cultural landscape studies; c) a rchitectural and landscape form; and d) visual and intangible analysis. A note a bout v ernacular I found it necessary to narrow down vernacular into a working definition since there is a revolving debate among disciplines for how the word and its meani ng are applied For the general vernacular studies, I traced the origins of the term vernac ular, and examined numerous scholars and authors from the twentieth century such as Fred Kniffen, Henry Glassie, Amos Rapoport, Michael Vlach, Jay Edwards, Dell Upton, and David Lowenthal. More current scholarly literature during the first decade of the tw enty first century has been put forth by some of the aforementioned, as well as, newer forays into vernacular studies by Marcel Vellinga, Roderick Lawrence, Thomas Hubka, Ronald Lewcock, Allen Noble, and Kingston Heath The general vernacular studies mostl y concentrated on individual structures leading me to expand from the more restricted localized vernacular form to its perspective in the wider landscape. My graduate studie s along this line of thought led me to the core scholars of landscape and urban for m study

PAGE 154

154 such as Carl Sauer, J. B. Jackson, Donald Meinig, Peirce Lewis, Karl Kropf, J. W. R. Whitehand, and W. G. Hoskins to name a few. The importance and ultimate relevance of my study, and of course its findings depend on a clear understanding of what v ernacular is. Yet, an odd array of vernacular types and usage exists in such a way that it was difficult to frame only one paradigm for applying it to the context of my study The resulting hybrid approach for adapting terminology proved worthwhile for the subsequent research phases A note a bout architectural and l andscape fo rm The readings focusing on vernacularism created a solid theoretical base from which to examine the various orders of its associated artifacts and constructs. This included exploring vernacular as a form regarding its additional associations with non typical structures and objects, versus only primary buildings and structures This interest was further bolstered from my own examinations of actual historic district nominations that all seemed to rely heavily on dwelling and commercial building form for capturing contextual statements. I found few authors broach ing perspective of context beyond widely known factual information, however. It appeared to me that context was being t reated merely as a required task for setting the stage of a building or place, which, to be fair, is precisely what the contextual background for National Register nominations is supposed to do. I did find a model of excellence in exposing context through a reading of the multiple property study and National Register nomination by Linda Flint McLelland (1995), whose research certainly included an exhaustive incorporation of how context plays such an important role across boundaries. The general vernacular studies I reviewed mostly concentrated on individual structures leading me to expand from the more restricted localized vernacular form to its

PAGE 155

155 perspective from the wider landscape. My studies along this line of thought led me to the core founders of landsc ape study referenced above, but perhaps more importantly to those few scholars who were already exploring vernacular as a n additional or extended form through its associations with non typical structures and objects, versus only primary buildings. Those la tent studies provided a good basis for establishing a m ore comprehensive, contextually rich vernacular form that better characterizes historic, c ontextually rich communities such as TFVs Neverthel ess, the available data remains thin, but eventually appear ed in my search as I continued to read about the broad er landscapes and the various methods in which they were being examined across disciplines While many scholars have written extensively on the subject of vernacular landscapes, Michael writings of TFV s in the Great Lakes and eastern Canadian coastal regions are the first I found that reflect ed the local contextual artifacts as part of maritime landscape form, that are not based on simple d escriptions of material culture; Robert Mellin al so produced scholarly work on this type of vernacular form. However, the further I researched the concepts of vernacular and form, the more I realized they lacked a consensus definition. In fact, form was even a vague term when applied within the strict co nfines of individual disciplines. This is not uncommon as scholars often terminology. Part of the problem of definition and usage of terms derived from a rchitects typically looking at architects may look at the same building as a shape against the natural land features

PAGE 156

156 either from which, or around which it was erected. Most discussions seem ed to look at and descri be vernacular architecture and landscapes, and relate to them as having form, yet, the form itself, as an easily understood and defined parameter was rarely pursued, leaving me without a meaningful way to study it in a purposeful manner without getting bog ged down by overgeneralization and ambiguity. In other words, as part of my initial research, I could not clearly evaluate form change, whether it related to an individual building or an entire landscape, until I examined these terms and clarified their me anings pursuant to the research at hand. Therefore, this lack of a workabl e definitional framework led me to several authors who did provide a good grounding to enhance the efficacy of my own research. In operationalizing these terms that deal with form, I found helpful assistance not necessarily from near recent authors, but from older sources such as Santayana (1896) and M. R. G. Conzen (1960) More recent assistance w as found in the works of K. Heath, B. K. Roberts. K. Kropf, M. P. Conzen, E. Akcan, W. C. Yeomans, and S. Brand. Benefit s of Using the Traditional Fishing Village Context There are a number of studies that looked at the forms of structures, buildings, natural environments, and even entire cities. One of the most informative, and thoroughly comprehensive descriptive literature sets was completed in 1887 by George Brown Goode, who edited an extensive compendium of fisheries descriptions in the contribution by 1879, provided precise descriptions of the natural environment, erected constructs, Point. However, I have been hard pressed to find meaningful discussions of the wider landscap e form and its evolution over time. Now, there many studies that analyze how

PAGE 157

157 landscapes themselves change over time such as available under the guidelines of the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) administer ed by the NPS In the CLR studies, changes to the la ndscape are described, and may also include explanations for what caused the changes. However, form, as a prioritized human construct where change and the determinants of change are questioned, is not the primary target. Instead, the focus is on the human construct as it interacts, or interacted with the natural setting. This is especially true of the landscape form in working waterfronts such as commercial fishing villages. The commercial fishing village ben e fit s my study since its rich context serves as a prime model for the task of highlight and connecting the historic forms that are available or at one time established it Description of the TFV as an informative land use type and historic resource The cultural landscape is a complicated, multifaceted ever changing realm in which multip le physical, non physical, and intangible forces converge in an endless panoply of discourse and production. In the United States, the recent cultural milieu makes study of it even more difficult with its extremes of diversity, making a shared communication of landscape equally difficult (Roberts 1996). How large this endeavor would be, if not impossible considering the seemingly open ended ranges of nationalities represented with evident shifts in demographics, the broad mix of built development types, postmodern responses to redevelopment, etc. Diversity is a bonus, however, in that American and global traditions and values since the mid twentieth century have shifted along with the changing landscape, which, in essence, makes the study of landscapes that much more interesting, if not more compl ex. If landscapes in the United States are considered by some to be too inherently complex to be suitable for applying a common method to understanding them, then it is my hope that the

PAGE 158

158 examination of context fosters a change to this view through the use o f village layout, the building mosaic, and the extended vernacular artifact as measurable indicators of form. While many cultural enclaves in the United States have eroded and diminished significantly enough to a point of becoming absent from their own re cognizable and visible histories, the TFV, in spite of high economic, environment, and political pressures has exhibited a modicum of resilience that has insulated it from total erasure across a wider geographic spectrum. Certainly, many if not most TFVs i n this country have indeed gone missing, or have changed to postmodern versions of their former character. However, several distinct cultural enclaves that can be regarded within this context do still exist, such as the fishing communities along the coast of Maine, along Lake Michigan, in the U.S. Northwest, and of course in Cortez, Florida. On a global scale, vernacular and artisanal fishing villages are still quite active and relatively historic, such as in Newfoundland, Canada, particular coastal areas o f Central America, the Mediterranean, Great Britain, and eastern Asia, though threats to their existence due to pollution, high technology, overdevelopment, encroachment, etc., are increasing. Generally, the sprinkle of remaining TFVs that were developed in large numbers in the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have held a steadiness in their basic developed form and commercial enterprise, though none have retained a pure set of traditional methods and built environment s that could be consi dered historically preserved without the benefit of reconstructions and touristic development venues. One example of this impurity is that for a nineteenth century TFV to be historically pure, its fishers would have to continue to use sail power, not a likely

PAGE 159

159 scenario if one can be found. Indeed, many former TFVs no longer function solely as commercial fishing waterfronts, instead incorporating other water dependent uses that dilute and obscure the associations and settings historically tied to its rich fishing operations. Of course, certain dynamics of economics that w ere an inherent part of the TFV could support non fishery uses and activities if th e y were part of the historic dynamic. However, much of the steadfastness of those few that do remain is a result of their topographical limitations, such as water body borders. In addition, they are often isolated from more progressively developed areas, further limiting regional development outward from or to them, especially when their wa ter body borders are vast beyond those of riverine places. The coastal environments in which fisheries operate are often located in areas of such isolation that typical pressures of development and development either are not feasible or take longer for the ir encroachment to take place. The inherent problems of changing markets and economic stagnation have also helped to retain integrity of many hi storic fishing villages However, time continues to creep up on them as they quickly disappear. The commercial fishing waterfronts and adjacent areas where fishers live and work in relative proximity to each other, reveals itself as changes to that form attributable to the forces that are applied to it direc tly. This is easily complicated by the misconception that commercial fishing form survives in a vacuum and isolates itself from the broader influences that occur at its doorstep. The influence of outside cultural forces is well documented on even the small est place. For example, the sail watercraft found in early Cortez, as isolated as it

PAGE 160

160 was for decades, rapidly disappeared just after the turn of the century when motorization began to emerge. Placing TFVs within a specific or even general typological lan d use is cumbersome, though easier than many other village/work settings. The main thread of being culturally specific with regard to already built form was identified by Rapoport (1986) who suggested that human similarities across a wide array of regions are less telling of form than the differences that are found between them as distinctive groups. While it is often considered a type of agricultural use, it is also industrial in nature. As fishing villages per se there is an implication that those who wo rk in them also live in them, which means there is an essential residential area that has been integrated into it, whether amidst the actual fishing works, or at its fringe areas Zoning historically attempted to separate residential and commercial areas, regardless of integration, so mapping of such places accordingly would clearly show several land use categories applied to a single village. Later, n onconformities appearing within the categories were frequent since some of these types of fishing villages grew organically, and were rarely planned resulting in a variety of individualized uses being developed as the community needed them. Therefore, as part of any zoning era categorization goes, TFVs do not fit into a concise c olumn. Instead, many traditional fishing communities, because they have been recognized as both water dependent and industrial, have been placed i nto loca lized categories, referring to their combined residential and commercial areas as a village a mixed u se district, or simply as a specialized historic district.

PAGE 161

161 Regardless, the favorable benefit of using TFVs for my study includes the particular contextual identifiers that result in easily identifiable patterns in them that are not typically found in othe r historic contexts, whether one considers working waterfronts or land based developments or operations. One example is the unique array of artifacts found at the waterfront. In reviewing TFVs across a broad geographic spectrum, this array of buildings suc h as fish houses, structures such as dock systems, objects such as watercraft and fishing gear, and configuration such as at the waterfront interstice and TFV setting. The context i n this case is richer than perhaps that of a company town where there is a less visible connection between home and work area, and where positive personal, nurturing connections between them are unwarranted and rarely evident. Obviously, this may not alway s be the case since context may be highly evident, but the context of a TFV is arguably richer than many other contexts. Another benefit of using the TFV as a model for form study considers the labeling of some of them as having achieved, or having preser ved a high degree of historic stability over a lengthy period of time. This questioning of historic stability is exemplified by rapid changes in them that only become latently noticeable as the TFV begins to react to the changes. This internal or cultural recognition of change can be transposed into some identifiable form change. For example, a village may be considered highly historic even though many of its original lots have been subdivided but not yet built upon. As soon as development of these newer lo ts begins, the impacts to the formerly stable village are then noticeable. In this case, one can argue that the original village layout, as a historic form, has changed, or at least enlarged, which may or may not

PAGE 162

162 represent form change. The subsequent build ings on the newly subdivided lots also represent a form addition, and th is would have to be examined. Certainly the historicity is affected, which will also have to be examined. The TFV cultural landscape offers these kinds of scenarios from which a close examination can benefit. Cortez as a preferred model of study As stated earli er, my initial research includes an exhaustive review of the available literature concerning Corte z and its history. This includes the three primary published local histories fr om actual former residents Doris Green, Mary Fulford Green, and Ben Green (partial resident). While the echo of last names suggests a single familial viewpoint, my focus on gleaning off information related to building and landscape form somewhat negated an y occurrence of local bias in the historical development of Cortez. Most of the relevant information was crosschecked as much as possible with other histories, historic pictures and descriptions of the landscape and architecture over time, oral histories, and recorded data sets. Several graduate students have researched Cortez as part of their masters and doctoral studies, though mostly from social perspectives. A video documentary by Mark Jepson and the Florida Humanities Council (2006) provided a close c ultural perspective of Cortez and other fishing villages within the region even though it was taped more than 50 years after the end of my historic study period. Regarding some points made by other authors, or as found in some of the available literature, I was able to clarify their presentation of what had been conjecture or misleading information, or provide a more detailed contribution. Other documents such as historic register nomination inventories, vision statements, maps, building permit files, subdi vision records, tax records, voting

PAGE 163

163 directories, land deeds and patents, brochures, line drawings, and resident surveys are publicly available and were also reviewed. As already mentioned, there are numerous historic photographs of the Cortez historic vernacular cultural landscape over time available from the histories mentioned above, and from a variety of other sources including the Florida Maritime Museum located in Cortez, the Manatee County Historic Records Library, the Eaton Florida Histo ry Room located in the Manatee County Public Library system, the U.S. National Archives, and t he University of South Florida Onl ine Digital Collections for Research and Learning. Perhaps the most compelling benefit offered by Cortez is its easily identifi able historical development with a known point of beginning occurring at or near 1887. H ere ) notion of towns, especially those that have been planned from the beginning, as having identifiable root owners or founders. Unlike ma ny towns in Europe, which are figuratively set in stone due to their own organic growth around entrenched street systems and patterns, below ground infrastructure, and a strong sense of public building practice, developed areas in the United States unlike Cortez, have been much more open an d accessible to change. In fact, wholesale change of many communities is evidenced in the complete razing of historic communities for highways, retail developments, and major public events, often in the name of progress or economic development. The TFV landscape of Cortez, while certainly encroached upon during its history, and certainly a victim of insensitive development within its boundaries, still retains a modicum of its expression as a historical development, with m any of its physical forms still discernible or interpretable.

PAGE 164

164 While not completely undeveloped or impacted by human agency prior to this 1887 point of beginning to the end of the historic study period mostly represents that of a co mmercial fishing context without the influences of other overarching industries or economies that could have shaped it differently. Its character as a commercial fishing village did not gro w or develop from other industries. Cortez began as a fishing villa ge, and it remained a fishing village, a t least to a significant enough degree to examine it under that context through the study period to 1946 This trueness to a common interest and pursuit by its founders, and continued somewhat by the subsequent gener ations allows a clearer understanding of form that should cater toward the industry. Even as of the date of this writing, it is still considered to be a fishing village, albeit with a noticeable loss of the historic contextual artifact, and the addition o f non contextual intrusions and encroachments which actually began early on Th e continuation of commercial fishing as the primary cultural pursuit is also important to understanding both physical and intangible form s as it evolves within the community in sider base since major influences on form from non contextual forces such as non fishing dependent or fishing community associations would skew the form. Th e strong contextual basis ascribed to commercial fishing in Cortez is unlike those of the historic Cedar Keys and Key West, for example, both of which had strong commercial fishing industries but were representative of several disparate industries Many of these were temporary even when considering their long histories in situ ( Shiver, 1988 ). Even though t he cigar industry in Key West was temporary lasting for approximately 50 years, it contributed to an architectural form on the skyline as manufacturers erected factories and housing. However, the context that fed into that

PAGE 165

165 particular form was rela tively short lived given the long history and skews both the form indicator and the form result. If fishers took over the built construct after the cigar manufacturers departed, then there is an adapted context pursuant to traditional fishing village evolu tion. It would be perhaps, less organic than Cortez. strongest modern representations of th e commercial fishing cultural lands cape; however, it also consisted of other equal ly important industries that skew considerations away from the context argument for neatly exploring and interpreting form. As early as 1840, Irish immigrants in Apalachicola had already erected approximately 40 cotton warehouses reaching heights up to thr ee stories. By the 1920s, most of these structures were replaced with brick warehouses. The obvious form along the waterfront was contextual with regard to a working waterfront, but not as a fishing village, even though I can easily assume that many schola rs and historic preservation practitioners consider Apalachicola to be historically rich with regard to the forms created over time in this context. Even Cedar Key, considered by many to have a rich history embedded in commercial fishing as its most inten se enterprise, was a dynamic port of multiple industries. Though it contained at least seven fish houses by 1910 (McCarthy, 2007), several mo re than Cortez ever had at its peak, its prominence as a lumber and shipping town far outweighed its fishing villag e character Form in these overlapping and more dynamic economic environments was less stable due to rapid growth and constantly changing and expanding uses, as well as, new influxes of stakeholders. The public oriented waterfront seems to have had a marke d influence on its subsequent changes

PAGE 166

166 and the rate at which these changes occurred. It is not unreasonable to think that a length of privatized waterfront consisting of multiple owners would be more resistant to change since it also represents a more compl ex dynamic of ownership wrangling. However, the difference between private commercial and residential may be a key factor that separates Cortez from other working waterfronts. It is expected that accessory, but non fishing uses found in all contexts are a lso found in Cortez, but these result from needs attributable to the fishing community as it grows and develops symbiotic relationships. For example, grocery stores can be found anywhere, in any context that does not have to be commercial fishing, but they evolve within the background of their surrounding context so they are more aligned with the forms of the community they serve. Nevertheless, this does not mean that form is not affected; instead, form s are continually affected by the cultural denominators and the individual activities that take place around them In essence, the TFV of Cortez is a simpler human construct that evolved pursuant to its own struggles within a kinship oriented cultural flux Dur ing boom times, the form in Cortez evolved and app eared in a more rapid pace and became evident in a distinct pattern that is considered maritime in character. During these times form was both solidified and expanded. When the economy was in a downturn, fishers there adapted to other pursuits akin to bidi ng time. Form appeared more stable and stagnant, with no apparent wide threa t of wholesale change due to a selling out by the main cultural thread that is sometimes evident in other communities This is not to say that certain fishers in Cortez did not just give it all up and sell to the highest bidder, or introduce non fishing constructs and activities, for the evidence does reveal this. In

PAGE 167

167 some cases, the arduous lifestyle of commercial fishing proved too onerous for some and they did not return to it, but form overall, did not appear to be affected to the significant degree exhibited by other communities Understanding a R egional Area of I nfluence When considered within its regional influence, Cortez reflects both similarities and differences among its peer TFVs from Charlotte Harbor to Tampa Bay. The expression exemplified by Cortez and surrounding TFVs slowly transitioned from an elevated wood construct partially built over the water, to a com pletely over land concrete block construct built to the water. Heath (2001) identified such changes to regionally characteristic elements in landscapes as significant to perceptions of places, where loss of one type of construct, and therefore a loss of a particular expression, can actually make room for new expressions. Place is then reestablished, or reconstructed upon the old layers. In essence, there is a continual flux of addition and subtraction of cultural expression always taking place. Cortez embr aces an organicism of sorts, and cultural steadfastness that nearly all of the other communities do not have or did not seem to be able to sustain intact Cortez remained small and family oriented at least until 1950, while the other communities evaporat ed completely or expanded their economic strength enough to foster increased growth and development often into non fishery enterprises Cortez has arguably experienced a slower impact from various economic influences than many other similar fishing villag oast (Eaker, 1994). In some cases, such as in Apalachicola and Cedar Key, and even Sarasota for this matter, the small village turned into a thriving, all purpose economic engine handling multiple industries at once. Commercial fis hing as the dominant indus try waxed and waned over time. While

PAGE 168

168 commercial fishing may still be a prevalent activity, it is often not the dominant activity, sharing this hierarchy with other, adapted industries. Ironically, it is the commercial fishing acti vity that is mostly remembered and cast in stone as the most significant character defining context, whether fully extant or not. Cortez, on the other hand, has yet to fully change from its commercial fishing beginning, though other industries and uses such as government operations, recreational fishing and watersports, tourism, and minor retail did manifest themselves, but without d ominating the landscape. Most serve as incidental or support entities, roles typically common to all villages regardless of their contextual form and industrial make up. In some cases, the supportive entity may also feed the context if, for example, by hav ing a place as a water dependent structure and use, it is beneficial to the community and adapted to the stronger context. The primary question from the regional consideration here asks why Cortez remained true to its contextual form, while the others did not. Many scholars have claimed that cultural enclaves, no matter how isolated, are influenced at least to some degree by external cultural forces, especially as part of a regional fold where overlaps of tradition, materials, artifacts, and environment ta ke place. Because regional perspectives under the rubric of multiple disciplines are found in much of the literature to date, understanding the regional area of influence for Cortez pursuant to my study was informative, and warrants a limited background di scussion of it here. Regional boundaries are rarely well defined, and often lack precise geographical and topographical elements that fit neatly into common patterns

PAGE 169

169 As adapted from Wallace (1978), the modern cultural landscape is rarely, if ever so com pletely isolated that reading its language of form change over time does not require referential consideration of outside influences. Identifying the regional context of TFVs informs my study with regard to the potential for outside influences of forms on the vernacular landscape of Cortez. In reverse, information is available that could suggest the influence of Cortez form on regional landscapes. Form is culturally produced and becomes expressed as physical, spatial, extended, social, political, and econom ic, and can be considered based on the context in which it takes or took place. This includes its regional context On a regional basis, there is often a high degree of commonality found among TFVs. In fact, contextually speaking, there is always a modicum of consistency in form. Searches for commonality of form among all fishing communities appears far fetched, yet there are overlapping forms such as the act itself, the nets, the hook and line, etc. One does not have to think too much to connect the se dots of commonness. One can easily suggest that they all share proximity to a water body, use similar equipment for fishing, or process harvests in the same manner. Such commonly shared attributes are a given, just as residential or factory settings aro und the globe also share common aspects. However, form between settings, though similar in context, can be physically and cognitively different though their basic landscape complexions may be similar. For example, the fishing watercraft, or jukungs as th ey are called, lined up along the shoreline settings of Bali in Indonesia certainly represent a difference of form from the intracoastal fishing vi

PAGE 170

170 overlapping in hull design and sail formatio n. The differences between mullet fishing off the coast of North Carolina is different than that of Cortez, even though its original settlers came from there. In any event, regions have the fuzzy borders discussed by Glassie (1968), which do not render con venient boundaries that allow easy analysis. While the spritsail used in early Cortez represented an earlier use along the North Carolina coast, the basic form of the craft was adapted to a slightly different styling later on in Cortez. Even its use in Nor th Carolina was adapted locally from a widespread use in the Northeastern coastal states. Hence, form within a single, highly contextual community is a valid study. In referring to the regional perspective of distinct existi discussed by Heath (2009), and b ased solely on historic commercial fishing activities and methods, Cortez is debatably part of a regional influence of TFVs located between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay In one example, an applicable regional discussion north to Apalachicola. A recent, unpublished study by Frey (2010), suggested yet anot Flori da Gulf Coast Historic This delineated region focused on the historic navigation patterns and development activities between Pensacola, Tampa, and Key West. It is remarkable in that it includes the entire Florida Gulf Coast as a n interrelated related region In the same study, Frey discussed the possibility of including Havana, Cuba as the southern tip of the triangle due to the early connections Gulf of Mexico fishers and oth er commerce traders developed. Figure 3 1

PAGE 171

171 Florida Gulf Coast delineation using a basic Google Earth tool (Google earth & Terra Metrics, 2013) The updated version illustrate s the geographical relationships between Cortez and some of the Florida Gulf Coast TFVs through a yellow triangle outline area. A modified triangular relationship that displaces Key West with Havana, Cuba is also included, but with a green triangle outline d area The location of Carteret County, North Carolina at the northern terminus of the red line is also included to illustrate the geographical relationship of this area as the origination point for many of the original Cortez settlers. In following one example, Heath (2009) research was abl e to provide a good working basis from which I could begin to approach the regional issue in Cortez through his measure of the forces that helped to shape vernacular form. I n order to determine a regional setting as a common collection of input mechanisms attributable to Cortez, I developed a working quick study tool for analyzing r egional c onsiderations of TFVs ( Appendix B ) I used Cortez as the referential or model community from which the others would be assessed The location of Cortez was not given a ny hierarchical preference to avoid bias. The tool also helped me to build upon a context during the Phase I data resource review and field studies An important aspect of the regional setting analysis is that t he determinants of form and its stability in the landscape were more comprehensively assessed through comparisons with other land scapes Several facets of Cortez contained within a reg ional dialogue were organized to include Caniza (2007) prescriptions of geography, climate, and materials along with (2009) addition of topography and traditional input as a slight inclusion of memory, which I revised to traditional practice and my additions of t rade and commerce

PAGE 172

172 characteristics village growth patterns and duration, as found in th e quick s tudy t ool and abbreviated into a list here as g eography ; t opography ; c limate ; m aterials ; t rade and commerce ; t raditional practice ; v illage growth patterns ; and d uration Based on the above prescriptions, and the quick analysis of historic commercial fishing areas from Key West to Apalachicola, a regional setting for Cortez that includes the coastal area from Tampa Bay south to Charlotte Harbor is an acceptable consideration pursuant to my study of historic vernacular fishing villages. This determination results from commonalities that bring locations together, and the differences separat ing them. The commonalities of geography, topography, climate, trade and commerce, traditional practice, and village growt h patterns seemed more prevalent between the historic communities occurring from Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor. Some overlaps occurred between all of the communities. The most significant disparities of geography and trade and commerce prevented the inclu sion of the distant communities. Initial Field Studies of Cortez and O ther TFVs I made f ield visits to Cortez and other TFVs for data collection, observance, photographic compilation, and general understanding of their existing physical features and sett ings Th e field visits also included research time at historic repositories such as historical societies and libraries where historic photographs maps, government documents, written articles, and other archival data were reviewed. The field study

PAGE 173

173 included Manatee County Historical Records Library, and the Manatee County Clerk of the Court for perusing public records such as archived building permit information, tax deeds, and property sales records. I was not able to retrieve any building permit records from the historic study span of 1887 to 1946 since a representative from Manatee County suggested that they were not available. Most of the information regarding building permitting was obtained from the 1995 National Register N omination and published histories of Cortez. Photographic compilation In order to familiarize myself with the physicality of Cortez, t he i nitial field visits include d a barrage of my own amateur photographs that capture d current images for every street, structure, and village periphery in the present. Special emphasis was placed on the water front conglomeration where the develo ped form of buildings, structures, and the shoreline construct w ere of a special interest for comparing the present with the past Capturing the sufficient perspective required vantage points from the water that included the use of watercraft excursions. I t was from this photographic study, considered in tandem with the other data resources that the descriptions and analyses in Phases II and III w ere processed and some sketch drawings were completed. It is important to note here that while the use of my ow n photographs was of exceptional benefit to familiarization and comparison needs, they were not meant to be incorporated into my study as particular reference figures, and therefore, are not found in the final document. The incorporation of historic photo graphs, while referenced as part of my study, also does not include insertions of them into the analysis sections of my study in order

PAGE 174

174 to avoid a bias in evaluating form from certain angular viewsheds. Many of these photographs do not reference specific da tes and are not credited to a photographer, though they are eas ily considered as having occurred within certain historic periods of my study based on the historic record Also, the vantage points from which many are taken, are difficult to put into proper perspective, and may cause confusion to the reader without proper in depth consideration. Instead, a sample set of archival photographs of the historic waterfront conglomeration is provided in Figure 3 2 to enhance understanding of the overall forms availa ble in the highly contextual area of the landscape as they occurred during the first decade or so of the twentieth century The waterfront conglomeration is discussed elsewhere, herein. A prime photograph is the 1947 aerial of Cortez that presents one of the last visual documentations of the later historic vernacular construct of the entire village. However, full permission to incorporate this graphic into my study by the completion date could not be obtained since there are pending c opyright discussions taking place However, the graphic is available for public view at the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez, and for limited scholarly use under fair use provisions. Mapping Present day and historic map and plat configurations were locat ed and compared to determine how the village evolved and became a recorded entity. The earliest map found depicting the Cortez area using scientific delineation is from 1846 though it was referenced according to its section, town ship, and range at the tim e The earliest map Point. Loc ating the earliest known map of Cortez was important for understanding how its boundary or actual physical shape evolved as a particular type of form. The earliest

PAGE 175

175 subdivision found is dated 1887, which is the beginning of the settlement period for later named as Cortez One important consideration for comparing and analyzing maps in a c hronological order was to determine how the sho reline changed from settlement through the study period, which proved to be quite significant. While over 100 maps were reviewed, approximately 30 formed the archive documentation for explaining the village layout form indicator set (to be explained later) Phase II (Descriptive Strategy Part 1) -V isual Analysis for Documenting and Clarifying the Physical Landscape Form of Cortez How Will the Physical Landscape and Its Form b e D ocumented? As noted in Phase I above, my primary challenge during the early phases was in understand ing how to look at form as it occurred in a diminished vernacular landscape An obvious assumption at the time was that form of any type often changed as vantage points change d in tandem as persp ectives an d p erceptions increase or decrease as one experiences the landscape from inside or outside, or from any seemingly unlimited number of perspectives that are not necessarily restricted to those that are physical To operationalize a procedure for t his, I analyze d the existing physical landscape form during 2012 and 2013 from the data resources collected during Phase I and follow ed up with a second, more detailed study of Cortez as part of its mapped history and the photographic compendium This was then followed by a sketch program of what I call graphic tiles that display form indicator sets juxtaposed for their ea sy assessment of the form sets on a single formatted page that allows easy comparisons This was done for each historic period, includin g the pre settlement form period. The second major challenge was in understanding how the images could overcome the presentation of a landscape as too stati c in that it would have somehow

PAGE 176

176 unfairly captured an arbitrary moment In response to Upton (1991 ), and pursuant to Gibson (1979) I determined that a graphic sketch program as part of my study was a key factor in evaluating form especially its physical aspects, over time at certain intervals, rather than as a slow moving rolling film of change. Gibson recognized and warned that drawings and photographs of the landscape serve as a sort of documentary (p. 294) that really defines them, and as such, can only be considered as events that are captured at the moment i n which it was produced Since the landscape has virtually an infinite number of views available to anyone who is looking at it, form was a construct that I saw as a snapshot of multiple views that includes individual objects along with larger areas, and o f the forms that contribute to the definition of a contextual setting. In this case, I saw form as rolling out from the interior (residential) outward to the waterfront, out over the water, and then into the intangible forms beyond that. This depiction is not a photo realistic image; instead, it is an image laden depiction of available form. Figure 3 3 illustrates how this rolling out of form can be expressed visually. While this rather simple drawing technique does not appear to reveal much regarding form change and determinants, its combination with the resulting graphic tile and waterfront conglomeration sets according to historic study periods are important as the primary graphic tools for assessing change s in the landscape form overt tim e Obviously, it is important to use the same vantage points for each depiction. Photographic c ompendium The entire collection of photographs compiled during the first phase and subsequent phases that were part o f the archival record was used as a photogr aphic

PAGE 177

177 c ompendium of images I used them as referential data from which my own sketch dra wings and descriptions of form w ere visually analyzed and compared with historic photographs The potential for historic photographs, as records of historical data, required a basic knowledge of photography (1982 p. 31 ). This involves not only looking at a photograph for what it shows, but also how it i nforms. According to Schlereth who was referring to sociologist Howard Becker, each minute part of the historic photograph holds some special relevance to the wider of photography prompted me to inquire as to who may have take n the photographs, how, and why. The fact that my study does not incorporate a comprehensive array of historic photographs as figures within the text results from the earlier discussion of avoiding confusion for the reader, and due to their impreciseness. An added benefit is the focus toward the practicality of the sketch drawings included as part of the study, as a more intimate relationship between the interpreter and the actual form. The first ste p involved collect ing images of the boundaries of Cortez by boat from the water, as well as, from various inland vantage points. Then, I walk ed through each accessible area street, sidewalk frontage, etc., to better understand and identify the internal se ctions and to mimic some of the visual perspectives from the historic photographs In doing this, I realized that the internal areas did not hold as much contextual character as the waterfront areas at least not in 2013 It was at this time that I decided to concentrate less on the residential as a seemingly generic historic fabric and more on the waterfront as richer in contextual character, which meant looking more closely at the fish processing facilities, the historic shoreline and waterfront, and the

PAGE 178

178 extended construct The decision to focus less attention on the residential construct was based primarily on the lack of its primacy as part of the historic context. While the residential construct, especially in its earliest forms, represented a dist inct and common form early on, its later version by itself did not reveal much to my study though an analysis of dwellings in maritime settings is a worthy discussion for another study. Create sketch drawings of form over time The sketch drawings are finali zed a ccording to the three time periods occurring as part of the historic study span from 1887 to 1946. As a referential comparison, I also prepared modified sketch programs for the pre settlement period occurring prior to 1887 and the current construct as it appeared in 2013 The goal was to create distinguishable yet basic forms that could be compared similarly and in equal sets from period to period. Finely detailed drawings were not the intent, since the problems associated w ith scrutiny of additional, and often superfluous information set s, become labored beyond the primary focus o f my study that attempts to lay out a program for practical application. A wide variety of sketches were included as part of my overall study, yet only those deemed appropria te are used or explained, herein. The form parameters, or form shapes prescribed to accomplish this as far as most of the visual construct was considered, are explained below. I understood the impossibility of being able to document what amounts to an inf inite set of form instances, so th e tool of sketching serves as an arbiter of visual form delivery that arguably transcends the effect of photographs The sketch program includes two formats including the single drawing of the waterfront conglomeration, an d a single page graphic tile system. The waterfront conglomeration for each historic form period provides a quick analysis of the jumble of forms present from what is perhaps the

PAGE 179

179 ultimate view opportunity for ascertaining a visible landscape form in the co ntextual setting of TFVs Th e unpopulated graphic tile template format is shown as Figure 3 4 The time periods are based on three distinct historic study periods in Cortez, along with two additional periods including a pre settlement period, and a 2013 set ; these provide an added value discussion of form change outside of the historic study span confine Form parameters technique. My considerations for document ing the form through sketches are adapted from the waterscape unit of analysis established by Litton and Tetlow (1974), who suggested using the first five of the six elements shown below, for sketching forms in landscapes having water features. I modified each of them to suit my study and added the interstice, as my own creation because of its imp ortance to the contextual character of the traditional fishing landscape These basic forms, which may or not be reminiscent of ordinary landscapes, allow a simple format for looking at and visual ly describing form, and include l inear elements: straight, diagonal, crooked, perspective, jutting, protruding, puncturing (e.g., docks and rigging) ; a rea elements: large surfaces, planes, even textures (e.g., facades) ; e nclosing elements: walls, rooflines, background, fences, walls (e.g., gables) ; m ass elements: silhouettes, density, positive negative space, bulk (e.g., groups of watercraft ) ; p oint elements: isolated, separate (e.g., traps, gear, individual watercraft ) ; and i nterstice: water land sky (e.g., foreshore accumulation) How Will Physical C h anges in the Landscape Form b e M easured? Measuring how form changed was another challenge, since I could find no pertinent formula that addressed it especially when considering the irregularity of the cultural landsc ape perspective This is remedied however, by first establishing the

PAGE 180

180 textual parameters for form as I do above. It is my contention that once the form is physically defined and then delineated, changes to it over time c an then be measured through noticeable physical changes that are compar ed through side by side analysis. This represents a fairly straightforward resolution that avoided any complexit y of undertaking, since as I see it, form is a simple concept that only bec omes less perceptive when attempting to view it, or understand it, fr om a larger landscape perspective. M y initial thought was to create a more complex, computer generated system of form delineation. However, I discovered that there is more of a commitment to understanding form in the drawing of it by hand This course is someth ing I felt could not be attained by using computer graphics and robotic programming ( Lavoie, 2005) The resulting physical changes reveal the clues to the intangible form changes, as well, from whi ch the influences r egarding determinants of form chan ge are examined. Historically, t here were additions and subtractions to the landscape in the forms of newer vessels and buildings, projections, land surfacing, etc. The basic elements I adapted from Litton and Tetlow (1974), i.e., linear, area, enclosing, mass, point, and interstice are simply reassessed using this simple addition and subtraction format. While I understood early on that form was constantly changing in all environments, my addition /subtraction formula represents a matter of degree, subject to my inte rpretation of what matters in the contextual landscape. A small degree of change may be assessed as a form change. The research result clarifies the confusion and reduces the subjective input that degree brings to the table through the use of dr awings that visually document change in a certain way

PAGE 181

181 Therefore, m y initial concerns as part of this graphic undertaking revolved around the measurement of form based on these graphic comparisons. While I figured out the specific timeframes for comparison I remained unsettled regarding the degree of change. For example, I wondered if the addition of a single flat roof into the array of existing gabled ends constituted a form change worthy of remark. I did expect that form would change rapidly during the s ettlement period as a highly vernacular period of form that quickly multiplied through mimicry. As the community evolve d and prospered and added new settlers, the addition of new buildings, structures, and development certainly established a feverish flux of form change if on ly through sheer density of it. This concern allowed me to accept the fact that intermediate form change through addition was certainly taking place and that is precisely why I decided to analyze Cortez for its significant periods of time whereby the form being graphically delineated reflected an equal and comparative end result of that distinct period. The question of whether and how form changed is left to the analysis of it in Chapters 4 and 5 Another problem I encountered was in how to examine the wholesale form change as it occurred after the hurricane surge of 1921. Since most buildings were destroyed, I decided that it should be considered as a single event rather than as a time period. The subsequent building activity that fo llowed determined whether a new form emerged. Since the waterfront form was mostly destroyed, I did not feel that it was necessary to visualize through sketch drawings what appeared to be an absence or missing set of form s ; instead, I decided that it dese rved more of a detailed discussion, which is included as part of Chapters 4 and 5.

PAGE 182

182 Desc ribing the Visual Landscape Form C hanges The process for evaluating form change lies within the narrative s of Chapter s 4 and 5. In describing the f orm and its changes, I tend to rely on objective findings rather than conjecture in spite of the degree of change discussion presented earlier However, some conjecture is still evident. In some cases, I base my findings on historic photographs and archival documentation, wh ich required a sketched reconstruction of the forms. This suggests that some conjecture is part of the analysis since the lack of real and physical three dimensional buildings or detailed photographic documentation often requires filling in the blanks. Since the findings are included elsewhere, n o further elaboration on this is needed here. Ph ase III (Descriptive Strategy Part 2 ) -T hick Analysis for Re[vealing]eading the Intangible Landscape Form of Cortez Many scholars and practitioners have defined their roles of examining the landscape as reading it like text, i.e., as if looking at the visu al akin to reading the pages of a book. However, I incorporate a method into my study that I consider to be more of a revealing, or freeing of what I saw and visualiz ed in the studied landscape Hence, the play with the word Re[veal]eading, which is real ly just saying that in reading the landscape through what it offers through a thicker analysis of it, deeper insight of it will likely be revealed. While such word playing may seem overly cute for scholarly study, the important message it delivers survives this criticism. S ince my aim is to get a better understanding of what forms in the landscape were hidden from plain sight and how there is an additional dimension of form to consider or in isolation of other factors a more thickly applied analysis is t herefore, applicable

PAGE 183

183 For the purpose of evaluating determinants of the form changes that are visually studied under Phase II, my research uses a limited version of the technique r eferred to as thick description, based on the adaptation of it by Geertz (1973). However, I d o not see this part of my research as a continuation of merely desc ribing the visual landscape as is done under Phase II. Instead, I prefer to use it as more of an analysis versus description, since it delved somewhat deeper into the in tangible elements of culture and society The intangible is used instead of non physical or non visual since I feel th e latter term s to be too absolute for the forms represented The use of the intangible descriptor renders an allowance for a degree of phy sicality. This then translates into the intangible aspect of form as a set of indicators revealed in Chapter 4 With a n intangible characteristic, one can sometimes see the form, or feel it, or know that it exists through another mechanism, but it does exi st at least through a form that has some aspect of physicality In addition, there is a varied level of a nalysis that results from what was being considered As Domosh (1989) related during her study of the New York World Building closer readings of artifacts, or buildings, allow for increased understanding of the wider process. For example, in looking at the landscape and its economic market characteristics, which reveal s certain spatial results, the researcher tends to view it from a macro scale. In contrast, a micro level of understanding is achieved when artifacts are studied for their symbolic value and importance. As Black (2002) suggested, thick er analysi der c ultural influences such as : a) social and economic context; b ) nuances of the cap ital structure; c) signs and symbols; d)

PAGE 184

184 aesthetics study; and e ) linking a thorough visual description of vernacular construct to the above factors (p. 28) To accomplish thi variations adapted from Heath (2009) that consider Cortez during my research time period Th e referral s results in an interpretive narrative that e xamines the social construct based on local ethnogra phies and histories, including accounts from published books, articles, and newspapers; e xamines the economic contexts based on local, regional, state, and national accounts, as found in historic narratives, governments documents, and published articles and newspap ers; e xamines the context of how space was transformed and used by looking at aerial maps and subdivision records, as well as, technological advance s, and regulatory structures; e xamines the signs and symbols embedded in the landscape based on my exposure to, and studies of historical ecology, geography, historic preservation, building and construction, and cultural analysis for each period, by understanding local, regional, and national trends and events that took place; e xamines the aesthetics of percep tion and place from the vernacular point of view of Cortez, as found in the local published histories; e xamines an array of possible environmental factors that may have contributed to form but not considered during Phase II, based on my interdisciplinary u nderstanding of land use planning historical ecology, and flood plain management; I also take cues from other areas of interest that h old special appeal and relative usefulness such as archaeology, photography, and geography; and e xamines the decision making processes and political frameworks of the users and leaders of the Cortez community based on historical accounts. As part of considering these thicker analyses, I then merg e and cross referenc ed them with the actual form elements and p hysical descriptions derived from Phase II. T he information that emerge s is critical to my study, without relying on rich data for each matrix match as included in Chapters 4 and 5.

PAGE 185

185 Phase IV Findings: Interpretive Narrative and Discussion of Vernacular La ndscape Form Change and Influences The results of my study are formulated as part of this final phase where I a nalyze and present the findings related to my research questions through an interpretive narrative that considers the integrity and significance of the vernacular landscape in Cortez and in other TFV contexts. From here, I provide a review of the finding s as part of Chapter 5 in order to present conclusions and the implications presented by them. In addition, I add some perspect ives on later forms since my research reveals some of the most dramatic changes to the Cortez landscape occurr ing after my historic study period. However, I limit that discussion to avoid over analyzing certain points that require additional study beyond the scope presented herein. Methods of Data Collection and Information Sources I collect ed most of the background and visual data as part of the first two phases of my research program, which spanned a period of nearly three years The logistics of my original prog ram are molded along the way as some initial assumptions and research methods failed to produce the proper results. I found fairly early on that certain sets of the historical record led me to related sets of records or sets of information that, in turn, l ed to me even more records. One example of this was in determining the settlement period (1887 1897) chronology of land purchases. The biggest challenge was not in performing reverse title searching, but in deciphering the many legal descriptions that were either incorrect, or based on coordinates that were extremely vague. Luckily, my background in mapping and land use planning provided the necessary understanding for this rather complicated and time consuming task. After considerable investment of time in trying to uncover an appropriate use of historic

PAGE 186

186 t imeframes for analyzing vernacular form change, I found that they eventually presented themselves, as the historical record was uncovered. The peeling away of the layers of historical patina on the histori cal form was then revealed through close examination of this historical data, as well as, the visual analysis that became part of it. The Phase II secondary fieldwork result ed in detailed graphic note taking and documentation of the historical and existin g vernacular landscape form through a series of map overlays using the chain/link measurem ents found in the older surveys; a chain is measured as a length of 66 feet and a link is 7.92 inches The information from the map overlays was then carefully transf erred to a single working aerial taken from a compilation of overlapping Google Maps dated 2012 which serv ed as the primary base map with a definable boundary of Cortez a t a scale of eight millimeters equaling one chain. I then transferred the applicable data from other maps and written documents to this single map as a composite to show the historical development of Cortez While the end result was a complicated non compu terized working rendition reflecting multiple information sets that became difficult to read because of the amount of information it contained, its importance to understanding form, even as a two dimension al aerial is invaluable and beneficial as a working basis These first two phases allow ed me to develop a manageable working framework for the p hase three descriptive analyse s where I am able to identify some of the determinants that caused vernacular landscape form change throughout the historic study sp an I cho se the research end date of 1946 since much of what was referred to as vernacular by the available literature was constructed up to that time and is well documented through an available, high resolution 1947 aerial photograph, which clearly

PAGE 187

187 docum ents the visible landscape of the entire village. This represents a post World War II timeframe, after which much anecdotal evidence suggests the strongest diminution of form began to occur notwithstanding the 1921 storm effects of wind and tidal surge I n essence, the 1947 aerial photograph represents documented evidence of a visualized form across the physical landscape from which earlier (and later) forms can be compared. While the 1995 National Register N omination enlisted a historic period up to 1944, the date of 1946 also provides a solid reference time for understanding what occurred in Cortez according to a significance standard presented by the nomination and is fairly consistent with that date by not being that far removed from it Data sources The information sources I use for collecting data ranges among the nine areas of study mentioned under the above theoretical framework plus the available archival information from a variety of sources. This includes both primary and secondary source mate rials including historical and archival review of written lite rature, documents, graphics, government documents, and non participatory observation and field documentation of existing base images from personal sketch drawings I process this data according to a hybrid investigation method of preliminary research beginning with secondary sources to familiarize myself with each TFV. The re fore, secondary sources are first listed below reflect ing the chronological approach of my research program Secondary sources. G raphics are a significa nt part of piecing together the historical vernacular form puzzle. My research includes photographs, historic artwork s and mapping, including some technical works on the built and natural environments. I found th ese documents through antique stores, newspapers and local archives, retail stores, historic libraries and museum collections, private collections, and Internet

PAGE 188

188 resources. Graphics produced from geographic information systems (GIS ) as part of land use stud ies are also referenced and are available through local, state, and federal organizations, such as the Manatee County Property Appraiser Office, The Manatee County Clerk of Court, The Manatee County Historical Records Library, and the Florida Maritime Muse um at Cortez. In addition, a wealth of secondary source links are available through the on line database of the University of South Florida Digital Collections for Research and Learning, the Hathi Trust, the on line archives of the U.S. Bureau of Land Mana gement, the National Archives, the Historical Map and Chart Collection of the National Oceanic and A tmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A significant base of scholarly literature is available as secondary information resource material This includes numerous published books and peer reviewed articles re lated to TFVs in Florida, the United States, and around the globe t hat increase depth and dimension of the topic I also familiarize d myself with the various m ethods fo r reading his toric vernacular landscapes, as well as, establishing framework s for visual and textual descriptions, as reflected partly in my literature review of Chapter 2, and in the List of References. In addition, a plethora of readings about ve rnacula r architecture and form is available to narrow the above framework to include vernacular form as part of the cultural landscape of TFVs Urban form studies provide strong suggestions for describing and reading built environments I also found significant e xplorations concerning the contextual basis of the vernacular landscape, and the environmental and ecological studies that specifically deal t with TFVs and their associated vernacular

PAGE 189

189 landscapes and environments A wide array of literature is available tha t explain s the foundations of material culture especially as it appears in vernacular communities Since no new oral histories are performed for my study I defer to several that already exist and were created as early as 1963 Some earlier newspaper inte rviews from the 1950s add to this assortment of personal recollections and opinions by local fishers. V arious government documents related to visual and spatial form, community vision ing design standards, national register nominations, and comprehensive planning are also reviewed The se documents are available t hrough the University of Florida and other public library systems, including its E journal tool, retail bookstores, and additional on line formats t hrough a variety of Internet sources. Finally, scholarly work of several theses and dissertations some of which pertain directly to Cortez provide important contributions to my research, as made available found through the University of Florida inter lib rary research system and on line databases Regarding the av ailable popular literature t here is some rich data from published family oral and cultural histories, which contain useful after the fact details that may not be documented in the scholarly and p rimary lite rature (Green, n.d. ; Green, 1985 ). Early travel books, tourist related documents and brochures, and monographs reveal important tidbits of information regarding socio cultural environments and major events that provide a good understanding of ve rnacular form at given time periods or junctures in the historical continuum. These documents are mostly available through the University of Florida and other public library systems, retail bookstores, museums and historical archives of local communities, and the Internet at various fishing village and fis hing industry on line archives.

PAGE 190

190 Primary sources. G raphics are an important part of the primary sources I available for my study research My research documentation begins with study fieldwork that includes drawings and photographs delineating existing base conditions and remnants of the vernacular construct for Cortez Original graphics such as photographs, historical drawings, tax records, voting directories, county plat maps, site plans, building sketches aerial photography, Sanborn Maps (used for other areas though not available for Cortez) U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps, building permits, land and navigational surveys, special studies and artwork allow ed me to reconstruct the various layers of built and spatial form change over time for Cortez and other referential areas. In some cases, certain of these data sets were not available for Cortez, but were reviewed for other TFVs as well, in order to obtain historical information about building pra ctices. These documents are found in the University of Florida Map and Imagery Library, the Historical Map and Chart Collection of the National Oceanic and Aeronautics Administration, the Manatee County Public Library, the Manatee County Historic Records L ibrary, the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez, the National Archives, on line through a variety of public agencies, local historical societies and museums, redevelopment agencies, and priva te collections. In addition, relevant graphics are widely available through the Florida State Historic Preservation Office, as well as, the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) There is not much s cholarly literature available to assist my efforts at r econstructing the missing vernacular form s and associating form c hange s with them The available archival photos remain mostly unclear in determining exact vantage points and precise dates of the images. I s upplement th ese apparent gap s of

PAGE 191

191 understanding with a textual review of published ethnographies and immersion cultural studies of traditional fishing communities. Insight about vernacular form and change is gained from these studies of TFV cultures a s they align with my research regarding the built environmen t and material artifacts. Environmental studies of Florida and the Florida Gulf Coast in general help to clarify similarities and differences between the natural environments that affect Cortez and other study areas. These documents are widely available th rough the University of Florida physical and on line library systems, retail bookstores, and the Internet. Some of the p opular literature can be found at random and offers help in obtain ing f irst hand travel acco rally consist of trip diaries, logs, and recorded accounts of travel, usually by sport fishermen and coastal cruisers during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries These provide early physical descriptions of vernacular form in the study area a t specific points in time N ewspaper articles general directories, sales documents and advertisements, and personal scrapbooks, prove an important component for finding clues and filling in gaps. These are found in the University of Florida Special Collec tions Library, the Manatee County Historical Records Library, the Eaton Room of the Manatee County Public Library, and various fishing village and fishing industry on line archives. There is no plan to use prescribed interview processes as part of my resea rch, since the vernacular landscape form I am studying is based on current observations, archival data, and existing literature There are instances where I have made, or will make inquiries to clarify missing, ambiguous or vague information and data; however,

PAGE 192

192 this type of inquiry does not represent a formal interview process, negating the need for Institutional Review Board approval. Transition Statement The methodology for examining form in the historic vernacular lan dsc ape as part of my study includes a four phase program that is built up from an extensi ve review of data resources, analyses that considered both visual and intangible f orm s, and findings that articulate form changes and their determinants In identifyin g my study community of Cortez as a referential study, and in limiting my resources to the existing historical record, I am able to document a historic form over a 59 year period without resorting to added conjecture from new interviews. Since making sense of an evolving form within a cultural landscape is a dualistic problem due to ongoing debates about usage and application, and landscape complexities, a special sketch program is used as part of the research methodology to convey form over a historic time continuum. Chapter 4 that follows, implements this methodology and reveals affects and effects to form, and discusses the se through narrative and graphic formats that consider an array of form indicator sets as part of a comprehensive contextual form fra mework.

PAGE 193

193 Figure 3 1 Florida Gulf Coast Triangle areas. Geographic relationships of TFVs relevant to Cortez. Yellow triangle with Key West as base adapted from Frey, ( 2010 ) Green triangle with H avana, Cuba as base reveals pre settlement relationships. Red line indicates relationship of Cortez with Carteret County, NC as place of origin for many of the Cortez settlers. Graphic allowed under fair use for scholarly purposes. Source: Google e arth & Terra Metrics; 2013. Dat a by U.S. Dept. of State, SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, & GEBCO, 2013; map manipulation b y L. Frey, 2013

PAGE 194

194 A B Figure 3 2. Se t of Cortez waterfront conglomerations revealing early physical forms A) View possibly looking southeast, reveals common gable forms and materials unknown date and photographer Photographs allowed under fair use with citation. Source: Manatee County Public Library Historical Image Digital Collection a ( U nknown date) B) View looking slightly northwest, reveals gable and hipped roof forms, and extended vernacular constructs unknown date and photographer. Source: Manatee County Public Library Historical Image Digital Collection b ( U nknown date). Figure 3 3 Example of the rolling out of the physical form sets from residential to the extended vernacular. Drawing by L. Frey, 2013.

PAGE 195

195 F igure 3 4 Unpopulated graphic tile information s ystem. Graphic by L. Frey, 2013

PAGE 196

196 CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY Overview I suggested in Chapters 1 and 2 that the literature encompassing the broad foci of vernacular landscapes and material culture have not sufficiently come together to adequately explain or broaden the base of knowledge related to historic landscape form chan ge This includes the various factors that influence or determine change Not uncommon in emerging fields of study additional issues arise with regard to definitions, adaptability of usage, and missing components that do not appear clearly explained, unde rstood, or debated in a robust manner. This includes addressing how historic vernacular form with its changes over time is relevant when dealing with certain historic preservation issues such as significance and integrity. In answering these questions and researching the historic vernacular landscape, as well as, add ing to current trains of thought about vernacular form change, my study references the histor ic vernacular setting found in the traditional fishing village (TFV) landscape of Cortez Florida My primary inquiry into vernacular landscape form reveals answers to additional questions as they are discussed under the theoretical framework, such as w hat are cultural and vernacular landscape s in the proposed context? ; w hat constitutes change in verna cular landscape form within a traditional fishing village conte xt and how can it be measured?; and i s highly historic vernacular form within the TFV context still significant ? All of these questions reveal a lack of consensus among academics and practition ers regarding how historic landscapes are considered contextually and historically. The following sections serve as a blueprint for analyzing landscape form to meet the challenges of these questions. After explaining through some of the dialectical issues, a

PAGE 197

197 contextual form framework is presented that lays out the constructs of the vernacular landscape. The framework consists of three indicator sets and is applied to the village of Cortez based on established time periods recognized by critical junctures al ong a time continu um. T he landscape form as it occurred at the end of each period is conveyed into sketch drawings and a discussion is provided for each. Additional graphics and discussions are provided that recognize other periods and events and flow in c h ronological order. Each form period includes an end discussion in order to manage the overall exploration revealed in the statement of findings and conclusion included in Chapter 5 Particular Problems w ith Form Form is a troublesome concept. It means different things to different groups and can be constructed in a variety of fashions that suit any number of contextual frameworks. As already opined by scholars and practitioners over time, the construct of form cre ates an epistemological conundrum in that t here is no consistent ly applied theoretical basis from which it can be applied across disciplines. Methodologies for analyzing form do appear across the fields of architecture, urban morphology, land use planning, archaeology to name a few, but there is little or no generalized understanding or approach to how one proceeds with getting to a detailed study of form as a basis from which to build a particular research. In the wider landscape, which includes buildings natural features, and spatial constructs, there is an adaptation, or hybrid of prior form analysis that can be modified to it. The discussions of form in architecture could certainly be applied to the landscape, but it would have to be modified to fit the extensions of form that go beyond the shapes, patterns, and layout of individual constructs.

PAGE 198

198 Material cultural analysis tends to focus on form in isolation, and then in relation to the culture that made it, but often leaves out the wider landscape perspe ctive that is more inclusive of other human constructs in its overall content. Urban morphology, as a purposeful study of form, hence the meani ng of it as a term has historically been concerned with mostly p hysical incarnations of human developed places f rom a strong geographical basis. The bent toward urban and other highly developed areas and the human construct as a movement across land is certainly ben e ficial to my study, but the focus is somewhat limited to town layout, building patterns, and the use of land leaving an empty coloration on the palette of the lesser constructs that extend out from these primary constructs. The inherent problems associated with analyzing something that is so fluid then and that consists of multiple influences wei ghing on it at any given moment in time, moves away from precise formulaic applications, especially when one considers the virtual uniqueness of landscapes as part of complex natural and cultural processes. One of the first problems the scholar confronts is atte mpting to process the landscape as the unit of analysis. Once this is somehow determined, understanding the wholeness of it or its comprehensive nature as a human construct presents another dilemma. In order to be manageable then successful study of a la ndscape requires a thorough analysis of its constituent parts that can be attributable to the wider format, using a logical method. The method to be used for processing form evaluations presents yet another problem of f orm, and can easily become over compli cated and bogged down with superfluous information that is too far removed from the wider landscape perspective.

PAGE 199

199 Perhaps another problem that may appear as a preliminary concern to understanding the unit of analysis in which form exists is defining the pa rameters of form as a term. This is a problem to researchers due to the lack of common standards regarding landscape form. This is not an atypical problem, and is almost an inherent part of scholarly examination across disciplines The vantage point of fo rm consideration is multifaceted and presents another problem to be worked through. Where does one begin to illustrate the form of a landscape that can be visualized from any given perspective or angle or vantage point? What makes an aerial view of a lan dscape more or less suitable than a frontal or oblique view to understanding its change? Next, does one capture everything in the landscape with regard to its overwhelming shapes, textures, directions, interiors, hidden spaces, etc ? Or, can the landscape be explored comprehensively without an exhaustive survey of human constructs, of which it exists? While physical, purely visible form is certainly the most obvious entity to analyze in the physical landscape, the problem of considering other intangible forms that contribute to the cultural landscape must also be managed Since the vernacular landscape for the purposes of my study reflects a human construct, then purely physical form is but one side to the overall inquiry ; the other side, as part of th e uniquely human perceptive world that interfaces with the physical constitutes the other Yet, how can the other than purely visual or intangible world be illustrated and c ompared in order to understand vernacular form change? In most cases, the lists of both the physical and intangible forms that present themselves can become unruly and even infinite in scope. The above issues represent

PAGE 200

200 only a few of the problems when attempting to explore form as it exists in the landscape as a whole. The application of context, as a narrowing of the form construct in the landscape, appeals somewhat to these problems with form. Treatment of Form as an Exploration v ersus an Epistemological Study Form, as a distinctive physical configuration that exists in the real world and as something entertained in the human mind has been long debated back to the early Greek philosophers; therefore, my study does not make any significant inroads into this persistent debate. In order to address the importance of form in the historic ve rnacular landscape, my study explores alternative ways in which it considered. The treatment of form herein, then is considered to be circular in concept begin ning and ending as a requires the act, or process, or establishment of it in the physical world some how, whether it is visual, less than visual, or nonvisual If form is always changing, and never absolutely static, then its existence in this physical world is never complete or completed So, it is not diffic ult to see how a circularity of form is present in the human thought process My study does not attempt to flay open or reorganize the meaning of form and how and why it came into being as a term. Instead, m y exploration of form derives from the thought t hat significant historic form as a physical human construct with many facets also has linkages to intangible forms The intangible form stands apart from the non physical, which is a more absolute condition. Something that is intangible is merely lacking r ather than being completely without, whereas, something that is non physical is completely without. In many historic evaluations, form that can be perceived by humans is often falsely labeled as somehow appearing significan t simply because it exists. When considering significance, t he available literature and professional applications of

PAGE 201

201 form as something to consider do not appear to be enough when examin in g the lived in, cultural landscape that is supposed to represent a signif icant idea or model of histor icity Form deemed to be significant is often lacking in contextuality regarding the wider landscape significance, creating a gap between what the historic context at one point in time provided as a whole, and a diminished context still thought to be significant. Form interpreted in this diminished way, often stands by itself, lacking the necessary contextual tie to the historic landscape setting, as a desperate relic wanting to be noticed. Since form is subject to so much interpretation, and can have multipl e meanings and applications, my study addresses the research questions according to how form is contextually rendered and instilled within the landscape Constructs of Vernacular Landscape Form and Form Change in Cortez Contextual Form The research of form in the TFV landscape, combined with the problems that contextual form or the lack of it presents as a descriptive part of the changing cultural landscape led me to examine how some historic district s are misrepresented when it comes to describing an extant significance When looking for significant form in this case, the researcher is obliged to distinguish between extant and missing form that feed the context When this is ascertained, it makes the form of a particular landscape more understandable and manageable. This section explains how the contextual form of the Cortez vernacular landscape is explored and presented for analysis The visual analysis of the graphic presentation leads to a deeper, thicker anal y s is. Form in the historic vernacular landscape then, is what is perceived by the viewer as an aggregation of various elements that combine to feed a certain context, creating a certain whole or complete scene, as well as, those that c reate a distinction f rom the

PAGE 202

2 02 context (Santayana, 1896 ). A commer cial fishing pier or dock may become a culturally distinctive form i n the vernacular landscape ( Peace, 2001), yet the researcher must be careful to not affix any human construct, where it is g iven an exclusive prescription. Context is important and serves as the most distinctive form ingredient because it provides the necessary basis from which theoretical grounding can be built (Geertz, 1973). For example, does a farm tractor though it may be found in the TFV, feed the context of it or does it separate itself from the context? Only a thicker analysis of the circumstances surrounding the artifact in this case will determine that. The first glance assumption is that it does not feed the fishing context since it is heav il y laden with and more akin to other contexts. In this case, it becomes a material artifact that may be part of the overall fishing context, but does not sufficiently feed it though the thicker description may reveal otherwise. In fact, the tractor in a fishing village could have been a critical component in the way it was used, so developing the context is important When considering form that feeds context, one has to be careful not to include or exclude any given form that mi ght appear to be out of place until its place, function, and history have been sufficiently examined. Using the term landscape has become a very common application of usage that further distorts and broadens its original meaning. While landscape as a conce pt, traditionally emphasizes form, such as the overall one cannot be sure of how the term is being applied today when there appear s to be so many lines of thought that are not consistently communicating with each other Popular references now refer to almost any focus area as having its own landscape, i.e., the landscape of the auto industry, the landscape of professional

PAGE 203

203 football, o r the political landscape to name a few. In 1993, Ingold suggested that features 162 ) This seems appropriate terminology applicable to the cross societal usage of today Because of this wider usage in a modified manner, my study required a closer assessment for the term to ensure a suitable, easily understood framework for the research herein. In suggest ing that the multiple facets of landscape perception provide too much information to the observer Zube, Sell, and Taylor (1982) were also correct when they noticed it as being processed by multiple senses at once add ing even further to the confounding nature of landscape upon the human generative mind It is appro priate then that landscape, as an overall capture of study provides the structure from which the framework unfolds. Since my study is interested in the vernacular landscape form, and how it has changed over time, then the landscape to be observed becomes e ither vernacular or non vernacular according to the definition of the term explained in the methodology discussion of Chapter 3. In this case, vernacular is an artifact, whether it is physical, non physical or intangible that becomes an entrenched or comm only accepted form as part of the localized culture. To paraphrase Kropf (1993), humanly con structed form is part of some arrangement that resulted from the human choosing to make it. T he historicity of the forms in the landscape then, is important to my s tudy, since significance from a historic preservation standpoint is a considered finding. However, a form that meets a certain age criteria is not critical to determining form, ently constructed arti facts

PAGE 204

204 The contextual form framework Feeding the c ontext The vernacular landscape is separated from the non vernacular landscape based on the definition found in Chapter 1 Since, as the literature mostly agrees, and as conforming to my findings here, certain landscapes are fed by or more precisely defined by the contextual and non contextual artifacts that are part of it. I t is here that the framework begins to separate itself from the generalized landscape according to how artifacts ( the form of ) in it feed into the context being studied in this case, a TFV That is, the forms determined to be contextually dependent to a TFV such as docks, watercraft net s preads, fishing grounds, etc., are t herefore, contextual and serve a study of the landscape as some of the strongest indicators of its contextual character Determining which indicators are to be included depends on the purpose of the study and the type of landscape being analyzed. Therefore, t he plethora of indicators present must be sorted out accordingly, which is left to the researcher to determine For my study, the most obvious focus was the waterfront. most contextual since that is where the contextual cultural action is at its most obvious, historically and presently. This was also supported by physical and narrative histori es of Cortez. What my study revealed was a conglomeration of contextual artifacts that appeared at the waterfront the waterfront conglomerat ion. What made it even more pronounced was the fact that it also appeared at nearly every other fishing village I examined, even those that were no longer extant. The rich context always seemed represent a familiar form of wooden, gabled structures surroun ded by dock systems and watercraft. This finding turned out to be a quick study of form available only from the water or from vantage points that were distant such as a bridge or an opposing

PAGE 205

205 shoreline. The waterfront conglomeration is sketched for each stu dy period to establish this quick study of available forms. Not surprisingly, the key for evaluating form change of a particular construct in the landscape over time is that the vantage point frame must be fixed. These individual constructs, or sets, can then be assembled as part of the overall landscape in order to make the same determinations of collective and wider changes and affects. When an artifact feed s the context, it also shapes and reshapes the physical landscape. Lacking a thick analysis to contest otherwise, e verything else in considered non con textual for the purposes of clarifying form change. It becomes unnecessary to study the form change of an individual dwelling away from the waterfront for examp le, since it could be found in different kinds of contexts ; i.e., vernacular houses and structures are commonly found in m any established neighborhoods and not only in fishing villages, wher e as, the artifact of a dock is often a necessary construct and not commonly found outside of fishing or waterfront communities (notwithstanding wetland traverses, etc.) and therefore feed that context. This argument is lessened, of course, where a the vernacular landscape, and a dete rmination has been made accordingly Now, it must be mentioned that several prominent landscape scholars, such as Jackson ( in M. P. Conzen 1990, pp 362 3 69) suggested that the study of the vernacular landscape should begin with the places in which people dwell i.e., the house. I think most wo u ld agree that this is a generalized direction in how the overall study of landscapes should have proceeded early on, and to which much attention has since been given. So, with all due respect to Mr. Jackson, my stud y travels through an alternative approach by

PAGE 206

206 looking at mostly non dwellings since that is where the context of fishing villages directs the research So, to narrow this examination down, any given landscape can be considered to be vernacular or non vernacular with documented or posited arti fact ual form that has evolved over time as either feeding a succinctly defined context such as a fishing village, or one that is more generic in character and form, and therefore les s contextual. The types of form or the artifact ual form that was expressed is then identified under three main classes or indicator sets occurring in a more or less order ed manner including village layout, buildin g mosaic and the extended ve rnacular with its physical and intangible manifestations. Two additional form indicators generative and environmental are also identified and explained for informational purposes since they speak to origins of form, but represe nt a pre settlement contribution that will not be measured or evaluated for form change. Therefore, the three form indicator sets are broken down beginning with the village layout f orm indicator set that includes boundary; parcel configuration; and circulation pattern. The building mosaic indicator set includes residential buildings and appurtenances; non residential/non fisheries buildings and appurtenances; and fisheries contextual buildings and appurtenances. The extended vernacular form set includes two subsets manifested as either physical or intangible The physical indicator set includes fisheries camps; net works; dock system ; nets; and

PAGE 207

207 watercraft. The intangible indicator set includes fishing groun ds; act of fishing; and elapsed experiential. Indicators versus determinants For the purposes of my study then form has two active surfaces that are explained as either indi cators or determinants The revealed the existence of three distinct indicator sets of form that are context ually fed each set forming a sort of hierarchy whereby the extended final set is more fed than the preceding two Indicators of form are the individual form types as include d within the broader form sets village layout, the building mosaic, and the extended vernacular. Determinants of form are the causes of form change; i.e., determinants a ffect the indicators. Ironically, d eterminants of form have probably been more thoroug hly detailed and discussed in the literature than the whole of form itself. Determ inants are specific and discerni ble allowing for a broad academic discursive, while the concept of form as an artifact to be studied seems less so. Amos Rapoport provided an early foray into the topic as well as, a seminal read on the subject of form determinants as evidenced from the literature review found in Chapter 2, herein. To be clear, the form change determinants are treated differently from the indicators of form and a more detailed analysis of the determinants of form, or form change in the TFV is found later at the end of t his chapter. Recap of generative and e nvironmental forms. As a clarification, t he issuance of the generative and environmental form indicators discussions in Chapter 2 was

PAGE 208

208 presented to provide additional context for the setting and settling of Cortez, while also showing how the origins of what appears as the initial form of a place can be influenced by previous activities When studyin g a place with a high degree of context, it is not enough to establish historical lines to only well documented or convenient dates. Also, any such study is incomplete without examining prior cultural precedents that derived from completely different geogr aphies. Admittedly, this may not be an easy task when new settlements are created from a variety if traditions rather than from a unique source such as how the North Carolina precedent will be shown to have incorporated itself into the cultural flux of Cor tez. Studying the e nvironmental background is also important for delivering sufficient context with regard to local vernacular landscapes as long as it is prescribed under a specific paradigm or program such as landscape architecture, ecology, archaeology etc. My study, for the most part, shies away from thick discussions of the natural landscape in order to concentrate on the cultural physical and intangible forms. The inclusion of natural forms is inserted where applicable to the context of these partic ular forms. If my study were presenting a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) then a more detailed analysis of the natural vegetation and forms would likely be included. Explaining the Contextual Form Indicators To restate, f orm is an un wieldy problematic word As the current lit erature reveals it is referenced quite extensively but with an extremely thin veneer of detailed structure and analysis in in the United States for examining how it is articulated in the broad array of landscapes In giving shape t o form a s part of visible cultural cons truct s human cultures allow it to become quite obvious in its appearance as separate from the natural features in and around which it takes place. The settlements of human culture,

PAGE 209

209 as part of an ever changing cultur al landscape, are rife with end less forms as distinct entities; however, these forms require clarification in order to be understood compared, and evaluated. My study identifies a conglomeration of form as a single study unit that serves as a cumulative i ndicator and three primary indicator s ets of form in the built, historic vernacular landscape to include its layout, the different building categories erected upon this layout, and the extended vernacular artifact representing both physical and intangible form manifestations; all of the extended vernacular forms are context based. The use o f contextual form indicators is a somewhat borrowed concept taken from urban planning that sometimes uses it to measure community trends that reflect a sort of p. 1). The more indicators that are available for use, the better the measuring capability for determining trends. While my study does not focus on trends that are system or performan ce based, which makes them effective for urban planning scenarios, they are effective for identifying the most prevalent forms available within a contextual landscape. Urban m orphology a distinct discipline within g eography, has made one of the most exte nsive foray s into landscape wide form studies, akin to the village layout form indicator, by narrowing the visual and spatial problems of urban form into a usable system for breaking it down Though such a system is bent toward an urban form construct the underlying basis of its structural format has use for analyzing form i n the historic vernacular landscape In architecture and historic preservation form is also quite ob vious in how the elements of what I refer to as the building mosaic as the

PAGE 210

210 second fo rm indicator, are configured. The construct s of walls, roofs, openings, internal and external spaces between them, and the footprints that erected buildings encompass are perhaps the most visible understandable construct s of form in the landscape that have been well analyzed by academic disciplines ; however, work in this area has most often been limited by a focus on them without the benefit of additional context, or in association with the wider landscape. T he extended ve rnacular form as the third form indicator set described in my study though much handled and experienced in many studied cases, is ironically less obvious, and therefore, less noticeable and ultimately less studied for its contribution to form, or as a h ighly informative construct to the integrity of a historical context in this case, the TFV W aterfront conglomeration and the use of space For a fishing village, the most contextual physical manifestations can be considered as part of a combined entity referred to as the water front conglomeration. Chiarappa (2003) described the m ost common landscape found throughout many Great Lakes fisheries sheds and outbuildings, He also noted how the erected and extended vernacular constructs merged to become an integrated cohesive unit Chiarappa saw this integration as being part of a distinct process, that if carefully examined could provide deeper insights into the local culture. Based in part on this analysis, t he water front conglomeration of the TFV is the quintessential form construct that is contextually fed with an olio of industry specific informants that are physically manifested. The water front conglomeration is contextually fed in that it is found as a common form generally throughout most fish ing village s in the United States. It can be read as a symbol for where a concentration of commercial investment is made, and where the

PAGE 211

211 primary activity takes place in the TFV, as truly oriented to t he open water that is so contextually critical to the local cultural construct or its waterfront conglomeration could present an intangible form based on its appearance as a symbol with meaning to the community as well a s, outsiders This is similar to the collective symbolic presence found in the skylines of tall buildings in large cities discussed as part of studies by Attoe (1981) and Ford (1994). The waterfront conglomeration creates a much more distinct form that id entifies easily with the contextual character of a TFV, which may or may not include the less contextual constructs. While skylines in major cities appear to be more graphically conveyable because their enormity requires an increased distant vantage point, it is less so in a small village such as Cortez, except through the contextual feature of the waterfront conglomeration which requires its own water to land vantage point, albeit from a relatively minimal distance. The waterfront conglomeration can be see n as a collection of individualized constructs similar to how Schein (1997) characterized the American landscape. In Cortez, the individual constructs along the waterfront are personalized to a degree, yet fit into a connected web that forms the landscape as an understandable whole ; a built artifact assembled through a collective vision of commercial fishing as a trade, and the economics and production that are inherent parts of it. Yet, it appears to have retained individualized manifestations. The individ ual forms that resulted were likely mimicked in full or modified through personal needs and use requirements ( Mellin, 2003). The conglomeration, signifying a frenetic jumble of objects, or forms in this case, should not to be confused with the agglomerated plans discussed by Roberts (1996)

PAGE 212

212 regarding organic settlement configuration. The conglomeration is more le gible because of its contextual/ artifact ual makeup, as compared to an agglomeration, which by definition would be less legible. Th e waterfront conglomeration is therefore, identified by evaluating th e interstice of land and water Here, in the case of interpreting the landsca pe form of a TFV the predominant activity is found that helps to define it T he activity or activities there tend to serve as the best indicator(s) that define the context even though they may create a waxing and waning of particular form s over time. Jaco bs e border between land and water 351). Peace (2001) said the dock area is where it all happens The presence of a constructed ensemble at the waterfro nt p. 125 ). Later, Berman (1999) wrote that the environment suggesting the marked differences between the vertical character of the built environment versus the horizontal ness of the water body (p. 24). So, there is a clear distinction between forms from th e human standpoint, which allow us to make clearer inter pretations of them; this is som ewhat supported by ) suggestion that when their configuration makes us more visually acute to them (p. 100). The docks give a waterfront community its cultural distin ctiveness. The waterfront conglomeration establishes a clearly legible place in the wider landscape since it contains virtually all of the requisite elements respective of the TFV, such as watercraft, docks, and commercial fishing activities (Emmison & Smi th, 2000). According to Goodchild (1996)

PAGE 213

213 in Concerning Buildings by Marks, th from which the landscape as a whole can be seen in my case represented (p 257 ) In a sense, this form compilation represents a nearly co mplete study unit that describes a landscape form for a TFV as it often consists of a near complete cross section of contextual form, along with multiple elements of the extended vernacular form. In this case, the waterfront conglomeration may include elements of the village layout an d the building mosaic indicator sets Individualistic forms, though still present, are assumed to be less pronounced here, perhaps, than in the indicator units of residential buildings. Form in t he TFV waterfront conglomeration is also easily evaluated over time for form change since the same scene is assessed as a fixed but evolving study. With part of the building mosaic included, this contextual form construct, as a primary from set, often con sists of a backdrop of buildings oriented to serve the waterfront and is thusl y located in such a manner. The backdrop of the TFV waterfront then in recalling the form parameters discussed in Chapter 3, can be expressed graphically (i.e., visually) using the previously described parameters such as enclosing that clearly defined, undulating yet interrupted roofline appearing at the interstice. It must be noted that sometimes, a clear background of vegetation encloses the scene in a primary fashion. The area represents the large flat surfaces of the gable ends and elevations of the buildings appearing just below the roofline and moving horizontally and vertically between sky and water. The linear graphic expression includes the land/water edge and is often accommodated with a lineal dock expressing a horizontal character that can also enclose the bottom view of the form conglomeration. Th e dock system is often

PAGE 214

214 connected to other docks made of wooden materials versus newer concrete materials. The l inear character and the forms expressed are enhanced by the highly contextual net works that also flow horizontal ly, while providing additional instances of verticality. In addition, linear elements are also found in ma sts, spars, and rigging. In the case of The verticality of the docks, as represented in their spaced pilings appears to pun cture the shoreline, establi shing another form scene, amenable to visual evaluation. In massing the assortment of water vessels often appear s as a non uniform grouping of shapes that can also enclose or create an anchor of the visual scene. The buildings in the backdrop can also c reate this form Finally, point serves as the most prominent in the extended vernacular P oint elements are typically found in the w ater front c onglomeration with tools of the trade such as fish traps, fishing gear clumped, piled, or hung, and individual watercraft occurring apart from the massed form, yet still integral to the form scene. The use of space is very re vealing in many TFVs since the cultures that shaped the TFV, used t in their particular ways. The use of space in distinct ways is not uncommo n to cultural constructs that are highly contextual; however, in TFVs, the culture seems to have been more connected with the various spatial forms as being symbolic of their traditions. The expanse of the fishing grounds is just one obvious spatial consid eration. Therefore, a n analysis of the waterfront conglomeration must also include a discussion of the spatial construct that is identifiable in Cortez. Hayden (19 95 ) suggested that space is shaped first for economic production (piers, factory, etc.), then social production (h ousin g, store, church, etc.). Chiarappa and Szylvian (200 3 ) wrote

PAGE 215

215 na l ecological ) T his was actually part of a spatial relationship understood by each family. Andelson (19 86 ), in studying the vernacular layout of Amana, noticed that a group of Amish colonies in Iowa 7). The settlers (p.47). While not part of my study, it is suggested by some anecdotal evidence that one of the most important spatial forms in Cortez centered around how the yards traditionally were used as extensions of the fisher work environment. For those who had them, and as evidenced from the ample spaces around the residential building construct the yard did appear to be a repository for repairing and hanging nets, storing watercraft and other gear, a ll contextual indicator s in TFVS across a wide spectrum across the United States. In visiting other TFVs in Florida such as in Old Homosassa Ca rra belle, and Cedar Key, the common motif of yard spaces is a strong representation aft in the shapes, colors, and association s found in yard space. uilding placement in Cortez may suggest spatial symbolism as part of a maritime construct; however, its relat ionship to form rather than its symbolic importance is the focus for exploring it as part of my study. Hence, it is easy to understand how the waterfront conglomeration in a TFV serves as a repository of multiple contextual elements that provide an inform ative visual reference for observing, documenting, and comparing physical and intangible

PAGE 216

216 v ernacular form changes over time. This is in spite of its built form and the spaces left appear ing as undisciplined or lacking permanence ( Muir 2007, p. 201). Villa ge l ayout form i ndicator s et The v illage layout as a purposeful vernacular overlay on raw land is drawn not only from the topography encountered, but also from the topography sought, and then the application of experience upon the land once found. The village, as a human settlement over time either expands, contracts, or appears unchanged for a limited amount of time as part of a the cultural processes that combine and interact to create it and then manage it (Roberts, 1996). For the purposes of my study, it includes three subsets of form beginning with the external boundary that gives it shape followed by its parcel configuration, and then it s circulation pattern. The village layout form can be the least contextual of the three form indicator sets; however, this is not always the case since in the TFV, the consideration of access to the water is often a primary influence Boundary. The depth of resolution required for evaluating the form of the village layout is not complicated and begins with i ts physical, outer boundary For Cortez, there is an archival record of land subdivisions and purchases which give s form to the original boundary that is identified as the initial settlement by the first group of fishers, as well as, how the pre settlement bou ndaries took shape. Th e boundary indicator is affected by f uture additions and alterations that can be assessed as e ffects to the original form as its size shrinks and grows through the addition of new lands and parcels In some cases, lands are subtracted from the village in that they permanently become part of distinctly separate entities, such as designed planned communities. The appearance of the village boundary may be quite different between periods due to these chan ges. In many human settlements occurring along water bodies, the original land boundaries are

PAGE 217

217 often expanded and reduced by human and natural forces. The form effects to be queried are whether such obvious changes to the outer configuration represent chang es to its form. Obviously, the addition of lands seems to represent a change in form, whereas, mere subdivision of it, especially without further development, does not. Parcel configuration. To examine the village layout form even more closely it is impo rtant to look at the internal divisions of it over time. L and subdivisions have the ability to also affect the village layout form, which are easily compared and available for scrutiny as publicly recorded transactions though form change is not always the case. For example, a mere subdivision on paper without further development has no real visible impact on the land or at least not until it is developed The form may be affected at some point in the future, perhaps according to the human generative mind, but the physical form effect is withheld, or so it seems The subdividing of land into parcels provides insight into how the original settlers adapted to what had already been given them, or how they themselves laid out the village plan for the highest an d best function according to their commercial fishing vision function may also be represented through subdivisions as the y are created to accept increases in the number of new settlers and expanding families. While subd ivisions reveal a different configuration on paper that might represent form change, density, or the allowance for additional forms into the landscape as part of future development, is another consideration. Circulation The circulation pattern completes the village layout form indicator set. For the purposes of my study, t his includes streets but excludes pedestrian paths since sidewalks were not extant during the historic study span and local histories

PAGE 218

218 suggest that villagers used the streets which were pedestrian oriented from their beginning It is represented graphically without the interference of other lines and boundaries to allow easy comparison between historic study periods. As a village boundary expands, its circulation pattern ofte n changes to accommodate it. The circulation pattern reveals either a common grid or a more organic access pattern that often changes over time, possibly affecting the original form. The direction of streets in fishing villages is often dictated by the dis tinct shoreline present, representing perhaps the most important indicator of where the context specific activities of the village will occur. The circulation patterns of watercraft are not thoroughly evaluated here as part of my study since th is represent s a robust discussion that would be better served under a separate study of navigation development and historic settlement. The available literature does suggest that original access to the early settlement was restricted to watercraft, so the importance o f water circulation is self evident. In a way, watercraft access is the most contextual form of access in the TFV during the late nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century Building m osaic form indicator s et The building mosaic is t he erected habitable form set in the historic vernacular landscape. While lesser structures such as open sheds, docks, and net spreads, for example, are also erected, the term here is limited to buildings as indoor environments where humans tend to dwell and congregate for extended periods of time as part of living or working situations As a primary erected form set, it is considered by many to be the most im portant and most revealing form evaluated in the landscape for its myriad shapes and import on th e land, and for how all other forms tend to lead to them as places in which human activity is both public and private The building mosaic has a

PAGE 219

219 tendency to dominate the cultural landscape as part of a vernacular setting as evidenced through land clearing natural materials depletion floor area ratio to land, orientation, privatized space, and scale While more contextual than the village layout form, i t is often less contextual than the extended vernacular form again depending on the culture being studi ed The building mosaic set includes residential buildings and their appurtenances non residential/non fisheries contextual buildings and their appurtenances, and fisheries contextual buildings and their appurtenances. The appurtenances include the constr ucts of garages, sheds, and associated infrastructure such as water tanks when they are part of the highly evident form construct Often, the building mosaic creates a distinct skyline or backdrop to the village, such as the early two story residential buildings that could be articulated beyond the waterfront conglomeration as looking from the open water vantage point It can also contribute t o the waterfront conglomeration Th e building mosaic is viewed separately from natural o r environmental form in that it take s on human inherent shape s that are often more sustain ing and predictable whether they mimic natural form s or natural surroundings or not. Therefore, i f the form of the natural environme nt leads to in i tial conceptual images within the human function, then subsequent built form dramatically changes the form of land either by adding to it or manipulating the natural form Building forms are perhaps the most commonly studied artifact regard ing form in the landscape, and often reflect the contextual nature of commercial fishing in the way they are cons tructed, laid out, and shaped. While individual buildings studied in isolation offer only limited data to most researchers, groups of buildings or building patterns

PAGE 220

220 expand the understanding of the local cultural context and the forms affected by change. The role that its orientation on a parcel of land plays reveals integrity of form in both qualitative and quantitative ways. Some researchers ma y prefer to relate this to land use or land utilization which I consider differently for the purposes of my study In rememb ering and contrasting with M. R. G. Conzen, t he use of land appears more ephemeral and less stable as a term of study for understanding form change. On the other hand, t he role of a building appears more permanent regardless of its use. For example, a building may be used as a pool hall, yet its unde rlying role, and hence its form, is constructed to be water dependent and intended for a commercial fishing purpose The erected form or building does not necessarily change, whereas its function or role may change several times over the course of its exis tence Of course, one has to consider that a building or structure is more easily influenced by the whims of its individual owner versus the larger scale and procedural r equirements of the village layout In this sense, the building is less stable than the land configuration upon which it sits. Notes about relocating buildings and structures, and t he reuse of materials. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the erected constructs in Cortez, and in TFVs generally, is the ordinary process of moving structur es. Whether elevating buildings vertically or moving them horizontally only a few feet or further, there is a strong history of adapting a variety of buildings and structures to new locates and sites common among maritime communities ( Chiarappa, 2007; Mellin, 2003) The temporary nature of traditional fishing buildings and structures is built in to many traditional fishing cultural constructs as a necessary and accepted practice Their movability was built in

PAGE 221

221 to the structure, as part of a process that could happen multiple times d uring the life of a fisher ( Mellin, 2003). Stephens (1989) identified such practices as part of nineteenth century North Carolina maritime cultures where houses were disassembled into small sections and transported by skiff to their new locations. The lack of adornment on such habitable buildings supports the notion of a prescribed cultura l impermanence placed on them. A third generation descendant of a tradi tional fishing family in Cortez recalled as far back as her memory allo wed, at how most of the primary buildings there also lacked any remarkable detailing ( Fulford Green & Molto, 1997) As part of a long term study, Mellin (2003) also noted impermanence in the buildings of Tilting, a vernacular fishing village in northeaste rn Canada. In Tilting, buildings were often moved, or from site to site as a common occurrence maritime landscape was due to a fatalistic outlook they shared as a group. Because fishing occurred in vulnerable areas, they built at the shore knowing that the benefit of being close to the water was higher than the risk of losing the structure. Because of this, and to manage the risk, impermanent buildings and structu res served them best. This shared temporal condition and outlook among separate and distant communities suggests a common, inherent practice or cultural trait that seems to speak to an environment al awareness of sustainability, further supported by economics The notion of impermanence also transcends to a seasonal form of sorts in that many buildings in TFVs were left vacant during non seasonal periods, which could be during the first few years after settlement refer to it as a fish camp rather than as a more lived in, or

PAGE 222

222 community oriented place. There are also several reports pertaining to the return of the fishers from their native North Carolina with their crews after long abs ences during the summer months. It is not too surprising to think that t he first phase of settlement at then, was indicative of a mix of temporary habitation, along with some permanent settlement, or at least the intent of permanent settleme nt. Without getting into certain social dynamics, many of the early recognized settlers were in their early twenties and just beginning to start families. The need for establishing permanent, full time homesteads was not yet critical, though that may have been part of their early plans. The ability to settle affairs elsewhere, and return to the root locations to tend to other family matters was simply part of the course. In addition, it appears from the record that at least some of the early land purchaser s did not intend to that time suggested that they were all fishers. The probability that several of these individuals had constructed what would have been crude fi sh camps where they may have resided at times, versus permanent homesteads is likely. was probably an impermanent first phase construct, is the fact that some of the early settlers were not land purchasers at all. Instead, there are strong suggestions that some may have been land squatter s, or as the case may be, and for lack of a better term, tidal though there are no deeds records of land sales or tax documentation attributable to them ( Stearns 18 87 p. 542 ) Sw eetzer was an early settler, grower, fisher, and sailor in nearby Palma Sola. It is also very likely

PAGE 223

223 that others had been tidal squatting, as well, perhaps reoccupying abandoned camps left over from the earlier fishing rancho period, or simply constructing their own crude shacks over the tidal flats or even connected to the shore al ong what would have been an extremely remote, barely accessible shoreline. Such temporary constructions were quite common as evidenced along many of the riverine systems along the west coast of Florida as recorded from Charlotte H arbor southward. More rece ntly, these impermanent buildings and structures could be found along t he Chassahow itzka, Homo sassa, and Crystal R ivers where unr ecorded shacks dotted the river bank landscape up until the late twentieth century (based on my own personal experience) The re use of materials was also a common occurrence with strong historical precedents, especially in TFVs. Since there is a record of pre settlement occupance at were recycled especially any pilings that may have been present. According to Greene (1917), some of these early constructs that used treated palmetto log construction could last up to 30 years so these types of materials were durable in spite of the harsh conditions Scuttled watercraft were almost always recycled for their wood. Entire houses were sometimes constructed from previously used materials. In some TFV s, the materials from previously constructed forms were retained and adapted to building details when indi vidualistic allowed ; however, there is not much evidence of this in Cortez until well after the last historic study period The approach to buildings as movabl e and recyclable represented an adaptive thrift and reusable quality in the fishers outlook towa rd his occupation and the environment in which he lived. Andelson

PAGE 224

224 (1986) suggested this to be a form of cultural values expressed through the built environment. While b uilding materials such as rough cut nominal lumber during early Point and of many of the fishers to buy it in bulk at between five and $ 16 per 1,000 feet was not evident. Yet, most were able to construct multiple large dwellings during the settlement peri od. Early records indicated that the claimed taxable value among the early settlers varied from $ 150 to $ 250 R esidential building s and appurtenances The form of the residential units or dwelling s is inclusive of their appurtenances to include garages, sheds, and miscellaneous storage structures such as water tanks, as appropriate. Th is overall in dicator subset is the most intact of the historic vernacular setting of Cortez; however, it is the not the most contextual. T herefore, a study that focuses primarily on t his artifact group, simply because it is an intact collection, is not sufficient to render determina tions of landscape wide form change. For example, the residential area of a fishing village is an important con tributor to the historic setting, yet, the relative stability of dwellings as a referential unit says less of the village form than the erected buildings and structures where the fishing activity mainly occurred. Unless it can be proven somehow, that the i mportance of the residential construct should be elevated in its priority, for example, through the use of its attached yard space, then its significance as part of the historic vernacular landscape is reduced, though still recognized. This then defers to an increased importance to the extended vernacular form set.

PAGE 225

225 Certainly studies of erected form can be oriented toward residential areas, with meaningful, scholarly analysis coming from it. Historic form, as proposed in my study, leads to the most contextua l types of form ; these forms are less stable than residential forms, and in my opinion, offer a better construct for analyzing form change and the significance of that change. To restate from an earlier opine, the residential construct becomes an object of study only as it affects the context form being studied, and as it is found mingling in that context. Its study as an isolated form construct away from the context is not being done here. The appurtenances of the residen tial construct are highly e vident forms within the vernacular landscape, but not necessarily from distant vantage points and as part of the waterfront conglomeration On site water tanks serviced many of the residential buildings since public water and s ewer were not available until 1964, well after the end of the study period. The early structures were usually constructed of vertical cypress wood slats with both flat and conical metal or shingled roofs, and are incorporated into the form construct, as applicable Some metal tanks were also used, at least one of which was included on the architectural inventory of the 1995 National Register of Historic Places (National Register ) N omination. Apparently, some residential units were serviced by a common, pressurized sy stem from an artesian well using a single water tank constructed by the residents as part of a vernacular construct for which a small fee could be paid each month (Eaker, 1994). As in all early settlements, the access to, and storing of fresh water a criti cal first task to accomplish after shelter. Therefore, it should also be a highly visible component of the erected vernacular construct, usually indicated

PAGE 226

226 by a distinct form outline attached to, or locat e d in near proximity to the structure it served. Ga rages and sheds are included as they appeared. Early settlers built sheds to house the drays, wagons and horses they used for hauling and transportation. Later, during the contextual recovery form period, more refined garages were erected as automobiles w ere afforded. Open and semi enclosed sheds were also used for storage of miscellaneous items, including fishing gear, though there is little evidence for detailing how this was done. More recently, written historical narratives suggested that the attached residential yards and areas around dwelling u nits were used as extended work spaces by the fishers. Evidence of this is certainly found as part of the later construct; however, there is scant evidence of this occurring during the pre 1921 periods. Based on an accounting of the contributing properties listed on the National Register, more than half of the extant buildings were constructed after 1921, with approximately five remaining from the settlement period up to 1897 As far as typifying the residential construct as it occurred in Cortez, some deference is given to the Design Guidelines for the Co rtez National Historic District ( Stevenson Architects, Inc. 2007 as consist ing of mostly folk architecture not defined by a peculiar style, but based on local materials, labor and procured affordably, but wit hout drawn plans. The Design Guidelines also identify frame vernacular and bungalow as the most dominant residential constructs However, the Design Guide line refer ence to the character of the residential architecture as being folk is also regarded in the document as a type of vernacular influenced by regional

PAGE 227

227 building traditions. While there is no benefit in repeating the dialectical foreplay between the two terms referred to in Chapter 2, an argument does exist that fosters a debate regarding the terms as perhaps meaning the same thing. It appears from some of the literature that to be folk something would have to be si gnificantly reflective of a loca l culture. That is, a mode of production and product should be evident that has become a distinct trait of the culture derived from their origin and adapted to a present location. Howe ver, Virginia and Lee McAlester (2006) typified a whole set of vernacular dwellings Railroad or National Folk. Vernacular is similar yet does not necessarily reflect in th e case of Cortez through its built construct. While both folk and vernacular can be considered as part of distinct processes, vernacular is more indicative of a popularized construct that can also be borrowed from other communities, other cultures and inserted into the local folk setting. The application of a folk descriptive to the exte nt of the Cortez dwelling construct, most of which was built after the settlement period, seems misapplied since there is no real pattern that was followed. If the arch itecture there was indeed constructed after a North Carolina precedent, then the evidence has not yet been produced to support that. In fact, there is no real pattern that emerges in the village in this regard, since a variety of building types exist, with no distinct regional identifiers other than the materials from which many of them were made. Now, had there been a more robust building representation from the settl ement period, then perhaps a folk argument could be supported that allows a close examinat ion of building methods. While such an inquiry makes for a good future comparative analysis, especially with regard to a focus on diffusion from an East Coast Tidewater South

PAGE 228

228 perspective, it is not within the scope of my study here. However, some comparati ve analysis of architectural identification between North Carolina Tidewater and Florida Gulf Coast construction is warranted in the following discussion. The Design Guidelines indicate the dominant presence of frame vernacular construction that lumps in t he one story gabled roof form along with the two story I house, four square, and pyramidal cottage. It distinguishes these from what is referred to as a bungalow form, which presents a more stylized desi gn. As a comparison with similar period constructs of Ocracoke Island residents near Carteret County where most of the original settlers came from, the frame vernacular is also dominant. In the Ocracoke Historic District nomination, local construction was supposedly based on local adaptations to the climate an d topography. This partly meant that the lack of adequately available timber in the immediate vicinity encouraged buildings that responded in the form of basic, smaller overall structures. The dominant identified forms are listed as the gabled, one story coastal cottage, the one story pyramidal cottage, the story and jump house, which was a basic hall and parlor design with a loft, the two story I house, the two s tory four square, and the Crafts man bungalow. There are o bvious similarities that include th e I house, which appeared to be a standard type of construction during the settlement period in Cortez along with the gable front and wing modified form. Both of these were prevalent in the South, especially during the pre railroad era. The pyramidal cott age, also prevalent in the South more than in Northern regions, is also a form found between the two that appeared during the first decades of the twentieth century. Another shared form is t he bungalow, often described under the Craftsman Style descriptive as part of an overall

PAGE 229

229 Eclectic Period, took hold just after the turn of the twentieth century, lasting until the brink of the Depression, during and after which it faded out of popularity. Similar to Cortez, early Ocr acoke residen ts salvaged materials fr om ship wrecks and damaged properties for the construction of dwellings, and by th e end of the nineteenth century started to construct their dwellings with floors that had openings designed into them to allow flood waters as part of an adapted response to t idal surges. They were also known to recycle materials as evidenced by the s al vage operations taking place there in re s pons e to shipwrecks off the coast. Non resi dential/ n on fisheries building s and appurtenances As the study of vernacular form progresses, it is important to separate the contextual forms from those that are non contextual, or that do not directly feed the context. There is such a group of the overall erected construct that occurs to include retail, office and institutional uses in the buildings and the lesser buildings and structures that are part of them such as garages, storage sheds, and water tanks This erected construct included mostly build ings that did not have direct roles in the fishery, but may have had community relat ed or fishery in dustry symbiotic relationships that were not contextual, per se In Cortez, there is little rema ining of this type of indicator. Some of these buildings were converted into residences that are extant, but altered. A few other examples exis t that include the school buildings, one of which is from the settlement period, and a place of worship from the 1920s. While two of these reflect a front gables vernacular construction, the later school is publicly designed according to plans procured as part of government specifications adopted at the time. Needless to say, this building, from a

PAGE 230

230 vernacular architectural standpoint, does not reflect the vernacular or cultural character of Cortez. The ability of a retail operation to stay solvent in a remo te location must have been sustained by available users, who were at least able to pay their debts, again suggesting that fishing was at least a sustainable method of generating income and that water traffic was at least increasing during the settlement p eriod Since the record indicates that only 13 fishers had actually purchased parcels by that time, the likelihood that additional fishers squatting over the tidal areas is also strong since they likely patronized the earliest local retail operations. Unfortunately, the 1890 Census data that could have helped to clarify this somewhat is not available due to much of it having been destroyed by fire. However, the 1895 census indicates a strong Point, which would have demanded a measure of increased retail viability Most of the non residential and non fisheries buildings had porches or covered entries. On site w ater tanks serviced many of them and can be seen in many of the historic photographs Recorded evidence suggests that the non residential construct began early on in the village, perhaps from 1890, which is the oft cited date for the store that was recently restored and moved to the museum site. The occurrence of a non residential buildin g so quickly after the first land purchases were made, and well before the original 1887 plat was purchased out (1897), suggests that fishing activity was also strong. In addition, there is a high possibility that the local retail supplier served a wider a rea market that included other fish camps and the fishers and watercraft that plied the surround waters.

PAGE 231

231 Fisheries c o ntextual b uildings and appurtenances The essential character of a fishing village is largely dominated by the fish processing buildings, or fish houses where much activity was centered and where context comes to life regarding the erected construct in the fishing village As with the previously discussed buildings, they also include the appurtenant outbuildings of garages storage faciliti es and water tanks built for servicing them The fishers would often meet at the fish houses at various times, deliver their daily catches to them, and the flurry of activities for processing the catches continued from there in how the catch was sorted, prepared, preserved, stored, and then delivered. Based on historic photographs of various waterfront conglomerations, t ypical fish houses within the regional influence of Cortez had rectangular dimensions commonly to about 450 square feet with the front g able end elevations representing the shorter dimension and entry focus The gable roof was the most prominent outspoken form across a wide spectrum of these buildings in Cortez and regionally. Evidence of the extended roof form from the symmetrical gable design was also quite prominent, followed by some with integrated porch roofs as a more elaborate of the three form types. Some of t he historic fish houses in Cortez were similar to this configuration and were architecturally identified by their frontal ga ble roofs with wide open doors for easy fish loading and unloading, u sually on both gable end sides. The earliest buildings were mostly made completely of single wall wood frames with vertically hung clapboard siding and extending either partly from an upl and area to over the water, or completely over the water and attached to the upland by an extended dock The vernacular

PAGE 232

232 character and purposeful functions of these buildings limited adornment and architectural detailing A limited window set was provided f or light and ventilation. The methods for preserving and storing fish until they could be delivered is not included as an indicator but deserves some mention here because of the influence they had on the vernacular landscape. The physical construct for s torage, and the process for applying preservation methods, also a physical type of form, represent distinguishable forms in the buildings required for them, and the physical act that was guided by science more than a special, intangible act. The three prim ary preservation methods using live wells, salting, and icing were likely employed in Cortez throughout its history, with salting and icing occurring as the main methods during the historic study span The use of live wells, or selling fish that were still alive was used only sparingly since the type of fish Cortez fishers harvested really revolved around the mullet, which was not a fish harvested for live sales. It is likely that the earliest form of p reservation using salt was at least used throughout the year during the first few years after settlement. Historic records suggest its use was already occurring in the region through simple purchases of salt bushels by the fishers themselves. Unless salt p roduction was part of the local enterprise, the effect on form seems negligible. However, no evidence of significant salt production can be found during in Cortez throughout the historic study span. The change from salt to ice also did not appear to indic ate a significant effect on localized vernacular landscape form. Once local run boats and the retail operation established market connections with regular com mercial run boats toward the end of the settlement period, the availability of ice became more pre valent and this method

PAGE 233

233 adhered in an evolving format until the end of the study span It was likely that during hot weather periods, or when ice was scarce or unavailable, salt processing was used as the default method The fact that fishers could not alwa ys depend on ice being available when they brought their harvests home, was a primary concern requiring a strategy that was fostered by traditional knowledge and strategic planning on the part of the fishers as part of the local cultural interconnectedness It is known that in the Charlotte Harbor fishery system, icehouses were actually constructed in remote locations throughout the bay there by the fish dealers to allow quick processing of fish harvests and delivery to shipping stations (Antonini et al. 2002). This strategy worked to eliminate the need of the fishers to travel back to their own ports, find a dealer, unload the fish, prepare them, and then ship them out, perhaps saving a full day. There is no evidence that this system of fish and ice excha nge occurred in Cortez during its history. Ice was available only sporadically in by 1890, even though t he technology for making artificial ice had been discovered in Apalachicola, Florida more than 40 years prior to th at time. While the use of ice commercially was not new by th e the ability to manufacture and store it was not a technology The question is whether the transition from salti ng fish to icing them established a distinct form indicator. It is understandable that the first incarnations of the Cortez building mosaic at settlement may not have carried the ice construct i.e., large warehouses or peculiar buildings that served to st ore ice. However, the anecdotal evidence suggests that ice was available early on via shipments by schooner from Northern states during the

PAGE 234

234 colder months. In addition, some of the more established t owns had ice warehousing operations that were able to serv weekly and then semi weekly deliveries. Eventually in Cortez, an ice storage facility was constructed, which certainly changed the availability of ice, but there is little evidence to suggest that it affected the landscape form in any signif icant manner The method of fish preservation from salting to icin g, while different technically speaking, was not so different from each other in that the fo rms around them changed according to the evaluative resolution of my study If ice houses were built to store ice, the construct would not have been much different, from a building form perspective, than one built to store salt barrels or bushels. Granted, the m ethods were different since ice houses required a sturdier construction and sawdust as an insulator had to be kept on hand. Also, the process of collecting ice, distributing it, and then chipping it down for use could be presented as a distinct form; however, that is left for another study. E xtended v er nacular f orm i ndicator s et T he extended vernacular form as the less noticeable buildings, structures and objects, offers a rich assortme nt of vernacular forms in the TFV setting that manifest themselves as both physical and intangible construct forms. Th ough they are a less noticeable construct form, this does not mean they are less important. They provide direction to researchers of landscape form by indicating where strong context is available and informative, as supported by Emmison and Smith (2000) who suggested sociocultural processes They also referenced objects that could offer a truer sense of the culture in that they avoid the more elitist view typically organize d around high style and more socially appealing

PAGE 235

235 constructs In th is case objects refer to the minor elements that compose the landscape, apart from major built structures such as buildings. In looking at them in this way, they add to, or extend the more common artifact for study. Ex tended vernacular forms are often evident throughout a vernacular landscape; however, some units are established in clusters, while others are randomly located or scattered. The fish eries camps net works, and dock system are perhaps the most prominent in place form s and certainly necessary construct s of the Cortez vernacula r. Yet, withi n this extended vernacular landscape form is not held hostage to only visible, tangible artifacts. There are other artifacts such as the fishing grounds and the act of fishing that extend even further beyond them These forms are less easily illustrated in a graphical sense, and therefore, less easy to analyze Physical manifestations. There is a virtual endless supply of crafted and designed artifacts in the extended v ernacular landscape available for study. Any number of them can be analyzed for form change. The key is to identify those that represent the essence of the context being studied. The available and missing artifact would vary from vernacular setting and the re is no formula for determining which artifacts are to be used. However, s elective choosing is a reasonable practice in this case and is not an uncommon m anagement tool Contextually, the physical manifest ations in the exten ded vernacular of a TFV defer t o its over the water construct of wooden fisheries camp s net works, dock systems, nets, and watercraft Additional equipment and gear are also available, including traps, machinery, and byproducts and waste components, but those are not included for discu ssion within the constraints of my study though they may reveal themselves as important for other studies There is

PAGE 236

236 rarely enough time and space with in the confines of a dissertation to provide an exhaustive examination of all of them. Physical manifestations f isheries camps The smallish fish eries camp s were more akin to buildings versus structures since storing nets and gear and living in them by fishers was a common practice. While most were occupied for lengths of time by unmarried fishers, r eferred to as were fairly itinerant personnel on the landscape a necdotal evidence suggests that some were also occupied by married fishers. Several of the camps were owned by the original settlers who bu ilt them out over the bay as in between connections between their residences, the fish houses, and the open bay systems. The itinerant fisher in Cortez seemed to produce a distinct form in the historic vernacular landscape, as part of t he extended vernac ular form. There appeared to have been occurring, an early vernacular industrial mechanism similar to ho w large corporate entities constructed housing for their workers, such as in nineteenth century cigar, lumber mill, and mining towns. What seemed to dev elop in Cortez w as more organic, yet purposeful. T hough not generated under any specific design, and certainly as part of an overlapping situational c onstruct, the fisheries camps in one way represented an egalitarian social construct, whereby the communit y leaders and primary fishers seemed to welcome other fishers who may not have held any investment in the social environment. Certainly, there may have been a symbiotic relationship that also developed where the itinerants worked for the primary fishers. T he presence of fishers who may have built their own camps and represented a version of tidal squatters seemed to be accepted

PAGE 237

237 since there is no evidence found to date that suggests a disharmony as occurring between the groups prior to 1921. The physical co nstruct of the fisheries camps were m ostly square in dimension, and often had shed roof porch extensions over the single frontal entry. M ost had gabled roof ends with roofs clad in wood shingles or metal panels. Some were crudely constructed as lean to sheds with metal roofs. The lesser quality units seemed to be made of simple box frames sheered with vertical wood boards extending into the gable area. Some were further protected with battens, however, this required additional wood, which probably limite d the application. The gabled roof systems were approached from one side, which was open to allow airing of the nets and easier access to them. Many of them had covered porches and attached docks where an itinerant fisher could pull up in his boat, simila r to a parking space or hitching post Because they served as living quarters for some fishers, and were used for storing valuable netting, several were adorned with openings for ventilation and light. A number of them also were elevated on pilings above t ercraft and nets below. Some were constructed above the surrounding tidal flats where only partial access was available by watercraft Physical manifestations n et works. The nets, traps, and mach inery of the commercial fishing trade are quintessential units of the historic extended vernacular form that also reveal much about form. These units of form are found throughout the vernacular landscape and range in size from an individual artifact to gro ups of individual artifacts representing a distinct point form parameter The most common contextual artifacts in TFVs are nets, traps, and fishing devices that are typically defined by the

PAGE 238

238 type of fishing being done. History reveals the types of gear and equipment used over time and the physical requirements each demanded. For example, early cotton nets demanded a rigorous maintenance schedule that also demanded a particular built construct that effected a distinct form in the historic vernacular landscap e The eventual change of material from cotton to a synthetic beginning around 1940 ( Adkins & Bourgeois, 1982 ) also served to change the construct built around it, hence eventually changing the form The objects and artifacts can change often and fluctuate as the type of fishing changes. The shapes manifested in net types, and how they are devised or laid in the water take on a distinct form such as the gill net versus the cast net as part of the act of fishing However, there is a careful di stinction between the fishing gear used, and the act of fishing as forms that are distinct from one another. The reel yards were a dominant form with high visibility in the landscape due to their height and octagonal form. This distinct geometric form was quite different from that of the more amoebic form of the net spreads that took up much more space though there was an element of area parameter form consistency in how the waves of cotton nets undulated between hidden wood supports in a way, complimenti ng the early cloth sail forms According to historic photographs, t he typical net spread was a simpl e structure constructed of a hor izontal piece of long pine pole of approximately five inches in diameter or roughly cut lumber sections of nominal two by fo ur di mension s These horizontal members were attached to rows of two vertical extensions from the dock pilings that, when covered with nets, formed an undulating wave spaced a few feet apart, rising up to five feet

PAGE 239

239 Physical manifestations d ock system While pier is probably a more accurate term instead of dock, the use of it here means the same thing. Historically, a dock was an area reserved for servicing watercraft, rather than a lineal extension out over the water, as most refer to it today The dock s and wharfs often found in early U nited States fishing villages were also strong indicators of a contextual ly significant construct that mad e up the historic waterfront conglomeration. Historically, t hey include d the elevated lineal platforms, walkways an d structures that connected work and processing areas, and provided a means of elevated access from the upland area into the open water. They also serve d as corrals for watercraft. In e ssence, the dock system was the critical life support system that serve d as a conduit for most of the fishing activities that took place in TFVs. They were often quite extensive in the amount of area they took up, not uncommonly extending for thousands of feet in multiple directions as they linked the various functions toget her. They were predominantly built over the water while also extending upland and into buildings that could also be built over the water, partly over the water, or completely upland from the water. The distinct form of the dock offer ed a combination of hor izontal and vertical flow and extensions embracing the linear form parameter complemented by the extended watercraft mast extension, especially during the early periods. Unfortunately, the historic dock systems generally have experienced a severe diminuti on of the extan t construct in t he 2013 landscape due to a variety of causes including, but not limited to neglect/degradation, reconstruction of new dock systems with different materials and configurations, watercraft changes, regulatory

PAGE 240

240 circumstances that now limit or prohibit docks floods, etc. Dock systems shrink and grow over the lifetime of a TFV and provide excellent examples for evaluating form change over time, as well as, the determinants of ch ange to an essential contextual form. Physical manife stations n ets The Cortez the most important contextual artifact, and therefore, the most contextual element in the vernacular landscape that both indicated form, as well as, determined a significant part of it on the vernacular landscape During the full study p eriod of 1887 to 1946 albeit less toward the end of the study period, t he net materials mainly cotton held immense implications for the forms closer to land where the nets were taken after the act of fishing ended. These referred forms were already discussed as part of the net works indicator, above. basic form even with the advent of synthetic materials The net s themse lves were distinct tool s of the trade important to the fisher, as the hammer would be to a carpenter. Nets were often de termined by the fish being sought and was constructed, or built by the fishers according to the individual specifications of the fisher based on the type of fishing to be performed ( Eidse, 2006) Different fish and differe nt seasons sh size (the individual opening area between the net strands forming their distinct triangular shapes) overall dimensions, and even the number of fishers able to handle a net or p r ocess of using multiple nets The gill net defined the early Cortez fishers more than any other net. In historic vernacular Cortez, gill nets were the common early t ypes for catching fish, muc h more

PAGE 241

241 of a physica l form onto the fishing grounds, etched into the more cognitive form produced by the act of fishing with it than hook and line. Seine nets w ere also used, but not as ex tensively as the gill net. The cast net was a personal tool of the fisher, often round i n form and measuring up to 15 feet or so in diameter. The form is different tha n that of the g ill net which was basically long and rectangular in form, offering a varied often made by them, or altered to meet their own whims. The painstaking care in maintaining these more personalized tools through daily rituals of cleaning, rinsing, mending, and storing is not easily found among other trades. While gill nets could be linked together to form long curtains, the seine net was extremely large and often extended hundreds of yards requi ring teams to operate it. In 1879, Stearns (1887 ) recorded the use of seine nets by Bahamian and itinerant fishers 0 foot long seine nets up to 16 feet in depth. Stop nets were also used extensively after 192 0 These nets were the disdain of many fishers causing a severe brea kdown in relations between gill net ters and stopnetters. The gill netters were conc erned according to their view, that stop nett ing was not ecologically sound and not discriminatory in what its mesh caught thereby, catching nearly everything that ventured i nto it. This is unlike the gill net that was tailored by each fisher to catch fish of a certain size, depending on the size of the mesh used. In several historic accounts, the size of the mesh used was an important descriptor when discussing the type of equipment a fisher was using. The form of the nets used was extended even further by the number of fishers it took to handle the nets as part of the act of fishing ritual and the watercraft used. Each

PAGE 242

242 net type represented a distinct method for catching fish that in turn, became a n intangible form due to the complexity of it as part of the act of fishing. This intangible form o f the net practice extended beyond the geometry of the nets as round or rectangular shapes on the landscape. Physical manifestations w atercraft The vessels used by the fishers were highly contextual forms that may have represent ed the least stable vernacular form as they learned to incorporate their ideas into its evolution in response to environmental conditions, tec hnological advances, the type of fishing being done, and even personal taste. The types of watercraft used certainly affected the visual form o f the TFV as its most critical componen t even though the basic shape of the hull remained steady, but with continually refined nuances Watercraft are integral extended vernacular forms that are not exactly fixed forms, since they are mobile and can be found a s larger constructs throughout the TFV, both on land and on the water. Because they are less stable forms, the expressions of form they produce d are dra matic when compared to that of dwelling s or building s ov er time. For the purposes of my study, the form of watercraft was represented by three distinct features including size, basic hull shape, and the form of its movement ( how it was power ed ) It was not inconceivable that a watercraft form could change seve ral times over the same period as a building, which may not have changed at all. Also, local adaptations and used terminology confused the naming and references to watercraft types. A smack or specialized skiff could have referred to a skipjack. T he form d epicted by the sail s and rigging reflect a much different form than a skiff steered by hand with a pole, or one that was motorized. The evolution of watercraft form as part of commercial

PAGE 243

243 fishing enterprise in Cortez goes from manually powered via poles and oars and sail powered occurring concurrently, to motorized power. The adaptations and evolution of forms are considered to represent what the North Carolina Maritime Museum refers to as Gordon (1954) referred to them as highly adapted to the This typifies a development of the watercraft in isolated cultural enclaves that reflect l ocal needs and uses. While steam represented a distinct form that evolved after sail, its use was for transport purposes versus fishing. Of course, there are various iterations affecting the form of each along the way. Common in the United States from the nineteenth century until about World War Coast was the single masted fishing smack, which is described as a sail powered rig embedded with a live well to keep fish ali ve. While smacks had different sail and hull configurations, it was th e live well that mainly differentiated the smack from other similar watercraft such as the sharpies, and the sailing skiffs of the early periods. There is little evidence that supports w idespread use of the smack by the Cortez fishers during any historic study period, though its use was in place during the pre settlement period. The pre settlement smack s were typical sloops having common lengths of around 26 feet, and were refined to improv e the transport fresh fish to the Cuban markets around Havana. These newer smacks typically were up to 50 foot length and designed as gaff cutters. From 1875 until 1920 or so, they were improved to 80 foot lengths as ketch rigs. However, early on through the end of the nineteenth century, schooners began to replace the smacks. Steamers then replaced the schooners for transport though the two

PAGE 244

244 overlapped quite extensively. Diesel power grad ually replaced the steamer ( Frye, 1978). There are obvious changes in form, as well as, changes in form influences that occur here between the use of sail and virtually all other subsequent watercraft. While steam power held different mechanical forms than its fuel powered kin, the influence of steam powered watercraft to t he Cortez vernacular landscape is on a much different form plane than that of the fishing watercraft, since steamers were not typically used for fishing, but for transporting supplies and hauls. The built construct at the waterfront conglomeration accommod ated the steamers through wider docks elevated according to an individual steamer s loading and unloading capabilities, or working design The commercial fishing watercraft are precise indicators of local vernacular form in Cortez. The same transitions from sail and manual power to motorized watercraft reflect the localized scene as a diffused artifact that was locally modified. It is conjectured anecdotally watercraft from No rth Carolina to Florida Now, it is clear that watercraft termi nology varied amongst the fishers, the craftsmen, and those who simply observed them. For example, references to skipjacks and sharpies are qu ite prevalent in the literature; yet, precise defin itions as they are sometimes used do not seem to sit what was being described. Therefore, to keep watercraft form from becoming too complex, my study adheres to the three forms referenced as hull type, size and power. These are more manageable as part of t he landscape wide study. Now, if a presentation was being done solely on the watercraft, then the specific details of naming conventions, component shaping, sail configuration, etc., would be used

PAGE 245

245 by the first settlers included the spritsail skiff as a diffused watercraft form fro m the mid Atlantic Coast These were often referred to as skipjacks by local builders and fishers, causing a sense of confusion for how skipjacks and other watercraft were technically defined. I n fact, as suggested earlier, localized terms for several of the form indicators were rarely used in a manner that produced consistent and dependable descriptions. For example, t he use of the spritsail skiff could also be used manual ly as a poling skiff because of its manageable size, usually up to 30 feet or so in length. Therefore, it fluctuated between being referred to as a spritsail and a poling vessel. This single mast and sail open watercraft was distinctive in its diagonal s prit that extended from the base of the mast to beyond the top of the sail. In not having a fixed mast, it was designed to allow quick furling of the sail and removal of the mast while fishing. Its basic shape was long and low to the water line with a raki ng bow. Its bottom was typically flatter than most other watercraft to accommodate the local environmental conditions of tidal flats and shoal a reas. It is referenced as an in shore construct that represented the type of fishing pursued by many of the regio nal fishers. The overall spritsail skiff construct reflected a distinct similarity to its North Carolina precedent not only in its designed form, but also in the to pography in which it was plied; in the case of Cortez, the bay and estuary ecosystems were remarkably similar. Since there was a n influx of new settlers and businessmen to the Florida Gulf Coast deriving from coastal North Carolina before, during, and after the settlement period, the diffusion of the distinct spritsail fishing sloop form was qui ckly pro cessed beginning in the late nineteenth century.

PAGE 246

246 The basic form of the watercraft as part of the not appear to represent a significant change of form throughout the use of sail power, especially when considering i t as significant upon the historic vernacular landscape. In fact, many of the earliest sail watercraft were modified to accept power motors. The noticeable change in form would have been the lack of sails as prevalent on the landscape, though many fishers used them as secondary power sources, and as an economical alternative, when needed. The main addition was that of the transport and was of course, already plying the l ocal waters as part of earlier recreational and business operations. These too, were converted to power driven watercraft (Edic, 1996). The steam transport also showed up during the latter part of the settlement period. The first motorized watercraft began to take hold in Cortez during the 1920s. This indicates a basic familiarity and stability of watercraft form during the first 30 years in Cortez. The earliest watercraft were formed mostly out of wood materials though some of the minor components could h ave been made of metal. Eventually, local materials of cedar, cypress, and mangrove formed the basis for watercraft construction due to their abundance and natural pest and rot resistance qualities. The sails were made of cotton or burlap. In some cases, a nd as part of the recycling ethic, old salt bags and other similar storage containers made of fibrous materials were assembled and used for patching sales and constructing new ones though this is a highly conjecture d assumption for Cortez

PAGE 247

247 Intangible manifestations There are certain quiet forms evident in the vernacular landscape that may also contribute to physical forms in various ways. Their subliminal and physical characters combine to create an overlapping between each other making individual discussions of them redundant and susceptible to off tangency Fishing has a legendary status that has been told and retold in stories and parables from the earliest of human times. Much of this has developed into a specialized folklore of fishing that ca n be isolated into localized traditions that may also be found to exist regionally and across wider spectrums of TFVs This gives a certain form to the TFV that is marked by a presence not totally visible and not totally invisible. It is intangible rather than non physical. In being intangible form has vestiges that ramble through the mind with scarcity of real time and placement. Similar to how Kevin Lynch revealed place mapping through the cognitive mind, the intangible manifestation of form in the tradi tional fishing context is ever changing, ever expanding and shrinking, which makes it different than the monuments and mind linkages offered by Lynch. In regarding the intangible manifestations of form, the discussion of indicators th at follow, of the neither purely visible nor invisible form constructs does not represent an exhaustive list. There are an unknown number of such elements that feed the context of a place and inform the landscape construct. However, the three primary intangible ind icator sets of fishing grounds, the act of fishing, and the elapsed experiential are forms that take on special, contextual sensitive places in the TFV These intangible forms benefit descriptions of the landscape wide historic physical form in that they a dd to what is typically studied.

PAGE 248

248 Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds. Westerdahl (1992) provided insight into in 1978 with an archaeological perspective focused on Scandinavian fishing v illage activities (p. 5) The old, as well as new, with ports and [ harbours ] along the coast, and its related constructions and remains of human activity, underwater a Interestingly enough Westerdahl saw the maritime cultural landscape as an extension of the terrestrial landscape, in that it was a construct that consists of forms that are material, cognitive, and indicative. He also constructed the maritime cultural landscape as being dense r with more activities, in a more confined geographical area, similar to the waterfront conglomeration I have included as part of my study. Westerdahl developed five components of the mariti me cultural landscape to include : a) shipwrecks ; b ) land remains ; c ) traditions of usage or t he mental map formed by coastal people as part of their local, collective knowledge ; d ) natural topography to include protected shelters and havens ; and e) names known by the culture used to identify the contextual TFV related places of ports, towns, shipyards, resource areas, routes, islands, passes/cuts, points, ship types, etc. lengthy list includes a broad panorama of the TFV, each of which c ould be included as part of the fishing grounds discussion, i t is easy to read how vast and interconnected the fishing grounds are. For the purposes of my study, t he direct meaning of fishing grounds can be used to understand the breadth and specificity f or where the acts of fishing are done or performed by the fishers This includes the water and tidally influenced environments,

PAGE 249

249 but also certain upland areas such as shorelines and islands While the fishing grounds appear to extend far beyond physical bo undaries that may be arbitrarily drawn up, their physical limits were determined by the physical and technical limitations of the fishers themselves. As the historic landscape vernacular evolved, so did the fishing grounds, however, during the study period there was a distinc t limitation more definable than what happened during the technological advance s that would come after the 1946, and where fishing grounds expanded exponentially. The type of fishing pursued, and the availability of the stock is a maj or contributor to the fishing grounds form. T he fishing gr ounds connected to TFVs offer an excellent resource form that is physical and intangible yet i t is distinguishable through a cognitive layering of open space that includes distance from land, water surface, water depth, and the interactions between them. It includes a physically familiar geographic area, often including areas that may never be fished but also those areas never ventured to, yet held in reserve by the fisher when known resources fail to produce In some cases as Anderson (1984) identified a system is present that is u tilized by fishers that allowed them to communicate amongst themselves a network of fishing grou nds locations where fishing was good. They associated multiple visual landmarks akin to triangulation that capitalized on their skills, knowledge, and learned experience of the fishing grounds system. Yet, in reality the fishing grounds were always subjec t to change with tides, weather, occupation, fish presence, etc. As new commercial and recreation fishers plied In Cortez, f ish were traditionally caught as the high ti de moved to low. The fishing grounds become a constantly moving form and are then less fixed but overlapping and

PAGE 250

250 repetitive or sporadic. It is difficult then to assume the fishing grounds to be a specific place because of th e flux that occurs as part of t hem between the open space layers The primary inquiry is whether fishing grounds contribute somehow to the other forms, or if it can be assessed as a form on its own that establishes significance in the historic vernacular landscape. The fact that fishing grounds can change does not mean the historic character of the TFV changed with it, unless it can be found that it somehow bec ame part of the folklore, and therefore, the elapsed memory. This is an important assessment undertaken as part of my study. In t he cases of the Cortez fishers, the fishing grounds were basically determined by the fish they sought. Since mullet was the primary catch, this created a fa i rly definable area that consisted of the Sarasota and Palma Sola Bay systems This represented an approximate 60 mile long area of shallow tidal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and island formations From 1890, the fishing grounds were being altered and impacted by navigation activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is possible that some of the fis hers ventured outside of these areas, expanding the fishing grounds in order to follow the migrating schools of fish, or when local cond i tions required mitigating the absence of sufficient catches. Intangible manifestations a ct of fishing The act of fish ing is a nother intangible form that is not neatly bound in a fixed visual form though snapshots of it can relate to form Bourne (1989) wrote about the influence on certain built forms, especially the extended vernacular forms that the various types of fi shing had in New England fisheries. The same holds true in virtually all commercial fishing communities. If fishing is construed to be the targeting and catching of marine life, whether it is a fish, a

PAGE 251

251 shellfish, a turtle, or a sponge then it is also repr esented by different constructs at the water/land interstice, as well as, how fishing methods as form extended seaward of the upland construct. Mullet fishing was even more specific to a particular act then other types of fishing in that mullet could not really be caught by hook and line since they were vegetarians and had to be caught by net. The importance of the net then, becomes a strong deter minant of the other forms, in the landscape construct required to support it both physically and intangibly The fact that an enlivened discussion perpetuated by the complexity of the net and the act of fishing forms was withheld from the 1995 Cortez Natio nal Register Nomination suggests the incompleteness of the contextual narrative provided as part of it. The act of fishing then, is an intangible construct that includes numerous forms that work together such as the type of fishing, the desire to fish or m and ion to the natural environment including his ecological views. Tebeau (1976) neatly described one act of fishing as two men in a skiff with hand lines. While this simple description does not reveal mu ch about Cortez and its mullet fishery it does convey something that can be depicted by researching the act itself. The same goes for other types of fishing such as one man in a power boat with nets, using oar s or sail ing. Like the fishing grounds, t he ac t of fishing is often related to the f ish targeted for harvest. Changes to the form occur with effects to either of them. Fish ing can be completely different between TFVs within near locales and within regions due to a variety of reasons The various forms represented by the fishing being done, and the acts of fishing may also be different.

PAGE 252

252 However, the act of fishing includes much more than simply throwing a line or net overboard to catch fish. masculine identity and self esteem were closely tied to seamanship and ability to handle a boat, and whose lives revolved around various fishing related activities and spaces (Smith et al. 2003 p.42 ). Therefore form that can be evaluated does not seem to be bound by the visual components that make u p those consisting of purely visual elements. The act of fishing includes an extension to the sea whereby the fisher extends the vernacular form to include his/her trade domain. Learned knowledge of this extended area, sometimes passed through tradition, o r adapted through personal experience, becomes a vernacular form that exists, but is not easily articulated visually. As traditional practices, Price ( 2004) discussed cast netting and pole fishing as part of what defined folk groups, including a) stories they told b ) the material artifacts they used and c ) the customs or beliefs they held regarding such mundane things as bait, fishing grounds, when to fish, prep are the fish etc. ( p. 3). interaction with this extended area adds to the vernac ular form that may be more of a process that establishes the form, rather than a type of form to be categorized since such interactions are formed by complex circumstances. Nevertheless, the form created by the act of fishing appears to be important for un derstanding the vernacular setting when trying to evaluate changes to it and determinants of it. Another aspect of the act of fishing is the form it takes when considered by the fishers themselves, whether in retrospect, when comparing to others or throug h some general perception or understanding This intangible form is vulnerable to withering between generations,

PAGE 253

253 something I refer to, and is explained in more detail in the next subsection, as being part of the elapsed experiential discussed in Chapter 3. The act of fishing also includes the oft cited notion that many fishers live to fish rath er than fish to live ( Acheson, 1981; Garrity Blake, 1994). This appears as part of a passionate avocational tendency in that many Cortez fishers, including the original settlers worked at other things as part of what McGoodwin & FAOUN (2001) described ) This allowed sufficient income during the lean times and seaso nal fluctuations associated with fishing. more or less accommodated outsiders to the scenic aspects of the natural surroundings, ra ther than having add ed to the contextual character of a fishing village. When compared to how other highly contextualized fishing villages developed, such as Tilt ing a highly vernacular TFV along the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, it becomes difficult to assess how early fishers in Cortez embraced the desire to put fishing ahead of all other pursuits Finally, true small scale f ishers are often loo k ed at as having special relationships with nature. According to Green (1985) early fishers in Cortez tended to with their natural surroundings (p. 79). The 1995 Cortez National Register N omination discussed this briefly but without any real foray into its dynamics. The consideration also informs as to the fishers having some innate sense of connectivity with nature that can only be learned through experience and as part of generational conditioning. It can be suggested that there is a form that develops in the mind if the fisher that is a complex set that includes intimate knowledge of th e weather,

PAGE 254

254 water depth, tides, surface movement, currents, bearing without landmarks for guidance, etc., that combine to create an intuitive sense that is uncommon. Environmental responsibility of fishers was often looked at different ly between fishers as a group, and mostly everyone else. There is a common perception within the ranks of fishers that they reserve some element of ecological responsibility and stewardship of the natural resources that supply them with their livelihoods ; ho wever, the historical record suggests an opposing view of abuse and over exploitation of resources by outsiders The first question that arises is in how ecological beliefs and understandings held by the fishers affect the vernacular landscape, if at all. Cannavo (2007) suggested that the knowledge of certain fishing grounds handed down from previous generations creates a more personalized caring for the place. Chiarappa and Szylvian (2003) discussed a self management of resources exhibited by fishers in t he Great Lakes whereby they would harvest different areas at a time and change the targeted species to allow regeneration; they would also change the gear being used as part of this informal governance that held wide ranging implications. This all amounted to what he or TEK, that became part of the valuable learned insight to how fish behave, the fishing ground topography, currents, weather patterns, responsible resources use, and mechanical skills (p. 102 ). To restate, it is my argument that form does not have to be visual and can be inherent in practice and custom. Yet, a non visual vernacular form such as ethics may be parlayed into a physical form or as an effect to it. This can still change over time, wh ich means that it can be evaluated for determinants that cause it to change. TFVs

PAGE 255

255 exhibit strong ethics traditions that are written about for ease of access by the outsider. However, there seems to be a fine line between ethics and the act of fishing. It d oes appear, based on the historical analysis of local fishing cultures, that ethics and tradition are often affected by other circumstances of economics, politics, natural effects, etc. There are ethics regarding overuse or exploitation of resources, damag e to resources such as by using nets that catch all fish to their death regardless of being the Nash (1989) regarded this as an inherent morality given to a human who d eeply interacts with the natural environment. This is part of a general agreement among fishers that the natural environments from which they make a living establish a more or less orderly system of productivity and replenishment. Santayana (1920) saw this as a consensus that is built among groups such as fishers whereby broad agreement is achiev ed for certain things that work in tandem with those are deemed more individualistic, and where disagreements are often common and inevitable. Total agreement that covers the gamut of the ethics surround fishers would be impossible, and the individualistic imports between fishers would make any attempt at such an endeavor unrealistic or according to Santayana, untenable. One example is t he controversy between the gi ll netters and the stopnetters that began during the 1920s. Nash (1989) seems to have hit the proverbial nail on the head when he talked about the rights of nature, which has huge implications for commercial fishers. The apparent waste of unwanted marine li fe inadvertently caught in stop nets rose to the epitome of

PAGE 256

256 Knowing where the above individualized grounds begin and end is rarely a precise, definable area, and is more indicative of a reciprocal action generally understood by fishers, that allows the fishing grounds form to shrink and expand accordingly. However, the question of an eroding ethic in this behavior is evident. Anderson (1984), in studying Bermudian fishing practices, found that fishers often viewed the fish resource as one for the taking at present without regard for future implications. Many captains of local fishing sloops there saw a sense of dishonesty take over beginning from the 1970s. While this suggests that fishers may have been more honest during early times, this is an ethic and form in the mind of the fisher that some intangible manifestations of form, as indicators, have indeed changed. The determinant could be a declining resource or general watering down of th e supposed traditional knowledge whereby such dishonest practices were perceived to not happen during historical periods. This view, compounded by additional introspective critiques prompts many fishers subsequent to 1950 to suggest that latent fishers do things differently than the generations before them, and that they have somehow changed into a less than stoic fisher. The form of the fisher in the mind of fishers when they consider each other, then, is one that asks the question of whether a fisher is Intangible manifestations e lapsed experiential. T he elapsed experiential form is a type of traditional practice inherent, and solidly fixed in many TFVs. While always hav ing been part of the TFV generative construct, t he recognizable elapsed experiential in Cortez derives mostly with the accretion of time and is embraced and articulated as part of generational experiences. It is elapsed since it refers to the things of the past,

PAGE 257

257 the former ways, and even some things that may never have been real, or that ever took place. Therefore, the elapsed experiential can be measured in Cortez according to localized feel ings of a lost cultural flux des cribed as a loos of internal and e xternal support for fishers, what constitutes a real fisher, and lost traditions. On e of the most evident examples of the elapsed experiential is in how many of the older fishers refer to how they used to fish versus how fishing might be done by a current generation or method In looking back at was once long standing tradition, Eidse [ everthin ] Green (n.d. ) a descendant of a n early Cortez fisher quoted an old time r ot to learn a trait that he felt was becoming a lost art among newer generations of fishers Some second and third generation fishers in Cortez were even suggest ing that there just were no Green, 1985, p. 81). Rudloe, (1992 ) cited how fishers often refer to the former glory of f [ ol ] no page no ). Outsiders often mimicked these same perceptions as they sa w buildings, watercraft, and fishing gear fast disappearing not only in Cortez, but in other commercial and a selling out of traditional fishing as a once colorful way of life (Lovel & Lovel, 2000). Old er fishers often think of the generations that follow them as having it too easy, that they could not adapt easily to the whims of nature and fishing circumstances as they fou nd themselves doing ( Green, n.d., p. 234). Per Chiarappa and Szylvian (2003), a respected fisher is one who learned the required knowledge of the trade at the docks,

PAGE 258

258 fish houses, dinner table, etc., before even going out to fish for the first time. Perhaps the advent of technology makes this seem more true than not. Garrity Blake ( 1994) identified the more astute fisher as being able to identify schools of unseen fish, and could even tell what kind they were. They were more intuitive than later gene rations. A Technology required less intuition, and therefore this naturally learned fisher trait it began to diminish. The fisher did have to master several overlapping environmental occurrences that dictated the fishing act. They had to learn the aging process of the fish species. They also had to learn how the fish themselves ran. This reveals a form that is far more complex th a n simply hauling a net out to open water and hoping it fills up with fish. They had to kn ow that mullet must grow to abo ut two years to become harvestable the typical life s pan of a mullet is approximately eight years. In addition, Garrity Blake (1994) cited the loss of fish finding skills that once pervaded the domain of the vernacular fishing village act of fishing. She suggested that most captains worth their salt could locate fish even when they were several feet below the surface, and then be able to discern the type of fish it was due to th eir experiential, traditional knowledge. Of course, they had learned to study the environment to include the scent of the air, etc. Later, Garrity Blake and West (200 3) described fishers as of all trades, surviving with skills in carpentry, mechanics, navigation, and The ways in which things were done or experienced were reflected in the banes of the old t imers that included complaints about catfish and sting rays long hours, sun

PAGE 259

259 baking, toil, storms, mending, and liming ; it all required a passion to continue. This led to further discussions about the problems caused by the large, modern watercraft and newer methods, much different than their favorite memories of still dark, early mornings at the docks, being barefoot with a jar of cold coffee, the dinner bucket containing the along meal was which was a tin pail from an old syrup/lard can along with a mason jar of coffee. (Green, n.d. ). However, as part of the elapsed experiential, even this had changed according to the later Cortez fishers who opined often about missing the fishers walking from their houses to their boats and docks with their lunch buckets in hand ( Jepson & Florida Humanities Council, 2006) Green (n.d.) suggested that fishers came out of the womb with salty veins. Such perceptions become entrenched in the perceptions of th e fishers themselves, from the earliest settlers all along the Gulf Coast who seemed to have prime acknowledgement of the physical and mental challenges that was an inherent part of thei r acts of fishing. They recognized the temporal idiosyncrasies of thei r trade due to a seemingly endless onslaught of conditions ranging from economics, politics, the environ ment, and natural events as Dup r e y (1959) and Varney (1963) both found live that informs a regional perspective along the coast since many fishers occupied themselves with alternative trades during production lulls, often returning to their p laces of origin such as several of the Cortez fishers who repeatedly returned to North Carolina during the off seasons. The regional perspective becomes informed here as Mellin

PAGE 260

260 (2003) suggested, in how the fishers would return with new influences whether i t related to the techniques of fishing or watercraft form, or in how buildings and structures were erected. Even though such perceptions are intangible they represent forms in the vernacular landscape that may have been real during another time, and now carried on until they fade away, or are presented in newly perceived ways lacking the deeper contextual benefit. In either sense, there is a distinct form that is traceable, albeit highly generative and highly personal. Images that are based on such recoll ections of at least some of the elapsed experiential construct can be sketched, allowing the form to be analyzed physically. The drawn re creation of fishers walking to the docks with their lunch buckets, an elapsed non static form, does not represent a difficult challenge for even the occasional sketch artist. These type s of intangible form s develop as part of t he changing cultural construct and the esoteric sense of place that formed in the minds of some of the original fishers, as well as, those of the descendants. In his study of a neighborhood in the New England whaling and textile community of New Bedford, Massachusetts, Heath (2001) according to his own more engage d interaction with it as a child His notions of change, or as I reference it, his elapsed experiential provided an enhanced understanding of it according to his particular circumstances, and according to perhaps a deeper involvement in it The continued sense of loss spreads to the wider physical landscape built construct However, the elapsed experiential though intangible in its character, often

PAGE 261

261 forms around the real sense of loss, or in how things used to look or exist, but are no longer part of the ir steeped tradition s While it is difficult to assess the elapsed experiential of the original settlers since the record of it is sparse, and since the change in the physic al construct serves as a type transition bet ween two landscapes, some c lues that remain can be evaluated here as part of the overall elapsed experiential of the study period. Elapsed form in certain places is the memory becoming diminished and recognized as some former preferred quality usurped by a changing tradition. For e xample, certain fishing villages that once were bustling are now ghost communities such as many of the older ones along the North Carolina coast, and in Florida such as Sarasota, St. Marks, Punta Gorda, Carrabelle, etc. So, the physical form has also dimin ished or been reduced affecting memory as also reduced or elapsed. Description s of the place and the act physical and intangible current and historical become so elapsed and varied as almost being indistinguishable In Apalachicola, the loss of oyster h ouses to waterfront residential developments has fostered much writing about the pressures on local fishers as they lose more and more of their abilit y to fish the local waters ( Eidse, 2006). The community support system that once embraced commercial fishing has also lost its luster. The earlier generations seemed to represent the reverse role in the elapsed experiential in how they also referred to the future rather than just the past. The literature is full of nostalgic reminiscences of t raditional fishing practice though second and third hand accounts. Cortez residents opined recently about the lack of support that local fishers once received from the ir surrounding communities ( Smith, Jacob, & Jepson, 2003). Whereas the act of fishing was once a near sacred task, to be

PAGE 262

262 respected, admired, and even feared by all, changes in community attitudes also changed the breadth for which the act of fishing could be performed. This was perhaps a very common association among all Florida fishing commun ities due to the land the attitudes that were shifting were not from the newer generations of fishers as much as from the demographic makeup of the communities that were en croaching upon them Intangible manifestations e lapsed experiential and a dis cussion of place and form in the TFV landscape The sense of place or genius loci of a landscape merits a discussion here though the conceptual character of it prevents an in dep th analysis of it as part of my study. Instead, sense of place winds its way through all of the form constructs presented thus far as part of the inherently human interface that is part of the contextual landscape. As a construct of human perception, it parallels form as a similar perceived human construct The form of a place within a certain setting often begets an emotional tie to it. The main problem with converting notions of place into a form is that they are too personalized and im material. It is e asier, and perhaps more relevant to consider it as part of something missed and describable, rather than occurring in the present and indescribable. Place is often a notion that not so easily described since it is felt. However, most people can describe it after that feeling is deemed to be lost. While a physical form and its setting delivers a meaningful sense of place to one person, it is often limited to that one person, and only understood by that one person, incognito. However, it can be considered as an indicator analytic linking the physical form with the intangible form in how people have expressed their feelings about the sense of

PAGE 263

263 place they experience in the setting. These expressions reveal certain patterns over ti me could be compared to see if similarities occur. Expressions of sense of place that lean to a loss of historic buildings for example, or woodlands, or increased pollution affecting the harvest, or a restriction on a type of fishing to name a few, easily lead to the realization that real losses of form probably occurred. There is evidence of fishers abandoning fishing grounds due to pollution such as in the Thames River, London, England in 1859. Endn ote regarding the elapsed experiential There are countl ess other elapsed experiential forms such as legends, myths, superstitions, stories, and conventions that also reveal a n intangible facet to the TFV construct. For example, i n Beaufort, North Carolina, the legacy of pirates remains in the form of local leg ends, stories or orient ation to the sea. While the construct of piracy and pirates i s no longer extant physically, the stories continue and change as history marches on. In this way, e lapsed form modifies what had been the real physical form or reality o f physical form and renders a challenge for historians in detailing accuracy. Maybe out of this also comes visitor imagination, almost mythic in quality, of the fisher going out to sea and fishing, which many cannot see but on ly imagine through contextual ly fed receptors landscape is as important for what is absent, what is experienced imaginatively by Unfortunately, the constraints of my study do not allow for an exhaustive examination of the myriad available elapsed forms that could add to the intangible aspects of the historic vernacular landscape.

PAGE 264

264 The Evolution of Vernacular Landscape Form in Cortez Applying the Contextual Form Framework and Graphic Sketch Program Th e contextual form framework presents a narrative of vernacular form following a timeline that is chronologically oriented yet based on the critical junctures referenced earlier in my study, of either time periods or distinct events, usi ng a graphical interface to explain both visual and intangible form elements. This is a la yered approach that results in sketched visual construct s resulting from the contextual information set or sets that feed it The dynamics taking place as part of eac h period are discussed in order to support the graphic representation and narratives of form discussions that occur at the end of each period. Snapshots of the form indicators over time for each form period represent the graphical interpretations that beco me part of the overall analysis. Some overlapping of form periods seem to occur where dates are duplicated from one period to the next; however, this duplication merely recognizes transitions that occur between periods, whereas, the end of one period may h ave already begun to employ the next period. In any case, these transitions are negligible and not critical to the findings of my study. Because the form affectations of creation, diminution, and stability are not guided according to planned scheduling, a nd are more random in occurrence in many vernacular settings, form periods, for the purposes of my study, are recognized according to critical junctures such as human made and natural events, development spurts, internal and external social influences, and localized decision making to name a few. This represents a version of applying a thicker analysis to the vernacular landscape form, as opposed to arbit rarily defined timelines A critical juncture does not necessarily

PAGE 265

265 only consider a single point or action in time, but ca n also be a period of time recognized by single or multiple concurrent influences on overall landscape form. Critical junctures may be so plentiful that isolating a small enough group to convey form is barely manageable, so not all critical junctures may be considered under the umbrella of a single study. A catastrophic hurricane that destroys the human built form of a setting is a criti cal juncture just as the decadal long growth and build up of a successfully developing waterfront dock area with its accreting massing of buildings and structures is one Because distinct form, its derivation and continuance can be recognized from such exa mples, the event or period becomes critical to understanding its form. Also, a critical juncture does not necessarily reveal the determinants of form or form change, only that there is a strong enough cultural or natural condition or series that merit ( s ) c lose examination that may lead to it being a determinant The evolution of form in Cortez is captured in uneven and varied time periods that avoid prescriptions of convenien ce. In Cortez, vernacular historic form in the cultural landscape begins with a di scussion of the pre settlement period, or time prior to the first historic study period being studied, since there is known activity that took place prior to its initial land development action of being subdivided (a critical juncture ) Any given study area could be identified as having no discernible human built form as part of its pre settlement period, since evidence of vernacular human activity, depending on the extent, is often consumed or hidden under rapid natural recovery. H owever, many areas can be c onsidered undisturbed for the purposes of evaluating the human built forms upon them, even though they most likely have already experienced some form of human occupation or disturbance in the past. It is important to note that aboriginal

PAGE 266

266 impacts or forms o f settlement to Cortez are considered only briefly where applicable but are not detailed as a focused point of study here since Western form is the primary concern of my study. In some cases, critical juncture points occur in an overall timeline as a result of a historic event that caused significant or wholesale change to the form established up to that point Such anomalies are not necessarily uncommon in the real world, but may be less common when affecting large scale form change or diminution. The less than simple discussion of form change versus form erasure is part of this type of scenario, and will be discussed later. The vernacular landscape form is presented narratively and graphically as part of the following sub sections in this chapter. It is applied to the periods identified as part of the h istoric study span from 1887 to 1946. The basic format follows the explanations of contextual form and contextual form indicators provided earlier in this chapter, along with a discussion and graphic ske tch of the waterfront conglomeration and the graphic tile sets shown for the historic study period s To provide thicker depth of understanding context, additional discussions are provided to examine a present day (2013) overview of Cortez, a pre settlement period (prior to 1887) and a hurricane event (1921) that was particularly influential as affect ing the contextual form. The graphic tiles a series of rough sketch plates, comprise the form indicators in a specially presented format that juxtaposes them from left to right in a manner that tends to flow from the inland forms to the waterfront conglomeration and then the intangible forms This format allows for an easier identification and comparison of the predominant forms as they appear si de by side. The n, form change is interpreted by

PAGE 267

267 comparing the graphic tile sets from each period. The addition or subtraction of forms, or changes to previous dominant forms in the identified constructs represents a finding of a degree of vernacular form change worthy of discussion, and additional analysis of the determinant cau sing the change(s). As a recap, the abbreviated order of the contextual form indicators then, as already referenced earlier is inclusive of the w aterfront conglomeration ; v illage layout (boundary, parcel configuration, and circulation) ; b uilding mosaic (re sidential, non residential, and fisheries contextual) ; e xtended vernacular physical (fisheries camps, net works, dock system, nets, and watercraft) ; and e xtended vernacular intangible (fishing grounds, act of fishing, and elapsed experiential) It is impor tant to note here that f or the twenty first century Cortez discussion only the waterfront conglomeration sketch is included, while the graphic tile sets are not, since the evaluation of vernacular landscape form is prescribed for the historic study span e nding in1946 and an in depth graphic analysis of the late r form construct is unnecessary. Instead, the narrative discussion of 2013 Cortez with an historic overview suffices to allow current context to meet strategically with the detailed form periods, bu t without adding to an already complex information set. The use of the waterfront conglomeration sketch does provide a lead in to the overall graphic format through a comparison with the settlement form waterfront conglomeration. Forward First: Twenty f ir st Century Cortez T the history of a traditional town successfully must begin with an examination of it currently (Kropf, 1993) With this logic in mind, something must be said about Cortez form and its recent landscape construct even

PAGE 268

268 tho ugh my study period ends at 1946 It does not take a scholar to understand that Cortez has indeed changed since its settlement period from over 120 years ago. The village boundary expanded to nearly twice its original size, a number of s ubdivisions and building additions have occurred many of its original buildings have been destroyed or moved to different location s non historic buildings and structures now serve as intrusions, and much of its extended vernacular has been modified or el iminated. In sum, i t is difficult to disagree with the fact that the physical and intangible forms of 2013 Co rtez are much different than they were in the 1890s, 1920s, or 1 946 Historic overview The historic vernacular TFV character of Cortez historically named prior to 1896, can be dated to at least 1887, wh en roughly the western half of the area now considered to encompass the fishing village proper as of 20 13 was divided into 13 parcels for sale by Allen and Ma ry Gardiner, investors of large tracts of Florida land from Rhode Island The se newly created tracts of land began to be settled by fishers originating from the coastal area of Carteret County, North Carolina However, earlier archival documentation strong ly supports it as part of an area used for American, Bahamian and European commercial f ishing exploitation before the 1887 original settlers began to arrive. What eventually resulted was an expanded village that grew in size and configuration with fluctua tions to its form over time, and for the purposes of my study, is referred to as the Cortez historic study area ( Figure 4 1). While not part of my study, it must be noted that p lentiful harvests of seafood were also being taken as part of aboriginal activi ties, as evidenced by at least one known, large shell mound formerly located just north of the historic village along the Palma Sola Bay shoreline.

PAGE 269

269 (1892) description of another shell mound locat ed several miles north as being 564 feet in length, and up t o 20 feet in height. Green (n.d. ) cited Point mound as having been only 12 feet in height, but as long as 1,200 feet. The reduction in height is certainly understandab le between the two descriptions as utility use s of and treasure hunting in the shell materials occurred regularly. However, the increase in length may be supported through its own legend, not uncommon in maritime cultures. What this suggests is a used envi ronment that was most likely in a fairly disturbed condition prior to the widely recognized settlement date of 1887. Not including the aboriginal occupat settlement activities, possibly in existence during the early nineteenth and even the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been described in detail as temporary encampments West, Cuba, and the Bahamas. Aboriginal fishers, as well as, former slaves and their descendants often interspersed with the Spanish in operating the se fisheries amid the social overtones of the time Anglo Americans from Florida up to the northern states also ventured into the surrounding waters, establishing fishing encampments there, perhaps making improvements to the older Spanish/Indian ranchos forms of which may have already existed From wherever these early users hailed, it is obvious that the hi storic context of Cortez, including its settlement era and after, exhibits a pureness in its continued legacy evolving around fishing enterprise. Therefore, from this traditional legacy, up to the end of my study period, it is valid to identify the histori c village in Cortez as having been a continual TFV from its first initial occupance by Westerners and perhaps even by the

PAGE 270

270 late nt groups of aboriginal populations This singular continued use of the land is quite sign ificant, representing a distinction tha t separates Cortez from most other TFVs. Table 4 1, which includes determinations of change for the form indicators, can be referenced as a primer for reading the following analysis of form for the period. Natural /environmental b ackground Cortez is pre hi storically, historically and traditionally entrenched in commercial fishing activities This implies a proximity and connection to a water resource In this case, the water resource is a system of bays, i nlets, tidal flats, rivers, estuaries, and the Gulf of M exico, not uncommon topography for TFVs on or at least the historic village that is the subject of my study, is a historic vernacular landscape, which is a subset of the cultural landscape broadly interpreted from the hum an activities occurring on it over time. I t is located at the southwestern prominence of a peninsula that juts out between the bays of Sarasota and Palma Sola ( Figure 4 2 ). A erial view s of Cortez dating from the 1940s reveal a stark difference between the layout and textures of the historic village and the surrounding developments. They seem denser, more compact, clustered, and curvy. Graphically, they appear orderly, clean cut, and loud Cortez, on the other hand seems soft spoken and lazy with a certain u nkempt character that seems to just slide into Sarasota Bay. At just a few feet above sea level, t he natural native landscape of pines, cabbage palms, scrub palmettos, and fringe mangroves has largely been removed or replaced with other more decorative and invasive species including citrus trees, a variety of non native palms and royal p alms Australian p ines (Green, n.d. ) and Brazilian Pepper to name a few There are still patches of mangroves occurring along the waterfront, but the overall natural landscape in Co rtez has been modified from pre settlement days and

PAGE 271

271 now has more of a tropical garden appearance. Historically, t he waterfront area has always been sparse of vegetation because of the daily activities that took place there. Yet, Corte z appear s to be lush er now than at any point after its settlement base d on historic pictures Today, purposely planted hedges of areca and other palms stand 20 feet high along many properties. The t aller royal and coconut palms line roadways, planted decades ago a long with many other types of palms and ornamentals to give it a truly tropical feel. Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space The latent waterfront of Cortez draws the observer to a conglomeration centered within the wider confines of its historic location. In this case it is a more concentrated construct located between 123 rd Street to the east and 124 th Street to the west, as compared to the historic western extent to beyond 125 th Street. In addition, the historic eastern extent of the waterfr ont conglomeration occurred one half block or so further east. In 2013, there is an additional waterfront conglomeration occurring at the eastern extremity, however, this area serves as a less complete, secondary unit, and is not included here since it would o therwise appear duplicative. In working from a top down approach, t he 2013 waterfront conglomeration sketch in Figure 4 3 reveals a fairly robust enclosing backdrop of vegetation that is much less revealed during the historic study span The area elements of large geometric facades of the dominant seafood processing facility is emphasized by its whitish, blank, texture less walls of painted concrete block. The less dominating scale of the extant historic structures is hidden as a result of this domination, but incomplete elements of it peek through the various building openings and open spaces. The large scale of the two story U.S. Coast Guard facility also dominates by weighing down the waterfront

PAGE 272

272 conglomeration as a bookend on one side, in some ways portra ying a solid base of more modern, texture less facades and hipped roofs that complement the flatness of the 1960s architecture of the seafood processing facility. The above newer elements are also complemented by the modern qualities of the current era sa ilboat moored in the foreground with its sails unfurled. The appearance of sail powered watercraft does not seem to evoke a retro historic sense of when it was the dominant form during the settlement period. In fa ct, its presence is rather anti climactic an Yet, the triangular area plane of where the sail should be reflects a ghost historic presence. The mast of the sailboat and its rig line present a vertical and diagonal linear puncturing of the sky that is quite indicative of one element of transition the Cortez waterfront has experienced in its later history as the newer marinas were developed, a seemingly inevitable type of development common to many historic waterfronts as industrial activities compete w ith recreational pursuits. The dock systems are also linear elements that are more purposefully constructed to reach deep water as individual or double systems and accommodate larger watercraft. Newer dock systems are thickly constructed and refined in a way that tends to elicit attempts at form perfection and permanence through design rather than as vernacularly assembled to meet an immediate need However, the contemporary dock creates more a vertical feeling from the form, accented by small nuances of h orizontal character as the prefabricated pilings display their treated and milled shapes. Today, dock pilings often add the additional form of stark white, pointed end caps as protective devices eliminating the common picturesque scene of wildlife that ar e usually

PAGE 273

273 attracted to them, though this is quite purposeful in its application Still, and even with the feeling of inconveniently straight linear flow extending at various length straight into the water more like individual fingers, the dock system is hi ghly evident as it extends along the waterfront, rather than out over it to any significant web, The evidence of nets and net works is nearly completely vanished though it shows itself in clumps piled in the back of watercraft. As discussed later in this chapter, t gear and netting. What was once a sea of net spreads punctuated by the high rise of large, octagonal net reels and the camps that served them is a diminishe d form at extinction here with no visual record However, there may be opportuni ties for depicting the net works configuration and other historic data using remaining pilings and as part of an underwater archaeological study of some of the disturbed areas. The watercraft group continue s to create a highly defined mass as the strongest focal point of the waterfront conglomeration. This is combined with the various point elements of single, smaller watercraft occurring in isolated, but multi ple instances. The trawlers are dominant with their linear versions of mechanical rigs for working the miles of net materials, but for use in deeper waters farther from shore. The vertical masts of distant sails are also visible and reflect the extended fo rm along the similarly extended waterfront. The smaller kicker boats with their clumped nets indicate the modern rendition of the historic skiff but do not dominate the waterfront or the extended bay as their predecessors did. The waterfront conglomeratio n, as considered from sketches that are typical of Figure 4 3 and after studying the historic archives represents a significantly altered

PAGE 274

274 form, which is not surprising given the more than half century of advanced technology and community growth that Corte z was exposed to. The once common triangular form represented by the dominant gabled roof ends and unfurled sail constructs represen ted during the historic study span are barely visible in 2013. Admittedly, there are some expressions of it, but they have b een abstracted and made less dominant, and perhaps less relevant by the increase of highly mechanized seafood processing facilities constructed of what the Cortez Design Guidelines refers to as an industrial vernacular construction. The residential charac ter of Cortez is not a highly distinguishable product requiring the observer to venture further into the landscape to make it distinguishable; however, some residential intrusions appearing out of context and out of scale with the historic character of Cor tez express an obvious incompatibility that needs no scholarly explanation Intrusions that are not in keeping with the historic scale and character of working waterfront areas have been added as layers of incompatibility for decades In Cortez, and as the literature included, these layers appearing on the landscape can be broadly explained as a changing shoreline, diminution of the historic building skyline and the buildings and structures that once expressed its dominant form, addition of large scale, modern residential, and the vernacular fisheries contextual buildings that are now extinct. Village layout f orm indicator set Boundary. The 2013 boundary of Cortez represents the historic study area shown in Figure 4 1, and generally represents the origin al western half, and the expanded eastern half. T he evolved study boundary contains approximately 70 acres compared with its original 20 acre size from 1887 illustrated as a comparison between

PAGE 275

275 the two in Figure 4 4 Admittedly, there is confusion when repr esenting these areas as halves, since the gross acreages of 70 acres versus 20 acres do not appear to add up as two distinct halves This is due to the extension of the shorelines, the addition of the irregular school parcel, and the contraction of other areas. The separation of the village into west and east halves is used for convenience. When looking at a present day map of Cortez wi thout considering the historical fluctuations, the visual perception does appear generally as two halves. The 2013 boundary was generally established by 1912 with the addition of the public school and grounds; however, the private land sales were completed during 1909. Therefore, with the exception of tidal lands infi l l and shoreline extensions the present day village boundary has remained reflects a fair similarity to its 1946 counterpart, even though a thicker analysis reveals a much changed waterfront e xtent that establishes a significant alteration affecting highly contextual areas of the village Because of this, and the contextual linkage of the waterfront to the commercial fishing village character, it becomes a significant change For the purposes of my study, the eastern extent is bounded by 119 th Street extending beyond that to the west with the 1912 school and grounds, which are now part of the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez All other lands east of the 1912 school are not included as part of the historic village boundary, since no record could be located suggesting this area as being an integral part of the fishing village, per se most likely due to its fringe wetland characteristics, which are still present today. For clarification, t he ext ent of the 1995 Cortez National Register H istoric D i strict boundary of approximately 25 acres does not represent the entire evolved historic study boundary;

PAGE 276

276 instead, it meander s its way in an east/west manner throughout the breadth of the village, a s shown in Figure 4 5 Ironically, the historic district boundary of 1995 includes only about 11% of the 2013 waterfront when calculating infill areas and approximately 19% of the historic waterfront as it occurred at the time of settlement Regardless, ei ther scenario continues to represent a fiction for high integrity of historic fabric since the modified waterfront represents permanently lost buildings and a later waterfront configuration that conceals the much more historic, earlier shoreline and forme r physical construct I n other words, uninformed visito rs to Cortez may automatically assume the present shoreline and physical configuration of buildings as having always existed. There is no on site interpretation that clarifies this dilemma. Much of the settlement shoreline was altered early on by extending the waterfront and creating new canals and basins, with a system of bulkheads and seawalls having replaced most of the natural beach by the 1940s ( Figure 4 6 ). Additional alterations continued after t he end of the historic study span (1946) resulting in the 2013 shoreline form Parcel configuration. Notwithstanding the original United States government survey delineations t he original western half began in 1887 as a 13 lot subdivision divided into roughly one and two acre parcels ( Figure 4 15 ) surveyed out of the original U.S. Public Land Survey System that took place dur ing the mid nineteenth century for Florida This represents the first original articulated fo rm of the fishing village as defined by its survey ed outer boundary that references the point of beginning of as part of U.S. Government Lot 3 Additional tracts that extended th e 1887 subdivision were parceled out from U.S. Government Lot 3 over

PAGE 277

277 time expa nding the village boundary eastward, basically doubling its size but generally retaining its north boundary trajectory Today, there are more than 25 0 parcels ( Figure 4 7 ) including the 90 or so sites that are part of Cortez Park, the residential cooperative manufactured housing park that was established in the 1930s located a long the north west shore of the village The sites of Cortez Park are situated in typical small trailer pad formation with a maximized density include various outparcels for amenities and the recreational marina area along the waterfront When including this important property as a single parcel which was formed out of the original parcels numbers five and six owned by two of the original settlers the village consists of app roximately 167 parcels including the 1912 school site. There is not a significant change from the 1946 parcel counterpart of approximately 170 parcels. The parcel configuration of the remnant lots referenced above include a variety of square and rectangula r dimensions laid out in non uniform patterns representing a localized, non planned approach of parcel adjustments and land divisions Since 1907, three major subdivisions of land have occurred in the village, accounting for 68 total parcels out of seven original lots. Including Cortez Park, there are approximately 25 lots with direct water frontage. The earliest build out of the historic village resulted in 14 parcels having direct water fro ntage while in 2013 there are 24 with direct frontage, d epending on how the Cortez Park, with its nearly 100 individually planned sites is considered Other than ongoing land splits and dramatic shor eline alterations t he overall basic configuration of the village, including its original 1887 platted area and the eastern expansion ha ve not changed significantly since the end of the historic study span date

PAGE 278

278 of 1946 Of course, there has been a signific ant density increase with the densest area remaining in the western half. Basic waterfront configurations in 2013 reflect a similar historic layout revealed in deep, north/south projected parcels. A modification of use of the eastern waterfront did occur as those parcels were developed after the study peri od with marina and retail uses, as well as, a new fisheries processing facility beginning in the 1960s. However, the property appeared to always reflect a commercialized use geared toward tourism. The off icial post 2000 platting of the Cortez Park subdivision did not significantly alter the parcel configuration since it had been long established by the 1940s. The development of the 1912 school into a museum park d id not necessarily modify the parcel configuration, although its preservation and uses as a purposeful repository site for historic buildings and artifacts does affect the village character. Circulation If there is understood to be two primary types of cir culatory means in Cortez, then waterways and streets form the basis for them. Pedestrian ch a nnels are not analyzed since platted streets were mostly used as both vehicular and pedestrian thoroughfares Watercraft c ontinue to utilize the original, natural c hannel of the western approach that historically led to the mid point of the south shoreline near 123rd Street West The area around this point up until the end of my study period was generally considered t he eastern limit of the dominant fisheries watercr aft traffic, based on the arr ay of net spreads and net camps that created a de facto demarcation of any additional eastern flowing homestead watercraft traffic. Currently, th e watercraft traffic flows further east to the extreme eastern edge of the south s horeline where a fish eries processing facility has been in operation since 1968.

PAGE 279

279 Regarding the upland street circulation system, t he original 1887 subdivision of Cortez was laid out so that each of the four north/south streets and the north boundary east/west street led directly to the water In 2013, this original street layout remains fairly intact with a north/south orientation, although there is no longer any direct vehicular access to the waterfront due to street vacations and lot adjustments Th e 2013 circulation pattern is shown as Figure 4 8 A section of each of these streets at the waterfront has been vacated to the adjoining property owners essentially cutting off public access while allowing their development for commercial fishing or other private purposes, indicating the insufficiency of com mercially oriented lands, as originally drawn. Unlike Cortez, most historic fishing communities include a road system that parallels the shoreline. The later addition central axis road running east/wes t (45 th Avenue) now a ppears as the strongest village road travelling from its eastern boundary west to the Cortez Park development. However, there is no record of it having been treated as such, except near its intersection with 124 th Street, which histori cally entertained the predominant collection of non residential buildings and uses, leading to the waterfront, the primary wharf, and the Albion Inn (now a U.S. Coast Guard Station) Through time, the establishment of purchased lands to the east required t he dedication of right of way portions for road purposes, resulting in the eventual extension of 45 th Avenue as part of continual deed revisions. The east terminus represents the village expansion limit with the 1912 school building and grounds serving as a distinct public landmark historically, and as a museum in 2013.

PAGE 280

280 The historic center of the village appeared to be located at the waterfront near the intersection of 124 th Street and 46 th Avenue, Here, the Albion Inn a now demolished hotel and it now relocated attached store wing, and its associated wharf and retail operation formed a west ancho r; other retail establishments contributed to this early activity center combined with the fish eries processing buildings. The main commercial corridor was loca ted along the southern extent of 124 th Street leading into the working waterfront area In 2013, this area occurring east of where the Albion Inn was located, represents the public activity center mainly because it is easi ly access ed as part of the public road system the development of a restaurant and publicly accessible pier, and the placement of a maritime monument ( Figure 4 9) A large oyster shell parking lot that connects to these areas serves as a gathering amenity where the cultural reflection of Cortez seems most prevalent. Here, the loose ly defined road overlapped with crushed oyster shell is bracketed by what is easily des cribed as the dominant assemblage of commercial fishing oriented artifacts found in the village, including a fisher memorial as its centerpiece, a seafood processing facility/restaurant, fishing equipment storage yards, and a boat museum in a structure dat ing back to 1922. A semi public dock with superstructure is also accessed from this area. In a way, a ll travel in the village t end s to lead to the visitor to this area which is defined more as a retail and tourist attraction, rather than commercial fishin g though commercial fishing equipment is visually present in clumps The extreme north western limit of the village encompasses the Cortez Park development circulatory system, which has been altered from its original north/south orientation. Though the de velopment has been part of Cortez since at least 1935, its

PAGE 281

281 circulation system is self prescribed and represents the intrusion of an enclave that is distinctly separate from the TFV setting. However, it is important to note that the use of this area of the village has historically been one more linked with tourism and recreational fishing rather than commercial fishing based on the pursuits of its second owner/settler. Part of its system of non improved drive paths appears to have evolved through continued use, while other parts have been designed as part of platting lots In addition to the five streets prescribed in the 1887 plat, and not including the Cortez Park drive paths, six other streets are recognized as publicly accessible in 2013, including the eastern boundary 119 th Street. Some streets appear to extend through certain properties based on available mapping; however, this does not reflect how they appear on the ground. T he recent develop ment of the museum at the northeast corner creates a new inf luence on the village wide traffic pattern as some visitors begin their vehicular travel at that point, which is accessed off of the 119 th Street boundary street, just south of the Cortez Road arterial. With the exception of the Cortez Park drive paths, all streets referenced are improved with asphalt surfaces Building m osaic form indicator set Out of over 300 buildings and primary structures existing within the historic village boundary nearly 97 are considered to be contributing according to the approved 1995 Cortez historic district which is approximately one third of the size of the study bo un dary area Most of the contributing buildings are residential; less than 10 are commercial, former com merci al or institutional uses. In addition, some are lesser buildings and structures, such as garages, or other appurtenances to the primary buildings. Perhaps the most surprising caveat about the historic district is that it does not take in the entire village as defined by my study boundary Instead it meanders

PAGE 282

282 through the interior portions of the village, extending briefly to capture only a roughly 500 foot section of the all important south waterfront. From a contextual perspective, the implication suggested by this caveat is the lack of integrity in the village regarding its historic contextual character, which also confirms th at some degree of form change between the end of the study period and 2013 occurred There are several reasons why the building mosai c in present day Cortez seems to lack context specific abundance. First, it was determined early on by the arbiters of the historic district nomination that s everal of the historic buildings and structures in the village have been relocated or moved from t heir original locations making them ineligible for a positive determination as eligible historic resources An argument is possible related to how fishers often moved entire buildings both with their own village settings, and from without. Second, n early a ll building s existing over or at the waterfront up until the 1921 hurricane w ere destroyed eliminating a large stock of vernacular structures that were by that time approaching three decades of weathering The effects of the hurricane prompt ed much recons truction virtually setting a new base date for the waterfront vernacular construct at 1921 versus 1889 Remember, though the village was settled in 1887, the earliest known structure is dated to 1889. This structure is not even considered part of the wate rfront since it is located away from the water, and is residentially used Th e newer waterfront construct is especially true of many pre 1921 waterfront buildings and some net camps that were located over the water Another natural disaster in the form of a tornado also destroyed several buildings along the northern village tier in 1937 eliminating some of those historic vernacular constructs ;

PAGE 283

283 however, the effect on the contextual character of Cortez did not appear to be significant, though some interesting buildings were destroyed as a result Common to many communities using wood as the primary c onstruction material fire served as an additional, ongoing threat causing several buildings and structures to be destroyed over time. Third, purposefu l redevelopment from the historic vernacular either replaced historic vernacular stock, or altered them to an irreversible non historic condition. The most significant impacts to this issue are found in near the south western shoreline area with the demolit ion of the early twentieth century Albion Inn in 1992 the constru ction of the out of scale residence at the western shore in 1998, and the insensitive commercial development of the marina s south of the bridge and along the south shoreline The Cortez Par k development appears to be an intrusion ; however, it does have historical precedence and will be analyzed later as part of the contextual recovery form period In addition, the marina and retail site developed at the eastern waterfront serves as a private non residential enclave that now creates a separation between historic cultural context and modern commercial interests. Residential buildings and appurtenances The extant historic residential architecture in Cortez consists mostly of dwellings constructed of the vernacular frame style representing a variety of shapes defined by rooflines and massing predominantly consisting of gable oriented roof lines with the most presented as front gable design (main entry point) followed by side g able dwellings. Garages are constructed using mostly a front gable design, while some have incorporated the shed roof systems. The historic set also includes examples of p yramidal rooflines, while only one or two

PAGE 284

284 buildings, all historic structures, can be considered as distinctly maritime in their adaptation to the historic vernacular landscape. While nearly the entire historic construct is wood based, t here are also several masonry dwellings including the 1912 Cortez School which was at one time used as a residence Residential b uildings constructed after the last hist oric study period ending in 1946 are represented by a mix ture of wood frames and concrete block walls w ith false stucco or painted over exteriors. This modernized presentation creates an enh anced texture less collection of faade areas in the vernacular landscape n ot distinctly present up to 1946 High e levated buildings are new fixtures on the historic vernacular lan dscape occurring well after 1946 due to recent floodplain management contro ls. These elevations are much different than the predominance of two story dwellings built by the early settlers, most of which were elevated on pier groups either of wood pilings or brick. Newer elevations are a mixture of high concrete block stem walls, enclosed or partially enclosed concrete block first floors that are supposed to be uninhabitable spaces, and wood column systems. Co nstructions occurring after 1946 to 2013 are more indicative of the postmodern Key West styling, or simple ranch design. While there are some early professionally designed structures in Cortez, most of the historic properties were built by their original owners and local carpenters who lived in the area. The designs were within the means of each fisherman and constructed thr ough time spread out over man hours of kinfolk and friends. The frame vernacular one and two story buildings and structures in Cortez still reflect the original modest way of life as functional, self produced, rarely adorned in a purposeful manner. The old est existing house in Cortez was built in 1889, which is nearly as old as the village itself.

PAGE 285

285 One of the few extant historic two story houses in Cortez, it was a contemporary of the net camps, piers, and docks that dotted the bay creating a wooden and clot h shantytown over the water. The reference to shanty is precarious, and though I consider a shanty to be vernacular, some authors such as J. B. Jackson suggested they were too crude to be considered as such ( 1997). As stated earlier, many buildings in Cort ez are not on their original sites, and have been moved between parcels over time After 1930, many building were purchased in nearby towns and hauled to the village, typically in pieces ( Fulford Green & Molto, 1997). The Taylor Boatworks Museum occurring on the south waterfront as part of the water front conglomeration is a ctually a residence and is one of the most contextual buildings in Cortez. A two story vernacular building constructed as a watercraft carpentry shop below ( now a museum ) with a front gab led roof, it was pieced together from salvaged materials after the 1921 hurricane and continues to retain this character, even with its partially changed use and adorned attraction flair. It was the site for a popular motion picture during the 199 0s. Whi le most of the extant historic buildings in the village are of a vernacular construction, there does not seem to be any real commonality within the existing building mosaic that speaks to a shared localized knowledge. However, i t appears from the available architecture that each structure was developed according to individual choice and decision making based on personal circumstances. In addition to the compatibility problems rendered by the elevated structures, there are several intrusions that do not fit the scale of the contextual vernacular construct. These include several newer residences that appear to dominate the street frontage due t o their scale, or that

PAGE 286

286 reflect extremely large footprints such as occurs at the extreme we st shoreline (originally, Parcel 6). These newer constructions are created in response to localized building codes without regard to contextual character and occurred prior to the adoption of historic design guidelines. In an effort to preserve the vernac ular character of the village, several regulatory provisions have been adopted since the 1980s that include historic district overlays, design guidelines, and coastal development standards. These have all been guided through preservation activities occurri ng over time that began as responses to encroachments of and proposals for insensitive development s affecting the village since the 1970s. These activities resulted in a steady stream of community awareness initiatives that first recognized the unique fish ing character of the village, followed by a National Register approval, and the subsequent community visioning exercises that unfold. All new development in the village outside of the last historic study period ending in 1946 and beginning in the 1990s, should reflect these new standards as they became legalized; however, the obvious problems of scale and compatibility continued to plague the village eve n with their impl ementation ( Frey, 2009). Non residential /n on fisheries buildings and appurtenances The occurrence of n on residential/contextual buildings within the v illage ha s changed since the end of the historic study span Much of this historic commercial fabric in Cortez has been demolished or is now used for residential purposes; these include the buildings that once housed the village bowling alley, sundries shop, and pool hall to name a few. There are two places of worship in Cortez with one being a historic, wood frame

PAGE 287

28 7 vernacular structure constructed in 1922. The second was constructed in 1950 and is of masonry construction with a cross gabled roof system appearing more modern when compared to the surrounding historic vernacular constructs. T wo marinas occur along the waterfront nearly serving as bookends to the village. The eastern marina complex is a group of one and two story buildings revealing hipped roof forms on top of concrete block and wood frame structures. A private gate encloses this property Th e marina facility was developed in its current configuration during the 1980s The gating of such a large parcel of land at the waterfront creates notions of exclusion from the larger community. The debate of exclusion and reducing public access is only re levant herein as it affect s the form in Cortez Since all of the lessened since there were no known public access requirements formulated as part of n during the historic study span. H owever, the physical and psychological separation created through gating tends to flow against the community interconnectedness and egalitarianism that were evident historically in Cortez. Such applications of protected p roperty can also begin to change the character of typ ically open communities; however, since this type of system occurred well after the last historic study period, significant research is outside of the scope of my study. The western mar ina is a small co mplex of uses and is part of the Cortez Park land plot consist ing of a water sports operation and a restaurant. It comprises a marina with two 1 story buildings that serve as a restaurant and watersports recreational station. The larger building has a hab itable square foot area of 960 square feet while the

PAGE 288

288 second is a basic wood frame of 400 square feet. It is likely that these buildings were constructed during the late 1950s. While marinas are water dependent uses, they are often in opposition to commerci al fishing concerns and interrupt the traditional fishing character. In many cases, they are often found to be at political odds with each other. However, due to property rights and the evolving development of the waterfront, t he Cortez Design G uidelines continue to allow new marinas up to 25 slips anywhere along the village waterfront This is not an uncommon occurrence for many similar historic waterfronts where a balance between outright preservation and protection of a historic use must be balanced wit h the realities of the changed tradition, regulations, economics, and the political structure that responds to these influences. As of 2013, three additional restaurants are located along the southern waterfront. Two a re directly part of fish eries process ing facilities, while one is a stand alone unit. These buildings and their uses tend to co dominate the active scene in the amount of pedestrian activity and traffic they generate. The restaurants that are attached to the fish eries processing facilities en dure an even more active scene due to the daily work processes taking place. I n a way, the modern activity may actually resemble the now missing or reduced historic activity thereby sustaining the feeling and association with historic commercial fishing a ctivity The 1912 Cortez Rural Graded School, which now serves as the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez, is a higher styled masonry building, and is part of a group of similarly styled schools constructed by the Manatee County Board of Public Instruction during the first decades of the twentieth century (Green, n.d. ). Its red brick exterior,

PAGE 289

289 prominent Greek style portico and isolated location combine to set it apart from the common buildings in Cortez. While it is a common building, it should not be descri bed as vernacular due to its classical styling. While it appears to be elevated higher than the other historic buildings, its finished floor is far from the required present day flood protection level of nearly eleven feet above mean sea level. A second p rominent historic building now located on the campus is the recently relocated and restored store building widely accepted as having an original construction date of 1890. The 1890 building used to be attached to the Albion Inn along the south shore, and was recently re located and then restored in an area away from the water behind the 1912 Cortez Rural Graded School The intended use is for part of the interpretive program of the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez. I t has also been elevated, and ith Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, but the elevation height also does not appear to meet the required minimum flood protection level required by local ordinance, reflecting the exemptions that historic buildings are allowed regarding flood plain programming. When improving historic structures, elevation to minimum flood protection levels is not mandatory as derived from the Code of Federal Regulations [44.CFR 59.1 and 44.CFR 60.6(a)] for historic structure relief. Other build ings in Cortez have been historically elevated, but such elevations were done in a manner consistent with historic construction methods, usually between one and three feet above grade on brick or concrete piers, or wood pilings The U.S. Coast Guard Statio n, constructed in 1992 now takes up this former Albion Inn site as an important, highly visible location on the southern waterfront. Its replacement of the historic Albion Inn represented a distinct change of form for that

PAGE 290

290 parcel of land. Because it is a f ederal facility, it is gated, adding to the total closed off area of waterfront. Finally, worth mentioning is one of t he former village grocery venues built in 1935, and constructed of a wood frame with front parapet above an elevated concrete block found ation. Its form is defined by a shed roof clad in metal panels partially hidden by a parapet run It is in a deteriorated condition and is now used for storage purposes Other non residential buildings have been converted to residential uses. Fisheries co ntextual b uildings and appurtenances There is even less evidence of the historic vernacular fisheries contextual construct remaining in the village boundary than that of the non residential/non fisheries construct discussed in the previous subsection. This is especially noticeable along the waterfront more modern ized fishing waterfront is anchored by two fish eries processing facilities anchored at the waterfront ends of the south shoreline The east fish eries processing facility was construct ed in 1964 and comprises approximately 7,800 square feet within 20 foot high concrete block building revealing a fl at roof form Its east elevation has a roof extension that covers an exterior processing area. The west ern fish processing facility is actually two separate facilities under a single ownership. The largest is a 25 foot tall building with a flat roof form above an enclosed area of approximately 35,000 square feet. This structure was constructed periodically between 1966 and 1986 and represent s the most dominant form on the waterfront in scale and activity It stands in contrast to the historic vernacular of wood framed buildings with gable roofs accessed by extended dock systems once present as

PAGE 291

291 the dominant form How ever, it is also part of an adjacent facility, part of which was constructed in 1941 that does retain some semblance of the gabled form Anecdotal ev idence suggests that part of this facility may be preserved from the early 1920s. It is the s maller of the two facilities at approximately 8,600 square feet and is constructed of concrete block with a second story wood frame. This building, representing a partial construction from this historic study per iod is more relevant with its front gable roof form oriented toward the waterfront. It must be noted that this building more purposely serves as a market, restaurant, and office for the overall fish processing facility and was referenced above. The larger concrete block masonry buildings above, with flat roof lines are defined by the Design Guidelines as a type of industrial masonry vernacular typ ical of post World War II era maritime buildings and differ dramatically from their wooden vernacular predec essors. The re is a rem nant of a third fish processing facility located to the east of the largest facility described above, and is also associated with it. It was constructed as a separate fish processing facility as a group of buildings and work areas bet ween the early 1940s and early 1960s, as a wood frame vernacular building with a side gable roof form. It is currently used for storage purposes in association with the fish processing facility to its west. This particular building, with its central breeze way, full length covered porch, and side gable orientation provides a fairly clear articulation of the types of buildings that occurred along the waterfront during the latter part of the study period. It also suggests building methods and traditions that w ere part of the earliest buildings, as well.

PAGE 292

292 While it is easy to describe the loss of a more spectacularly extant commercial fishing construct as detrimental to the historic integrity of the 2013 vernacular landscape, there is still a semblance of historic character in how the historic remnant forms rest between the starkness of the newer forms, which are blatantly different from each other. It is common for older buildings to be adapted to lesser use intensities as they incur states of obsolescence due to the const ruction of new facilities. Whil e not uncommon under many industries and cultures, this reuse standard speaks to the recycling nature inherent in the TFV. E xtended vernacular form indicator set Physical manifestations There is a limited array of docks wharfs and shelter constructs built mo stly over the open water or tidal areas that now serve the commercial fishing industry along the Cortez waterfront, occurring at the historically centered water front conglomeration of the mid southern shoreline, and at the extreme eastern edge of the south ern shoreline. Fl oat barges occur within the mid south shoreline waterfront conglomeration area, along with some wreckage There are also several private docks and above water deck areas extending into the bay, though the limited number of residential prop erties along the waterfront also limits overdevelopment of these structures. Some of these structures are extensive in that they extend horizontally for hundreds of feet in various directions usually forming perpendicular intersections at various points. S ome of the larger deck areas were also built over the water as a shared interface with the land to which they are connected can take up over 5,000 square feet of area. However, the once dominant vernacular construct that consisted of not only docks and wal kways, bu t also of associated camps, net works, and watercraft are virtually non existent in the 2013 vernacular landscape of Cortez.

PAGE 293

293 From a historical perspective, t oday assortment of cloth nets and barrels of life extending lime to rub on them. Nylon netting has replaced cloth and has usurped the net camps and net spreaders so typical during earlier years. T he 1921 hurricane destroyed the entire network of docks that exte nded into Sarasota Bay at that time, leaving behind only the vertical pilings that the extensive system was constructed on Many of these pilings were also damaged due to scouring and the force s of weight being pushed on the superstr uctures built on top of them a s manipulated by the incoming storm surge as well as, the water borne debris carried by the tidal movement and wave action from the storm Based on historic pictures, the Cortez waterfront looked like a lumberyard stacked high with strewn building materials. Fortunately, t hese materials were recycled into new and repaired structures, buildings, docks and net camps, and watercraft Physical manifestations f ish eries camps. There is one single fish camp still active in the 2013 vernacular landscape. I t is one of only two camps st ill extant though it is more of an aesthetic fixture than one that contributes much to the commercial fishing enterprise These small buildings represent ed some of t he most conte xtual constructs in Cortez. The only camp located directly in t he bay and accessible only by watercraft r eveals the distinct characteristic form of a popular type of camp built at least up until the end of the study period, with s lightly rectangular dimension, front gable roof with meta l cladding and vertical exterior siding of wide boards. Historic photographs reveal an expansive net spread system abutting it s north entry and east sides. This is evidenced by the remnant pilings still visible. The construction method for such camps was not unique to Cortez, however.

PAGE 294

294 A nearly identical construct was documented near Charlotte Harbor from the same time period revealing another common building practice and tradition occurring throughout the region. However, the Cortez fisheries camp, origin ally constructed in 1935 or so, is actually a reconstruction, using only some of the historic fabric from the original structure. It was not included in the 1995 Cortez National Register nomination boundary in the early 1990s because of its deteriorated co ndition at the time. Regardless, it is highly indicative of a nearly lost form, and one that dominated the extended vernacular landscape. A nother camp exist s, and was also constructed during the 1930s. It is no longer set over water and occur s at the sout hwestern shoreline serving as a storage facility for a group of small cottages. It is constructed of a rectangular wood frame but is now clad in metal panels beneath a front gable roof and again with metal cladding for r oof material Historically, these types of camps sometimes became upland residences, moved by the fishers from the water to their landside tracts of land. In reiterating the reuse of structures and materials, a few of these have been incorporated into the Cortez archite ctural construct, but have been over designed to such a degree that their original forms are difficult to discern in the vernacular landscape. Physical manifestations n et works Net equipment in Cortez has basically been eliminated. Whereas, at the end of the study period, net systems and the nets that were laid out upon them were the most common vernacular objects found since the first settlement in Cortez, only slight indications of networks are evident now. It is interesting to note that at one point in historic Cortez, the net systems took up many acres of space that was purposely dedicated to their storage and maintenance. Nets also were a

PAGE 295

295 mainstay of the intangible manifestation act of fishing, thereby having at least two aspects to their import on the vernacular landscape In a way, the vernacular lifeworld (to copy a concept from Seamon, 1986) was historically centered around the fishing net. Physical manifestations d ock system In 2013, the extended vernacular construct is present in a much different character than its historic counterparts. As of this writing, the commercial fishing dock systems consist of single wharfs built out over the water paralleling the bulkhead ed shoreline and also extending as large platforms from the fish processing facilities Wood constructed docks extend perpendicularly from the wh arfs to accommodate modern deep sea commercial fishing fleets, as well as, smaller watercraft that harvest bait products and inspect traps. The wharfs are usually covered with front gable roof systems above open sides while the docks and the extensions are completely open some with crude railing systems and others planked extensions over the water and open to each side. The Cortez waterfront now has at least 10 private, residentially us ed dock systems, which typically extend perpendicular from the riparia n boundary from which they are constructed. During the historic study span dock construction was not a highly regulated activity, although fishing was regulated Dock construction today is quite different than at the end of the historic study span due to a much stronger regulatory environment and the types of materials being used. In some cases, the lands beneath the water are considered to be state owned, which has caused at least one m ajor historic dock system in Cortez to be removed recently, after decades of use In addition, there is evidence of a number of legal actions claiming ownership of dock space along the waterfront in Cortez Permitting for new docks is hardly an easy task, requiring

PAGE 296

296 compliance with local zoning and building codes, as well as, concurrence from the Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection. In some cases, the size a nd location of a proposed dock are prescribed by the local governing body Physical manife stations n ets Nets are not nearly as ubiquitous as they were in Cortez. At one point historically, nets seemed to dominate the vernacular landscape along with the physical constructs that supported them. They were found not only along the waterfront and within the shoreline fringe, but also in the rear and side yards of watercraft Nets seemed to dominate the fishers lives throu gh the dedication to maintenance, application, expense, and storage they required. Historically, gill nets were the most commonly used netting, followed by large seine nets, and beg inning in the 1920s or so, stop nets. The type of net, i.e., its construct, me sh size, length, depended on a variety of factors including the type of fish soug ht, the season, the weather, the size of the crew and the ethics of the fisher who preferred on type over another While the synthetic materials they are now made of were just emerging around the end of the study period, the type of nets being used in 2013 are quite different due to yet an additional set of environmental regulations applied in 1995 that prohibits entangling nets from being used in Florida waters Perhaps t he most dramatic of all regulatory applications, this restriction had the effect of neutering many individualized fishing operations in Cortez, as well as, around the state. In 2013, nets are within what the state legislature defines as Florida waters are basically limited to cast nets up to 500 square feet, trap systems and hook and line methods practiced by smaller fishers,

PAGE 297

297 while other are required to travel further out to sea for their harvests. The usual formation of nets in 2013 can most often be seen as a less visible pile in an individual watercraft or dangling from metal booms as a part of the larger corporate fishing boat In Florida, and in Cortez, this legislation represented a dramatic change in the modern vernacu lar form similar to the transition from natural materials nets t o synthetics during the 194 0s and 1950s According to Green (1985), the change from traditional era to modern era in Cortez became etched onto the palimpsest stone when proposals for banning f ishing nets became a heated topic of discussion in 1967. Physical manifestations w atercraft The watercraft of 2013 have certainly evolved from the shapes and operations as sail powered vessels fou nd during the settlement period i n Cortez, to the widespread use of motorized vessels by 1946 However, it would be gratuitous to suggest that the b asic shape of watercraft is still basically the same, in spite of the localized adaptations, technologies, and the economics of the fishing industry. Also, th e acts involved in operating and maneuvering watercr aft, and the skills required, are a much changed form. In present day Cortez, the history of watercraft evolves according to how they were used. For traditional fishing, it started with sail and manual po wer. The use of motorized watercraft began to emerge with sail hanging on as part of a slow transition mainly due to personal economic circumstances. By the 1940s, sail eventually diminished from the traditional fishing scene, being completely replaced wi th motor powered wat ercraft due to a forced competition between fishers that required those still using what had become obsolete watercraft (and gear),

PAGE 298

298 to adapt to the ever changing forms in order to continue fishing ( Chacko, 1998). Some of t hose that coul d not adapt faded from the scene, or reduced their viability as part of the localized commercial fishing market structure. However, others adapted their fishing know how and watercraft, or as Smith Jacob, orientati related enterprises such as recreational boating, fishing guides, and other tourist related markets (p. 57). Present day Cortez is characterized as a power driven fishing enterprise, completely different than when it began. While the us e of sail never disappeared completely, it did not adapt to later fishing methods, and instead is now used only for recreational purposes. Other forms were historically available in Cortez I reference to the larger commerce and transporting of goods. The sail powered schooner was the first watercraft form to accommodate Cortez by 1889, with the larger versions no longer being built after 1910, and eventually disappearing by the end of the 1920s (Souza, 1998) Many of the original schooner hulls were adapted to motor power mechanisms (Smith, 1930 ) By 1895, steam power became available in Cortez, eventually disappearing by 1921. In fact, water commerce and transport faded completely from the Cortez scene by 1940, being replaced by motorized watercraft, especially the diesel engine The small kicker boats with front steering, middle engine compartment, and rear equipment area are now a common watercraft form in Cortez and started to appear in adapted forms by the 1920s as fishers acquired small motors and incorporated them into their vessels The large clump of netting that was a common component of the mullet skiff is no longer an integral part of the landscape form. Their individualized

PAGE 299

299 d esigns and reuses create a less homogenized extended vernacular landscape than the earlier periods revealed with regard to watercraft. This type of watercraft is used mostly for laying and checking traps rather than direct fishing using nets, though some fishers continue to throw cast nets from their vessels for mulle t and shrimp. Those who continue to fish for mullet in this manner would likely refer to their watercraft as mullet skiffs, or launches, though this type of watercraft is fast becoming extinct due mainly to the 1995 Florida net ban which, in prohibiting the use of entangling nets larger than 500 square feet in Florida waters, had a devastating effect on many of the last remnants of vernacular fishing forms in Cortez During the historic study span, the strong presence of mullet skiffs represented a merged activity whereby they were used for a variety of tasks that extended to daily family life, similar to how the family automobile is used. In relating the 2013 watercraft usage as a parallel to the early poling skiffs this vessel type appears as a descenda nt from that form The modern deep sea trawler is the more dominant sight along the 2013 Cortez waterfront however. As early as the first decade of the twentieth century, these types of t rawlers began to change the form of the watercraft and the acts of fishing in TFVs e.g., by replacing beach seining ( Cato & McCullough, 1976). Their impact on Cortez was not significant since the reach of the watercraft form was a slow transition from the Northern Gulf coast. Since the 1950s, changing markets would begin capability for extended fishing expeditions further into the Gulf of Mexico. This represented an extreme change of form, not o nly in the watercraft form, but to all of the other extended vernacular forms, such as fishing grounds and the act of fishing, as well. Today, trawler fishers are out to sea for weeks, sometimes months at a time. It is not

PAGE 300

300 uncommon for trawlers to extend their fishing grounds to include the entire Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Caribbean. The presence of supp ly and run boats i.e., the original schooners and steamers diminished in Cortez as soon as automobiles began to haul fish harvests and other supplies over land beginning in the second decade of the twentieth century. While this inevitable disappeara nce signified a completed of a common form in Cortez by the end of the first decade of the contextu a l recovery form period ( i.e., by 1930 ) the effect on form from this change to 2013 does not warrant an extended discussion here. However, the stability of sail powered vessel is still reflec ted in the recreational watercra ft that still use sailing rigs. The Cortez marinas serve as repositories for the m The staying power of sail suggests a resiliency of it as a form that is vernacular by its very nature. It also reveals the relevancy of the basic sail construct to modern needs and problems, such as fuel costs, auxiliary power, and the popular romantic notions that evolve its form on the open water. In 2013, even the larger fisheries operators are contemplatin g the integration of sail power into their harvesting sy stems in order to reduce costs. Intangible manifestations The quiet forms discussed earlier are evident in the 2013 vernacular landscape of Cortez. Intangible forms are an inherent part of the cultural construct. In fact, the intangible form may become increasingly pronounced as part of a cultural setting as it moves from generation to generation. In being intangible form has vestiges that ramble through the mind with scarcity of real time and placement. T he three primary intangible indicator sets of fishing grounds, the act of fishing, and the elapsed experiential are forms that take on special, contextual sensitive characteristics in the TFV These intangible forms benefit descriptions of the landscape

PAGE 301

301 wide historic physical form in that they blend the forms typically studied as separate units of analysis Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds. With regard to Cortez fishers t he fishing grounds of 2013 overlap th ose from the h istoric period, but are also mu ch more extended with the search for the larger type s of fish such as the grouper and snapper In fact, the variety of fish now being harvested by Cortez fishers includes most of the available species found in the Gulf of Mexi co including shellfish and bait fish. However, the fishing grounds have also contracted in a sense due to a regulatory structure driven by various scientific, recreational, and political communities. This distinct change in the extended vern acular landscape form in 2013 is represented in large part due to the prohibition of commercial fishers to use nets larger than the typical cast net within what were the primary historic fishing grounds that delineated the inshore commercial fisher enterpr ise This basically eliminated the small scale fisher from the landscape. While the overall fishing grounds of 2013 may have expanded due to advancing technology and changing markets, the small scale mullet fishery grounds reveal a noticeable shrinkage si nce 1946 (Frederiksen, 1995). In looking at a more factual representation, Frederiksen equates this dilemma to several factual occurrences including a shrinking water column available to fishers. The water column is a vast web of open water, estuaries, tid al flats, wetlands, and water fringe areas that are diminished through anything that decreases them, whether it is displacement through structures inserted into it such as dock pilings, destruction of the tidal systems mitigated by internal, isolated repla cements, or locational prohibitions. All represent reductions of the water column and of course the historic fishing grounds available to commercial fishers.

PAGE 302

302 Effects upon the physical aspects of the fishing grounds hav e certainly influenced certain intan gible manifestations in the historic vernacular landscape since the end of the historic study span, resulting in a comparative effect on the intangible indicator sets. This includes limitations on where and how fishers can fish, propeller scarring of sea g rass beds, waterfront development and, according to Antonini et al., (2002), the dredging of hundreds of miles of canals, the filling in of fringe tidal areas, and the loss of coastal vegetation such as mangroves (39% by 1990) and sea grass (22% by 1990). Though many of these effects have physical results, their intangible implications are manifested in how and where the fisher employs his trade. Though the basic learned tradition of fishing for mullet began to lose its defining character by the 1920s, its ability to be recognized as a vernacular process had at least a semblance of resiliency in spite of the decadal advances, but seemed to be totally lost as part of the fait accompli of the political process, which had nearly always been active and somewhat influential during the evolution of Cort ez, albeit to much lesser degrees. The close in and shore oriented commercial fishing activities that once highlighted most of the historic study span are now modified by the latent net prohibition withi n Florida waters, the expansion of the bait and shrimp industries, and the increased depths required for harvesting the larger prey fish. After 100 plus years of mullet fishing Cortez is no longer considered a mullet fishery per se though mullet is stil l harvested The requirement to extend the fishing grounds due to net prohibition fractured the traditional commercial fishing form into two distinct forms with one focused on investing in new equipment and watercraft in order to harvest different fish spe cies, and the other to give up commercial fishing and transition

PAGE 303

303 into a recreational enterprise or non water dependent activity (Smith Jacob, & Jepson, 2003). Many fishers were forced to do the latter. Ironically, this force maj e ure of sorts actually has precedent in Cortez since its earliest historic study period. The difference between fishing grounds reflects a different type of fisher; one that is oriented toward the bays and shallow waters of the local ecosystem, and therefore, more connected to the local area, and the off shore fisher, who may have only limited knowledge of the local environment albeit more knowledge of the present commercial fishing enterprise as a non vernacular tradition I nformation exists that discusses these differences, with some of it appearing in the form of the elapsed experiential. T his differentiation is somewhat captured by Mullen ( 1978 ) in how bay and open water fishers of the Texas coast reflect difference in perceptions about themselves, between each other, and their environments Historically, the fishing grounds overlapped wi th other areas as fishers, dealers, and businessmen based out of places such as Punta G orda, Tampa, and St. Petersburg came to Cortez to set up fishing stations as part of larger networks of the trade However, it must be noted that environmental effects u pon the historic Cortez fishing grounds have also been evident since the beginning of the settlement period D redging as part of the Intracoastal Waterway program was approved by a Congressional Act in 1890 with the first swaths of activity occurring just north of Cortez This early dredging activity was referred to as the Bulkhead C ut and took place from 1891 to 1892, and another cut south of Cortez, named the Longbar C ut, took place between 1892 and 1895. Both operations resulted in over 20,000 cubic yar ds of sea floor material being removed and side deposited along nearby waterfronts ( Antonini et

PAGE 304

304 al., 2002). In fact, work on the intracoastal project would wax and wane over the following decades eventually being completed by 1967. While it is highly probable that each of these human made impacts affected the viability of the fishing grounds by increasing watercraft access the e ffects on fishing grounds from erosive or ecosystem degradation has proven much more d ebatable. Certainly the effects from st orm events after 1946 caused much damage to fishing grounds that were changed through alterations of the barrier island system, opening new inlets, and closing others. The first red tide outbreak noticed by the Cortez fishers occurred in 1947, one year aft er the end of the historic study span. However, red tide along the Florida Gulf Coast has been recorded since the 1840s, and even longer than that elsewhere. Fishers often blame the appearance of red tide to overdevelopment and pollution; however, as of 20 13, no scientific evidence can absolutely conclude direct c auses for past outbreaks, or accurately predict new ones However, Jepson (2006) suggested that the red tide outbreaks affected the available grounds so dramatically in recent years that its side e ffect was to cause significant reductions in the number of commercial fishers plying the fishing grounds, who were already walking fine lines from gear restrictions and the effects on the act of fishing. Th e impacts from red tide and other natural and hum an caused conditions can be linked with noticeable reductions of commercial fishing infrastructure across the United States which, when considered to be part of the overall fishing grounds construct, declined steadily after 1946 as ge ntrification of the w aterfront resulted in rampant conversions to residential and non fishing uses ( Beatley, 2011). Finally, the diminution of available fishing gr ounds can also be attributed to land owner complaints,

PAGE 305

305 increased law enforcement, and strong anti fishing lobby gro ups. In some cases, lands adjacent to fishing grounds were developed for dense residential purposes, fostering a importance over the historically established commercial fi The schism that developed between the activities caused direct consequences for the fishing grounds. While it is presented only with a broad brush here in order to provide more of a lead in to where the historic study perio ds would lead the reduction of this intangible manifestations of form. Intangible manifestations a ct of fishing Perhaps the biggest change to Cortez has been the methods for harvesting fish that began to change from individual and small crew fisher operations using traditional netting after 1946 to larger, manual labor types of crews using high technology (Purdy, 1980) After this time, the nearly complete transition to motori zed watercraft from sail did not necessarily change the immediate physical form that made up the act of fishing, but cer tainly would change its scope. Commercial f ishers would continue to fish using much of the traditional methods and the resultant forms t hrough the 1980s, but the competition from the larger scale commercial operations created a major shift in the hierarchical structure from the individual, long time captain, to the power brokers. In 2013, the once traditional, more agricultural and avocat ional form of living and working in the TFV only now just slightly present, evolved into one replaced by a pragmatism more focus ed on brin ging home a paycheck ( U.S. D epartment of Interior, et al ., 1990 ). Frederiksen (1995) suggested that after the 1950s,

PAGE 306

306 Money became the primary goal; novice fishers were now invading the mullet fishery landscape, prompting a change in the traditional fishing ethic where carelessness and greed trumped good stewardship of both fishing method and fisher relations. The small crew and individual operations for catching fish that still was a dominant character of the act of fishing by the end of the study period has also been modernized, reflecting a less vocational, aloof process and personal investment In how, resulting in a productive, self gratifying harvest has become one of corporate needs and requirements based mainly on production. Whereas, even up to the 1995 net ban, individual fishers continued to use and handle nets for harvesting mullet, representing a continuance of the historic and generational har vest ing method s s present day act of fishing is mostly represented through the mode of being part of a crew attached to the economic engine of the watercraft and its captain. The advance of mechanically drawn netting increased catches while also reducing the manpower needed (Shortall III & Lowry, 1983) In a way, rapid advances of technol ogy after World War II both helped and hurt local Cortez fishers. On one hand, certain fishers could better compete with external markets and expand their fishing grounds to accommodate steady or increased harvests. In contrast, it created noticeable econo mic differences between the small scale fisher and thos e who could afford to adapt basically amounting to a stratification of f ishery networks ( National Research Council, 1988). Additional issues of a slowly degrading ecosy s tem depletion of marine resou rces, and a growing generation of fishers who knew little about tradition al methods

PAGE 307

307 widened the historic to modern gap even further, resulting in a more rapid change from established vernacular forms to non vernacular forms that were now seemingly permanen tly set in motion. The concept of traditional ecological knowledge was a the human oriented and vernacular indulgent components of fishing. In 2013, the captain of the small scale mullet fishery appears as a completely separate logistical entity versus the visceral embodiment characterized by the historic crews W hile still respecting the distinction between the hierarchical structure of commercial fishing the t raditional historic crews were more akin to presenting a seamless on and off board working structure, who served as extensions of the Now, they seem to serve as hired hands used for various divisions of labor. The former seamless stru cture was less compartmentalized, more socially intrinsic, often being inclusive of fishers who had as much knowledge and skill as the captain, but who could manage the small enterprise when needed. The transition of fish hauls went from what was common fo r only a few fishers bringing in most of the catch in the historic village setting, to the faceless corporate harvest whose hauls are i ll defined, nebulous, as part of trade secrecy ( Varney, 1963). This created a distance not dissimilar to what Henry Glass ie was getting at in creating a distinction between vernacular and technology. A form of covert behavior had always been present in commercial fishing; however, the differences just mentioned reflect a different trade form that equates to a separation betw een a vernacular know how and an internalized, more personalized secrecy, and one that increased in scale to a purposeful, competitive scheme.

PAGE 308

308 The harvesting of mullet, as part of the strongest identity characterized for the historic period fishers, is no longer the most relevant form of fishing in 2013 Cortez. Because of the more capitalistic orientation commercial fishing enterprise, the restricted environment in which fishing now takes place, and the insertion of a laborer corporate structure and external influences that have steadily broken away from the kinship and egalitarian oriented fishery community, t he fishing act itself holds much less meaning for Cortez. This latent decline is similar to what happened in the gradual decline of the Nor th Carolina Menhaden industry, as described by Garrity Blake ( 1994). The fishing methods and associated vernac ular construct s associated with the as identifiable local cultural symbols, faded with each passing d ecade after 1946 beginning with the seasonal mullet closures of the 1950s, size, gear, and time restrictions from 1989 through the early 1 990s, and the 1995 net ban ( Mahmoudi, 2005) The marketing of mullet, once primarily confined to Southern markets afte r the decline of the Havana markets switched to Asian markets that prized its fish roe as a delicacy. This rather large market widened the already entrenched cultural distance between the mullet fishers and the non fishing societies that were surrounding them The localized and culturally define d act of fishing became increasingly less apparent as individual fishers could no longer depend on their fishing harvests to ma ke a complete living as commercial fishers Instead, to the less keen observer the over all act of fishing transformed from a sort of handcraft with all of its traditional knowledge, to one that now resembles a factory setting described by Garrity Blake (1994).

PAGE 309

309 Now, my study is not so nave to suggest that fishing in Cortez simply moved alon g through time as an isolated endeavor that lacked any semblance of desire for high production. In fact, the tradition of commercial fishing in Cortez has historically been punctuated by maximizing fisheries production, even prior to the historic study spa n. While historically noticeable from time to time, the strong est schism s associated with the commercial fishers actually seemed to develop between commercial and recreational fishers after 1946 though sport fishing was popular in Florida even before the Civil War. Whereas commercial fishers related their role in fishing as farmers who would tend their fields with care suggesting a localized commitment based on long standing stewardship, recreational fishers saw them as over exploiting the resource (Jepson & Florida Humanities Council 2006). As early as the late nineteenth century, recreational fishers were complaining about prize fish declines from increased water traffic due to commercial fishing boons that enabled expanded markets allowed by rail road expansion, ice factories, and an increase of fishers themselves (Purdy, 1980). This particular schism slowly built up to beco me a highly influential factor as part of recreational fishing lobbying efforts that ultimately aligned with proponents of th e 1995 net ban and favored other restrictive applications up to that time. Therefore, the act of fishing in Cortez, as one that has historically merged the traditional commercial fisher, recreational fisher, and the corporate fisher has not really changed in and of itself more than the technologies and legislative influences have caused such changes to be more apparent in how each is distributed The latent allowa ble forms represented by the in shore cast net technique, and the allowance of seine nets less than 500 square feet,

PAGE 310

310 offer a glimpse of the historic and tradition al act of fishing to be sure, which suggests a diminished landscape oriented toward a particularly defined form that at one time had more of a presence on it Here, the evolution of the ver nacular form results in changes of degree and in the act itself where the evidence of change across the wider landscape is considered a tenable determination. The traditional act of fishing as a dominant form on the three form indicator se ts has been a ffec ted as a peripheral form, now nearly replaced with a much larger scale commercial fishing built construct, the nearly complete disappearance of the historic contextual fabric (i.e., waterfront constructs) and a reduced extended vernacular from both physic al and intangible perspectives. The latter includes the disappearance of the historic erected and artifactual constructs, a severely neutered dependence on learned, traditional knowledge, a changed captain/crew relationship structure, and a strong sense of cultural loss. Intangible manifestations e lapsed experiential It is interesting to see how the response to outside influences. While new interviews of the present day fishers in Cortez are not part of my study methodology research that us es interviews has already been done by others and can be used here. The cultural flux has certainly changed in Cortez. Most fishers in Cortez up to 2013 continue to lament the destruct ion of the small fisher enterprise due to the 1995 net ban as part of the environmental awareness era that began in the 1960s As new science develops, there continues to be a call for overturning the legislation in order to go back to the way it was. The changed economy

PAGE 311

311 in the United States only strengthens this call as a means to increasing jobs and payrolls and getting people, including fishers, back to work However, as of the date of my study, nearly 20 years have elapsed since the net ban was enacte d, effecting an increasing ly widened separation between generations. Several studies have been produced that reflect on the effect of the net ban on commercial fishing communities. The separation of the experience and the learned tradition of fishing under more tra ditional fishing methods of gill netting from the modern use of synthetics as part of the environmental awareness era since the 1970s are even further removed from the truer historical and traditional fishing methods that occurred up to 19 46 In 2013, there is a deep disconnect of generational fishers that began as the later fourth and fifth generations in Cortez were coming of age, and then exacerbated by the net ba n followed by the intrusion of what locals referred to as outsiders. This re presents a lost cultural flux in Cortez. Another elapsed experiential discussion for 2013 revolves around the feeling of those generations begin ning to feel a sense of loss; a sense of losing something sacred. In 1994, the Florida Humanities Council, in s ponsoring the brief work entitled Vanishing Culture: Images and Voices of Cortez Fishing F olk highlighted the plight of how the long term associations with fishing and fishing culture in Cortez had created a sacred environment connecting the culture to it open spaces 1 ). Since Cortez began recognizing its heritage or more appropriately, its lifeworld being in jeopardy, it has focused on a n active preservation an d cultural protection campaign. However, as the economy continue s to be sluggish, as philosophical and global paradigms regroup, and the original movers and shakers

PAGE 312

312 disappear from the scene the threat of heritage insolvency becomes a more predictable trend In this case, heritage insolvency represents a transformation of the historical vernacular with forced versions of it; tidbits here and there that mark some relationship of the present situation with that of one that is past. Even with the establishment of the recent Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez there is a sense of something that cannot be explai ned or captured in writing on film, or in displays. The memory of the historical vernacular continues to fade In 2000, the community of Cortez set toward creating a vision for its future (Cortez Water fronts Committee, 2000) Th is exercise was intended to reflec t the desires It is likely that the components contained within the 2000 Cortez Village Community Vision Plan have been incorporated in to the various iterations of the Ma natee County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Som e of the ultimate goals identified were to m aintain the commercial fishing enterprise and it s heritage with limited change ; m aintain the historic fabric, i.e., buildings and architecture ; p r event incompatible development ; and l imit or eliminate base flood elevation requirements, and the substantial damage provisions required by the Manatee County floodplain manag ement standards T he immediate first glance value of the above community desires suggests a strong preservation attitude toward the traditional fishing and culture and historic architecture, while limiting constructs that would be considered incompatible. The practice of visioning, as noble as it appears, often relates to a response or threat of loss. In some cases, the act of self identifying sacred elements or treasured artifacts, places, or

PAGE 313

313 or affected cultural landscape. The elapsed experiential kicks in here, as the community comes together to bear witness to what it finally recognizes as effects on their past and present that in some way have always been important. Granted, some communit ies may opine for decades about such losses of their culture, until some recognition or action is taken. The elapsed experiential becomes even more p oignant in current viewpoints for how things were done, how they used to be, and with the arrival of many n on fishers as outsiders how things should be. These reminiscences mixed with an incomplete preservation attitude by the new movers and shakers who never experienced, or had any personal connections to pre 1946 Cortez, only add to the steady accumulation of the lost cultural flux into the future as context and fabric disappear Discussion of the twenty first century f orm in Cortez The more than six decade span of time occurring after the end of the contextual recovery form period indicates the most signi ficant change to the historic vern acular landscape form in Cortez Based on the above analysis of the form indicators, Table 4 1 provides a positive or negligible change determination finding of each form indicator based on this analysis, and as occurring after the end of the historic study span in 1946 and ending in 2013 Only one indicator (parcel configuration) was determined to not have changed significantly. In 2013, the Cortez waterfront is considere d a modernized form construct as appearing much different than its historic precedents. Its residential construct when considering the maritime traditions of building reuse, remained fairly stable throughout its history with less of a diminution of the p hysical construct; however, numerous

PAGE 314

314 intrusions were added that affected the character scale and presence of historic vernacular forms. While the non residential form construct represented a rebuilding of the waterfront areas almost anew from 1921 to 194 6, its rapid recovery suggested a modeling after the original settlement form occurring between 1889 and 1921 but with modifications In spite of the mass destruction in 1921, the overall highly contextual vernacular landscape erected form up to 1946 is c onsidered to have been more stable compared to the later modern period after 1946 albeit, indicating several adaptations of individual forms due to the influences of technological advances, in the physical forms becoming denser and in the accumulation of forms being continually a dded. The 2013 village layout represents the least changed form indicator set between 194 7 and 2013, though it still changed significantly overall. D istinct form changes with regard to shapes and materials were directly affected p rimarily by changing technologies affecting gear, and political ramifications of environmental awareness. The latter is a complicated m atter that has tiers of effects that serve as a cumulative ultimate effect. In 2013, highly privatized waterfront is more indicative of a non communicative waterfront between updated and medium scale fisheries processing facilities that evoke certain vestiges of former vernacular activities and recreational and tourism uses and constructs. The la ck of a strong residential waterfront character was in 2013 did not seem to represent a change, since permanent waterfront living did not seem to hold a high standard in Cortez, and has not been as affected. Nevertheless, i ts shoreline boundary is nearly c ompletely changed, with filling of the shore areas beginning just prior to 1921 and occurring sporadically until after 1946. However, in spite of the shoreline alterations to the south and west, the historic boundaries to upland

PAGE 315

315 areas to the north and east remain nearly intact according to historic expansions through 1912. With the exception of platting the Cortez Park manufactured housing project at the northwest corner, the parcel configuration in Cortez remained comparatively stable since 1946, with no successful internal conversions to major residential or commercial developments, though some were attempt ed. The same can be said regarding the circulation pattern though the closing off of the north/south street ends at the waterfront created a significa nt change to the waterfront access. The significance of commerc ial 1909, reveal significant encroachment upon Cortez as a separate historic village in contrast to post Wo rld War II developments. The social impacts from these later developments would lead to mixed feelings regarding the importance of commercial fishing in the area, reflected in what would amount to a modern NIMBY ism (not in my backyard) changing the local community support structure on one hand, and increased environmental protection on the other. These two factions seemed to merge with a concurrent preservationist influx from individuals that may have been from both groups, some rather reluctantly so. The extended vernacular has been affected the most since 1946. Whereas, th is indicator set except for watercraft, as a an overall group remained fairly stable up to about 1946 more so than the other vernacular form indicator sets, it reveals a significant lo ss of contextual character in 2013 since that time. Regarding the physical manifestations of the extended vernacular cons truct, the fisheries camps, net works, and nets are for all intents and purposes, erased entities from the vernacular landscape

PAGE 316

316 in 2013 Some historic dock system elements remain, but only in regard to very limited historic footprints. Some underwater elements are likely still extant; however, there is no known program for studying the underwater evidence as of the date of my study. A few historic watercraft remain, but none are relevant from before the 1940s, except as muse um ified artifacts and remnants of whole watercraft constructs. The extent of the fishing grounds represents a conundrum in that it has been affected as a construct that is continually changing. In this respect, it retains some essence of historic integrity. However, it appears to increase and decrease in extent at the same time. Whereas, the fishing grounds in Cortez have increased to include the entire Gulf of Mexic o, the available area has been exponentially enlarged. However, this is due to non fisher circums tances such as going from an in shore commercial fishery to one that is mostly offshore, a direct effect of technology, politics, market demand and competition. There is an opposite effect, as well. In this sense, the fishing grounds decrease through reductions in the water column that is available to fishers due to infill development of tidal areas, waterfront residential development, and regul ation of fishing. When it comes to distinguishing between the small scale fishers that remain in Cort ez, and those that are larger scale, an overriding question lingers for who is being affected by the increases and reductions of the fishing grounds. It ap pears that the small scale fisher is mostly affected since there is a reduction of the fis hing grounds pursuant to the in shore fishery. The small scale fisher is also impacted by the disadvantage of having to compete with the larger fisheries operators, an d therefore has to settle for a limited economic benefit, or establish an enhanced economic relationship

PAGE 317

317 with the larger entities. The larger scale fisheries operators appear less affected since their operations evolved or were initiated to accommodate th e extended fishing grounds demands and requirements. The perceptions involved with regulation laden commercial fishing enterprise affect the awareness and perception of the fisher and the general public regarding the availability and extent of the fishing grounds. Based on the research of the historic periods that unfold s throughout this chapter, the historic vernacular form in Cortez is represented entirely as a small scale fishery construct. The obvious difference represented partly in the changed fishin g grounds is evidence of a historic form change to the scale of the contextual construct. The fishing grounds changes, in turn, cause real and perceived changes to the act of fishing and the elapsed experiential. The act of fishing in modern Cortez is also a much changed construct that is affected by technological improvements in how the harvesting of the primary target of mullet and non historically pursued species have effected new techniques and methods more s uited to the large scale fisher. Legal restri ctions to the how and when of harvesting also have an e ffect on how fishing is done. While fishing regulations have been implemented under a variety of legislative acts in Cortez since the settlement period, the most dramatic effect occurred as a result of gear prohibitions in 1995. The act of fishing w ith gill nets as part of the in shore fishery experience, and also the predominantly historic fishing act, is seen as a sudden and severe diminution of the in shore gill net fisher, and the elimination of any c ontinuance of the historic act of commercial fishing.

PAGE 318

318 The gaps between fishers and captains increased during this later period as th e historically small crew structure grew to a much larger corporate system that became more compartmentalized. The focus ch anged from a seamless harvesting team of fishers with skills on par with captains, to one focused on individualized duties more akin to laborers with minimal skills that were not necessarily part of the local cultural flux. While all fishers desired fruitf ul catches and sufficient incomes, the modernized Cortez fishery enlarged itself to the likes of the inanimate economic machine of watercraft owner economic market; this drove the fishers rather than the inherent pursuit and freedom of traditional fishing. This dependency on the economic machine and the advanced technologies that went with it also caused a significant decrease in the locali zed traditional knowledge skill set required of the earlier vernacular fishers ; this specific tradition was able to last to a degree even past the end of the historic study span of 1946. Generational attitudes and the conveniences of advancing technologies also had an effect on the act of fishing that caused a veering away from traditional knowledge and a sense of continued loss of culture that is represented as a form of an elapsed experiential whether through the destruction of physical constructs, or as part of the int angible character of a place or tradition, represents a changed historic form that most likely has been ongoing for quite some time. Since landscapes are always changing, this is not surprising. However, the degree of change can mean the difference between accepting change that is fairly stable or dramatic change that is not. Interestingly enough, t he sudden and widespread loss of the historic construct in Cortez after the 1921 storm

PAGE 319

319 surge did not appear to imbue a loss of culture or a sense of place in Cor tez even though the entire waterfront construct was nearly destroyed. By that time, Cortez h ad been established for over 30 years. It was not until the development booms of the 1950s and 1960s rolled around, that cultural changes were beginning to affect t he villagers of Cortez in ways they were only beginning to understand and notice, both visibly and cognitively. The lost cultural flux partly represented by the number of full time fishers being replaced quickly by avocational fishers contributed to the o ngoing sense of loss on a more permanent basis than prior precedents. For example, t he common legends for finding lost treasure certainly persuaded fishers across a wide spectrum, and far back in time to give up their fisher as living status temporarily, s ince coastal areas have historically been shrouded in these types of legends. After subsequent failure at other types of employment the overriding majority always seemed to fall back into fishing after a relatively short spell, since the basic social infr astructure of the time afforded that opportunity. However, the more complex post war social structures presented different opportunities that allowed fishers to pursue other quests such as drug smuggling that were much more involved as initial investments, with many resulting in incarceration and internal conflicts. While this can be compared to active liquor production that occurred during the historic study span, the ramifications that helped to diminish the local cultural tradition were much more pronounc ed for reasons that are beyond the scope of my study. These types of cultural dynamics resulted in strong senses of cultural loss and a reac tionary response for reversing the ebb of cultural identifiers that many of the second

PAGE 320

320 and third generation fishers and their families began to opine about early on. However, the first real effects of preservation as a tool did not begin until the 1980s, with the passage of the first historic overlay in Cortez. However, several intrusions would occur after this, result ing in a National Register of Historic Places historic district approval, and a community wide vision with resulting design guidelines. Ultimately, the Florid Maritime Museum at Cortez was established instilling the importance of Cortez to Florida mariti me history. Of course, the effect of the preservation up to this point is question able given the diminution of available historic constructs along the waterfront, and the changes from a vernacular TFV to one that has been modernized. In a way, Cortez has been muse um ified to a degree that affirms cultural loss, which is not uncommon for many historic districts across the country. A fairly robust debate has been ongoing as far as what preservation and its own effects such as tourism and a brandishing of its heritage will do to the community. The staged, yet The quaint fishing village is a nearly perfect traditional fishing scene until one realizes the throngs of tourists convergence from strategically placed tour bus parking lots, on their way to the gift shops and small eateries, and photographic opportunities that seem staged and contrived. The primary historic e lement missing is the vibrant activity that created the landscape. Pre s ettlement Form Period Occurring 1887 and Prior Synopsis of the period The pre settlement form period is represented by initi al land disturbance and development activities, including the fishing rancho and early American fishing

PAGE 321

321 operations, transiency, and land privatization. Exploration and discovery are certainly part of the period, but are implied activities not examined for my study. Pre settlement f orm is a v alue added discussion when considering the historic vernacular form of a place with a known origin date. It is not enough to suggest prima facie that the Cortez fishing village form developed out of a n uninhabited, wooded peninsula with a few artifacts lef t behind by previous temporary human activity T he discussion of the form indicators can be followed through the graphic tiles shown in Figure 4 11. Any discussion that attempts to expose cultural form in the landscape must at least look to prior precedents for influences and perhaps guidance. The vast amount of academic discourse regarding form influences based on natural and environmental determinant s is too interspersed and debated in the literature to be forgotten here. This is not to say that form is not naturally or environmentally informed or determined after a place or setting has been culturally established. It is also not my intent to suggest a strong position for any s pecific type of determinism applicable to initial settlement as a general rule to Cortez or other settings However, t he natural for mations and featur es of the pre settlement land and setting most likely influence the generative m ind as previously discussed. The mere and obvious fact that a waterfront is settled due to its location to the water, and perhaps as a first viewed setting as part of its discovery can certainly be construed to be environmentally deterministic precisely to this relationship However, future cultural determinants of form are not always necessarily so, depending on various factors including, but not limited to evolving economics and individualism. For the purposes of this paper, it is reasonable to consider the pre settlement condition used here as a distinct form period, as the first phase of cultural interface with

PAGE 322

322 what can be considered the larger C ortez study area and its relative surroundings. While Native Americans (aboriginals) and early colonial activity most likely impacted at least to some degree the larger peninsula that the Cortez study area is part of, an investigation of any permanent settlement by either group is also not be ing undertaken as part of my study. Instead, the pre settlement form period is considered with regard to the activities of the fishers from the Bahamas, Cuba, Key West, and other areas, including early Manatee County settlers. There is evidence of small fish camps occurring there from written records, along with mid nineteenth century land surveys sugges ting extensive pinelands covering the coastal area uplands This opens up the possibility that a t least some early deforestation of the natural vegetation took place, denuding the available pines, cabbage palm s, palmettos, mangroves, and sea grapes for access, sustenance, work an d building activities settlement during the late 1800s, the vegetation at that time could even have regrown several times as a result of human activity. T herefore, any assumed natural vegetation and even landforms should be questioned when applicable to a study. The pre settlement foundational precedent for all subsequent cultural landscapes that eventually formed into the Cortez study area but this form is not treated as, or assumed to have had a permanent stature. Instead, pre settlement form is considered as having mostly temporary or seasonal features and character, whereas, se ttlement per se is one that has formations of permanence that go beyond mere notions of it. Roberts (1996) discussed the temporal differences between settlements as those lasting for only a few

PAGE 323

323 eeks (temporary), seasonal (several months), semi permanent (several years), and those lasting for several permanent. The same relationships could be applied to forms in the cultural landscape. Roberts expanded his discussion of permanent form to suggest that typical hunter/gatherer/fisher a ctivities tended to suggest less permanency in the settings where they took place. The origins included transient activities of seasonal fishing, as did its early settlement activities. However, it eventually became a permanent settlement due to various cultural inflections of the ongoing fishing activities and the fi shers that developed permanent homesteads built around the fishing enterprise Waterfront c onglomeration and the use of space The waterfront conglomeration during the pre settlement form period is documented sparingly in the archival record, but without di stinctions of specific location and graphic representation Therefore, it is presented as part of my study as mostly conjecture based on other interpretations and written descriptions. The form shown as Figure 4 10, represents a rustic, temporarily erecte d construct by non indigenous influences using mixed materials brought to the site (pre cut lumber) and gathered locally (logs and thatch) as part of the natural resource availability. Because of the remoteness of the location, refinements of spatial areas beyond a radius of a few hundred feet were most likely limited to gathering wood and thatch for fuel and building. It is highly unlikely that any agrarian d evelopment took place Figure 4 10 actually represents the first attempted sketch of the waterfront conglomeration used for my study. It appears in a slightly different format as subsequent historic period sketches to

PAGE 324

324 show the deviation in form depiction that my study took on The inclusion of the seine net as occurring seaward of other forms suggests a rolling out of form previously discussed, with the net as perhaps the most seaward physical construct, even more so than the watercraft. In leaving Figure 4 10 intact, it reveals just one method for depicting form when revealing the historic vernacular la ndscape. The presettlement erected construct was likely tightly placed along the waterfront to allow efficiencies of the industrial applications of the shore area. This would have represented a compact definable construct that was not spread out. It is k nown from the historical record that a fish eries building extended out over the waterfront serv ing as a connection to the immediate upland area where a sleeping quarters and kitchen were located in two additional enclosed buildings Because previous docume ntation indicates the use of a n on shore pulley mechanism to bring water vessels closer to shore it is also more likely that the land construct existed in addition to the over the water construct. The use of space in this way is then mimicked, and perhaps even copied during later form periods, with the possibility that some erected form footprints and pilings could have been reuse d from the se abandoned forms. Perhaps they were still intact at the time of settlement in 1887. Reuse of materials is a common cu ltural trait found in fishing villages around th settlement site, c onsisting of a partial building mosaic and a complete, essential physical manifestation of the extended vernacular form of a fisheries camp, net works, do ck sy stem, nets, and watercraft represented two of the three vernacular form set s. Village layout form indicator set Exactly what the pre found as a left behind artifact is not likely to be precisely determined. No doubt, as a larger

PAGE 325

325 peninsula that included the boundary limits of the Cortez study area, was referenced in its first fairly accurate graphic form as earl y as 1851 and was already a human disturbed area (Fo llet ap of the coast, National Ar chives, not included herein ) As already referenced earlier the large indigenous shell midden found along the north shoreline of the peninsula is an obviou s evidential clue acknowledging prior human activity. There is also prevalent historical documentat ion of Spanish settlements in the proximity of ( Matthews, 1983; King 1963). However, post contact ( non indigenous ) human activity at confines of the Cortez study area can be inferred from the n umerous documented descriptions of the prevalent Spanish fishing rancho enterpr ise that occurred along oast from Tampa Bay south to Charlotte Harbor and Key West at least far back a s the seventeenth century Some of these lingering rancho operations were recorded in the area until the 1920s. In acknowledg ing no strict adherence to a particular timeframe Stack (2011) described a Gulf Coast Fishing Ranch Period occurring between 1760 and 1840 A 1963 oral interview with an early watercraf t builder named Asa Pillsbury in Palma Sola, cited Pillsbury as suggesting the presence of ranchos up to the late 1880s. Other literature suggests with general consensus that some Spanish fishers eventually mixed with indigenou s groups who together harvested the shallow coastal waters of the area. The eventual merging of the two cultures resulted in both permanent and temporary developments along the coastal peninsulas and islands as part of an extensive, coordinated economic operation that became Americanized as Spanish influences waned, and as Florida became increasingly settled The l ater fishing

PAGE 326

326 enterprise appear ed to transition to white businessmen, and operators from the Atlantic states. The influence on the fu the landsc ape forms created from pre settlement human activity is difficult to clearly delineate There is no available finding that any remnant artifacts were evident when the first fisher settlers bega n to arrive in the late 1880s to purchase lands. Though it is likely that artifacts from indigenous activities, as well as, from the fishing ranchos and interspersed maritime activity around Sarasota Bay were likely available for discovery on the pre settle ment study site most, if not all of these historical resources are likely too disturbed or are now missing for present day recovery and analysis ; unfortunately, this vi rtually eliminat es a pre settlement artifactual data set However, Stack (2011) made it clear though, that Western profile presettlement artifacts were indeed still being unearthed throughout Charlotte Harbor sites as late as the 1990s, as well as, during her own study of that area around 2010. She docu mented numerous fin dings of olive jar pieces iron nails, ballast material, and various metals, and various shards and sherds. It is likely that through a strategic, coordinated effort, similar findings could materialize on the Cortez peninsula in spite of the heavy disturba nces already experienced there, which might suggest early building formations However, the private land structure now in place there severely limits this possibility. Boundary The first cultural documentations representing a physical form of the s Point study area began to be realized by 1625 when Da Laet delineated the indented bays of Tampa a nd San Carlos with a large land mass jutting out between them. A crude map to be sure, it may be stretch to suggest that began its

PAGE 327

327 boundary form in this manner ; however, the idea of the physical formation could have been implanted in the generative minds of subsequent travelers to the area, as well as, those who could read the map, and formulate a possible coastline feature. By 1703, map showing the lands of Floride ascend to a slightly improved delineation of how the peninsula bet ween the above two bays beca me fine tuned with its geographical reality. However, n o other maps could be located t p eninsula a s occurring prior to the official U nited States coastal area s urveys that would begin during the 1840s. closely represented the Cortez study area was produced as part of this official undertak ing. Parcel configuration. The second part of the pre s e ttlement form construct consideration lies in the early formal Gulf C oast when official subdivisions of the area beg an in 1846 through the first official U.S. survey of the coastal counties In 1836 L ieutenant Levin M. Powell USN made an initial reconnaissance trip up the Manatee River to scout for signs of aboriginal populations Powell and his crew si gns of recent aboriginal encampment or as he put it, (Dye: 1969, p. 15) L ieutenant he earliest referenced map of the immediate Manatee area made by him in 1843. This gave a more in terms of particular tracts of lands the first known indication of true subdivision of the area. For the peninsula, the 1846 Government Land Office s urveying of

PAGE 328

328 the high water lines as contained within U.S. Government Survey sections of the s Point peninsula according to t ownship r ange an d s ection are the earliest reference lines found as part of my investigation to appear as an official scientific delineation This survey was done in tandem with the 1846 division of lands in Section 3 of the newly created coastal township into three distinct U. S. Government Lots, as eld notes and mapping. Congress had recently authorized Florida to sell lands to the general public, so surveys of all lands were well underway by this time This represents the earliest true e tree symbol indicating that the lands were still forested most likely with l ongleaf and slash pines This also (1887) early remarks from 1879 of the uplands being forested with tall pines. This provides insight into how the area, including may have appeared from a natural environment condition, notwithstanding the human fishery activities that were most likely taking place on or near it up to that time. The initial subdivision of into a lot s ystem as U.S. Government Lot 3 consisting of what was then determined to be 61.30 acres physically framed the first facsimile of it in a physical, two dimension sense ( Figure 4 12 ) This is not an insignificant matter since this initial demarcation created a more precise and future confine for the Cortez study area that historically after settlement would encompass most of that configuration According to later county plat maps, the present day 119 th Street served as the primary eastern fringe for U.S. Government Lot 3 from which most subsequent leg al descriptions were delineated

PAGE 329

329 continued to be represented by abstract points of prominence in various outlines that change d s hape across a whole spectrum of map s W hile Point etched at least some semblance of a real world land configuration it was not until name was derived fro m an early settler named Hunter. The name reference for certain land points along the coast appears as a common theme on the 1851 map by Follett titled Map of Country in the Vicinity of Manatee, Florida (referenced earlier) The specific derivation of the Hunter name other than that he was a nearby settler, is unclear. However, as a case for future research, it is known from Upham (1881) that a Dr. Hunter and some of his associates built a structure on Sarasota Bay from Cedar Key lumber and recycled materials obtained on the Manatee River near Palma Sola. The Sarasota Bay structure was deconstructed after a spat between the partners by a Dr. Skinner, who then rafted the sections back to the Manatee River location via the Palma Sol a Bay. appearing on the 1846 map is remarkable enough when considering that subsequent maps grossly disfigured the basic formation of the peninsula While Hunte appears on the 1851 Follet M ap served as what appears to be the first place name designation of the peninsula, t he first map indicating its later Cortez name after settlement is on a Manatee County map dated 1890 ( Figure 4 1 3 ) included in an early ( Norton, 1892 map by Longmans, Green, & Co ). While this earliest recognition of Cortez is popularly referenced as being organized there in 1896, as

PAGE 330

330 commonly suggested by others, it is peculiar in that it appears at least six years earlier here. The record suggests Cortez was chosen as a second choice name since the U.S. as apparently being used elsewhere in th e state. However, there is a conflicting historical record regarding the name and date for the post office. I published in 1892 that Cortez is also already referenced as a tourist destination on Sarasota Bay locate d six mil e s sou thwest of Palma Sola via a post road (it was more like 12 miles) It is therefore reasonably clear that the name of Cortez surfaced well before its recognized date of 1896 This could align with the United States and Worldwide Postal History ( Forte, n.d. ) website documentation that identifies the post office name of Cortez actually being established in 18 88. However, another peculiar aspect o f the early mapping reveals that many published maps created after t he 1890 map date referenced above, do not include Cortez, and are shown to often omit it even as a geographical place In fact, the Cortez graphic reference does not appear to pop up on another map until 1898, albeit with its reference point incorrectly delineated on the barrier island to the southwest. An 1899 map delineates it more accurately. Still, the origination of the name Cortez remains unclear. During the 1880s, m uch of the l sold to the Florida Land and Improvement Company, whose president was Hamil ton Disston, the Philadelphia industrialist. Disston whose legacy is one of both fame and infamy in Florida, was an early schemer of Florida land sales and perhaps the earliest contributor to its future land boom saga. In recognizing the opportunities in land development

PAGE 331

331 offered by a fairly wild and sparsely settled area Disston was able to control well over four million acres of land in Florida with an initial $1 million investment, eventually owning at least a quarter of that rtune for acquiring the land so cheaply occurred as a result of many socio political convergences of the time, including the recently enact ed Florida constitution in 1868, a s part of an 1881 and as a scheme advocated who at the time was courting Yankee capitalists to help him get the st ate out of its economic basemen t D isston immediately sold half of the acreage for a profit to a wealthy British shipbuilder prompting what some cite as the first land boom in Florida (Grunwald, 2006). Just a few years later, over 150,000 tourists sought out Florida as over 800 miles of new rail lines were established, including a direct line to Bra i dento w n (its earliest spelling) by the turn of the century the closest public land transportation linkage at the time While there is no evidence to suggest that Disston became campaigns surely increased land speculation in the area as far south as Naples visible impact on land development in the area is evident in the Pinellas Cou planning and design, especially Gulfport, which was origina lly named Disston City in 1884. He also developed Tarpon Springs and later, his land development companies would create designe d development schemes for lands that adjoined the landside boundar ies Cortez. It must be noted that e ven as early as 1884, recreational visitors predicted the coming waves of development as evidenced by Henshall (1884), who

PAGE 332

332 opined that the simplicities of village life, and hence the sense of place they evoked would soon disappear. p art of the thriving land boom which helped to nurture a rebirth of land ownership and opportunity for many land owners still struggling from economic hardship and Reconstruction Era recovery. The re was likely a brewing sense o f urgency among would be settlers fro m outside of the area who sought ample hunting and fishing opportunities, along with marketing strategies. d available from $1.25 an acre. The Flor ida Land and Improvement Company (1881) described the opportunities as they presented themselves in a Florida for the taking in his listing of its several components beneficial to potential settlers such as a comfortable house for $ 50, an even bigger house with f our or five rooms for between $ 250 and $ 400 or lumber avail able for purchase from between $5 and $ 12 per 1,000 feet at local sawmills. In addition, he noted the best places for settlers in Florida at the time as those situated on the Gulf of Mexico The economic outlook for growing citrus was even mentioned, a more terrestrial pursuit of some of the original fishers as Adams cited the high worth of the fruit once a grove began bearing its fruit usually five to eight years from budding, or up to 20 years from seed for oranges (Norton, 1892) A review of a erial maps from o f 1940s Cortez reveal s various grove formations. Some of th e sense of urgency felt by settlers is suggested by Silas Stearns (1887) as part of his previously referenced U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries

PAGE 333

333 report for the year 1880 to George Goode, the Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution at the time. The comprehensive and detailed report provides some insight into the land acquisitions that are related to the properties and the quickness in which they were purchased and subsequently developed. In the comprehensive report, Stearns suggested that around the b ay s ystems of Saraso ta and Palma Sola, where the se ining flats were conducive to that type of fishing, the available lands were in high demand with many legal claims on them, and therefore were being accumulated by fishers and the fishing firms already using them or wanting to secure them for their trade. He wrote that the best land/shore/sea connections were already developed with many having permanent buildings and even docks. It is not clear if he here. H owever, his descriptions of other fisheries buildings along the coas t appear more as an admonish ment because they were shanty like, and not as being of the higher quality that was indeed more permanently placed and constructed. Since Stearn s study was completed for the year ending in 1880, and only later published between 1884 and 1887, there could have been a run for the lands around the Sarasota Bay system based on this input Cedar Keys fisheries, where some of the original settlers were likely living just prior to the time his report came out, may have given some notice to the fishers there, motivating the se future fi sher /settlers to move further south where the Additional encouragement may also have come in the form of a more suitable type of fishing to the native North

PAGE 334

334 Carolina fishers available around Sarasota Bay wh ich closely matched their similar experiences when comparing ecosystems, versus the open character of the Cedar Keys with its low energy coastal systems. The barrier islands around Sarasota and Palma Sola Bays offered a more dynamic coast associated wi th shoal fishing grounds protected by a barrier island system. Since the appearance of the isolated coast presented an undeveloped and teeming marine resource, in spite of the long standing pre settlement fishing activities already documented there and per haps perpetuated by tales of flying mull et that sounded like thunder, the urgency to stake claims as fishers in an opportunistic and unsettled new territory must have been strong indeed. According to deed records, the first purchase r Florida Land and Improvement Company is recorded as Allen Gardiner who, in 1884 bought U.S. Government Lots 1 and 3 totaling 111.7 acres. As of 1887, these Internal I mprovement lands as they were called, were available from generally $1.25 per care up to $6.50 per acre. Soon after, in 1883 Gardiner died, leaving his widow to manage the new land holdings. With the assistance o f her brother in law, David O. Clarke, a farmer already established in Manatee County Mrs. Gardiner subdivide d a portion of Lot 3 in 1887. Clarke would then serve as her power of attorney in selling off parcels of land to the fishers from North Carolina and others who would purchase them There is no evidence, other than remnant fishing operation buildings and s tructures as cited by Stearns represent the Cortez study area contained any other type of building form s at that time In spite of the fishery operation that may have overlapped its eventual subdivid ed boundary, undeveloped property

PAGE 335

335 whose landscape up to that time was a fairly fresh palette though not pristine, on which to establish a purposeful fishing oriented community beginning with the 15 original settlers who began purchasing the lands in 1887 While all of the first 13 settlers were from North Carolina, several had already been established in Manatee County and other areas in Florida as settlers of other property. Circulation. There is no recorded documented prior to the 1887 initial subdivision confirming its accessibility only from the water The existence of the large shell midden suggest s an indigenous trail system that could have been improved upon into the future through the eastern uplands westward which may have required traversing wetland dominated areas common throughout western Manatee County historically. The conjecture of water only access based on the evidence up to that time, suggests an acce ss form of early circ ulation used by fishers and run boats It is likely earlier periodic trips to while on fishing trips from other areas and perhaps while some of them were still in the Cedar Keys. The most likely travel for the earliest settler s from the Carteret County area of North Carolina making their way to would have be gun with a sailing trip to Morehead, North Carolina to catch the train that even tually found its way to the Cedar Key s or Tampa. From either the Cedar Keys (its original name in the plural that was changed later to its current singular name) or Tampa, a steamer could be taken to e ither St. Petersburg or Braident own. From St. Petersbur g, o ne could catch a ride on the bi weekly schooner run to H own. By the first decade o f the

PAGE 336

336 twentieth century, a taxi could be hir ed for the trip from Braiden t own to Cortez ensuring an extremely rough ride given the unfavorabl e cond ition of the road network at that time. E arly on, n Point. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had already begun channelizing the local waters of the Manatee River as of 1883 (U .S. Army 1889 ). Improvements were prioritized with allocated funding from the U.S. Congress for improving sections of the Manatee River in 1886 based on governmental surveying and examinations from 1881. By 1887, field officers noted the river as being served by at least one schooner and two steamers during the area s busy season of eight months during the year. Building mosaic form indicator set Because the pre settlement early descriptions and conjecture, the form indicators of residential, non residential, and fisheries contextual buildings must be considered as a whole, since what may have the water front conglomeration not intended for permanent occu pation, and therefore, would not be appropriate to discuss separately though humanly erected as they were Also, because the construct was for all intents and purposes, a purposeful, ye t temporary processing facility that served as a part time camp for fi sher teams, the cons truct was simply not extensive enough, based on historic documentation to list each indicator set separately. The processes found in the d eveloping village form, or villa ge morphogenesis to lack a better term, was no t as purposeful as it would have been as Vance (1990) suggested to include assigning the land, creating a circulation plan, accommodating industry advances, building noticeable wealth visible in the construct itself, fostering an investment sense in the construct, and planning for future growth and

PAGE 337

337 improvement. The pre se ttlement construct in this case most likely lacked the sense of land ownership and investment found in actual settlements of permanence that would contain most, if not all of the processes proposed by Vance although, as the literature reveals, some pre se ttlement constructs in other areas the Charlotte Harbor area seemed to inadvertently become more permanent as far as the decadal occupations of them occurred. The 47 year residence that is documented by one known Spanish fishe r is an example that must have exhibited some sense of stewardship, if not ownership of the surrounding landscape which leaves room for The implication here is that these seemingly temporar y operations likely became semi permanent or permanent in spite of the impermanent landscape form or legal forma lities In the maritime vernacular, a fishing rancho was a coastal fringe operation developed by early fishers consisting of a mix of Spanish and indigenous fishers who occupied various islands bay and riverine lowlands over temporary and long term periods selling their harvests mainly to Cuba and centered around the emerging markets of H avana. The importance of Havana to the early U nited States rancho operations, and to those that ran them cannot be overstated as evidenced by its description as the third largest city in the New World by 1800 Early visitors to the coastal area commonly described the ranchos as temporary s ettlements consisting of crudely constructed buildings of palmetto thatch sides and roofing formed in circular and square footprints The structures were probably held together by nails and/ or roping made from cabbage palm fronds. Cabbage palm trunks like ly comprised the framing of most of these structures as a readily available structural supply Matthews (1983)

PAGE 338

338 included descri ptions of having a residential form (p. 283) some of which were approximately 15 foot square Matthews, in correspondence from 1879, also referred to typical local settler shanties as being 12 foot high with a walled dimension of 12x50 with a separate room used for a kitchen ; ro oms were sometimes divided by sail cloth. Covington (1959) also cited them as being approximately 15 to 20 feet square As referenced earlier in my study, the oral interview with long time Palma Sola (in Manatee County) watercraft builder an d fisher Asa Pillsbury in 1963 ( King) suggested the active presence of r anchos to approximately 1885 near or at soon after he arrived with his parents as a child to the area in 1881 While his recollection placed the rancho along Palma Sola Bay just north of Cortez, this represents a distance of up to one mile shore to shore between t he southern shore line on Sarasota Bay to the shore line on Palma Sola Bay The possi bility of human disturbance along the shore area of is then high, especially due to the long history of the rancho activ ities along the Florida Gulf Coast Perhaps the earliest account of fishing ranchos is from t he early 177 0s when Captain Bernard Romans (1775), the British Deputy Surveyor General documented the established existence of fishing ranchos lf coastal islands and shore areas as being pp. 185 186) He noted a multitude of fishers perhaps between 150 and 400 of them in the Charlotte Harbor area alone, harvesting redfish and mullet for roe He commented that there were both permanent and transient fishers, some leaving after the fishing season ended in March, while others decided to establish homesteads. The structural forms were impermanent

PAGE 339

339 buildings, made of available local natural material s such that they needed constant attention, many of which had to be rebuilt by the returning fishers the following season. Romans suggested that each ranch o had at least one small schooner associated with it. In 1831 the Key West Collector of Revenue Wil liam Whitehead reported that Charlotte Harbor had four extensive rancho operations with over 130 men (Covington, 1959) According to Whitehead, each of the four operations had a small s chooner for taking the catches to the Cuban markets. As referenced earl ier, h is descriptions of the architectural form of the rancho structures was that they were generally 15 to 20 square feet with a frame of wood covered in thatch. Whitehead also noted two dominant yet different fishing enter prise s occurring along the Flor ida Gulf C oast at the time. One form of commercial fishing was considered temporary or seasonal occurring during the winter months, and owned by New England masters who maintained small fleets that would sell the harvests to mostly Havana markets. The othe r form was represented by the typical fishing rancho occupied by Spanish fishers and their families who maintained a more permanent presence. There are o ther references to early fisheries camp forms as evidenced by photographs and museum interpretations r epresenting three building and structure forms including the front gable, circular hut, and shed roof. The Reflections of Manatee (n.d.) construction, which based on the relative would have been the most economic and efficient. The seasonal fluctuation of the activity there made this type of constructi on even more likely. This would likely have included a basic light frame of pine or cabbage palm poles covered in thatch. Those

PAGE 340

340 buildings used for fish processing were likely left open on one or several sides, while sleeping quarters were probably complete ly covered with siding. The circular hut is evidenced in more than one photograph and also represented well as in other mullet camps as far north as the mid Atlantic C oast ( Goode, 1887) The circular form was present in the late eighteenth century along the North Carolina coastal areas. The circular hut would also have been made of pine or palmetto poles and thatch found in abundance on the undeveloped peninsula of Hunt Another possibility is the bu ilding or structure made of pre cut lumber that was delivered to the site by schooner or other watercraft. An important point to remember here in attempting to piece the possible form together is the reference by St earns have been based on other c amps where the construction was apparently of a lesser quality, using the most simple of methods and design. One possibility, because of t he reference by Stearns of the structures being rectangular in shape cou ld have been a shed type of building with multiple doors and basic window s with shutters similar to the one shown as part of a mullet fish camp around Bogue Sound in North Car olina fro m the early 1990s ( Core Sound Waterfowl Museum, 2002) He did indicate that some of the buildings were constructed of boards, which were probably pre cut pieces of lumber brought to the site. The construction from a pre set lumber stock would have been simple, and perhaps even easier than havin g to rely on the local resource. A s local American owner/operators from the Gulf and Atlantic states became more prevalent in the

PAGE 341

341 industry maybe even spending modicums of time on the peninsul a, constructing an improved bu ilding set and configuration was very possible. After all, Stearns did reveal that one of the o wners of the presettlement buildings at who m historical records indicate as residing in nearby Palma Sola near the homesteaded property of fisher and land purchaser James E. Guthrie Guthrie was the sixth land purchaser recorded According to archival records, Soloman A. Sw eetzer hailed from Beaufort, N orth Carolina and was likely connected to Guthrie somehow and likely reminisced to him water there. Sweetzer is cited as influencing others to the area, such as two early foreign settlers, the de Noda s originally from Spain who m he met while delivering a fish haul to Havana, Cuba. His was earlier while both were still in North Carolina, or as they became acq uainted in Florida. This influence could also have been passed around to several of the other fisher settlers. Captain William Bunce, a former U nited S tates military officer from Baltimore, Maryland operated at least two fishing ranchos in the are a from approximately 1835 to 1840. Bunce may have been the form changer of the Gulf Coast fishing ranch enterprise in how he exploited its operational scale. Notwithstanding the political and military problems that served to effectively neuter his investments by 1840 Bun ce seemed to embrace the tools of efficiency and econo my for his operations in that he deve loped them to be virtually self sufficient factories, for lack of a better description.

PAGE 342

342 While exploitation of the harvest through manual netting until reach ing vessel capacity for direct delivery to ports is o ne thing, the additional ma ximization of harvest through the land/water interconnect suggested a more committed application of form, and perhaps with a more permanent intent. In detailing some of the st Dodd (1947) provided an insightful look into the overall built environment of rancho operations. fishing rancho at the mouth of the Manatee River, there were approximately 30 buildings, many o f them having circular forms and also constructed of palmetto thatch and tr unks. However, he employed sawed wood planks for the walls and floors of the building(s) he occupied. Bunce also created more of a village setting by including trade functions such as blacksmithing among the building array. N umerous fishing watercraft including smacks, sloops, and canoes, seine nets, fishing gear, and a covered wharf were also present Approximately 150 men occupied the operation. According to William Whit ehead ( foot sloop that had only one mast. thoroughly examined using archaeological methods for their form constituents with regard to the cultural landscapes they were part of. Just after the Civil War, recreational cruisers and fishers such as Hallock (1876 ) and Henshall ( 1884) visited and documented fishing operations as still active in the Charlotte Harbor area. By this time, the thatche d huts had apparently evolved into more permanent wood structures, including wood wharfs and dock systems. In some cases, w indows were probably added with wood shutters. The most pertinent recording of fishing rancho operations at must again be

PAGE 343

343 attributed to Stearn s whose 1880 accounting of the fishery at detailed how the erected form and extended vernacular may have overlapped onto the Cortez site. Stearn s repo rted this fishery as one of the most important and best organized single mullet harvest s of up to 10,000 pounds He cited two nearby lesser facilities located on Palma Sola Bay. In fact, t he local waters were so teeming with mullet that Stearns (1887) compared their constant and multitudinous air leaps and water landings thunder ( p. 454). That experience of an Eden like abundance was later echoed by local watercraft builder Asa Pillsbury ( King, 1963) whose own memory offered up the same existence of teeming waters that characterized the natural surroundings References to a built construct Based on the above historical evidence, the settlers b egan purchasing lands there is very probable. as a historical reference location would have included much of the land surrounding the historic study area, it is likely that an early building or structure was located near its western tip, whi ch may be evidenced by an early structural marking from Rei survey purposef ully marked location near that spot Some of the literature about fishing ranchos reference s their locations generally as occurring on or next to aboriginal middens and mounds. The shell midden in Cortez was located just north along the shore of the western tip so built structures may have been in near proximity to that

PAGE 344

344 Stearn Gulf Coast fisheries data published in 1887 noted 18 fishers of mostly Bahamian descent working the fishery, some as actual fishers and processors, and others as haulers of the catches to the Cuban markets He described three buildings consisting of one at 30 foot by 12 foot for fish curing, built up on pilings and extending out from and over the shore of the bay. Two other buildings were noted with one made a shant y made of palmetto thatch and used as sleeping quarters for the workers. While no other details regarding size and roof configurations were provided, t hese structures must have been close in size to the f ish curing building since one accommodated multiple use spaces and the other had to comfortably allow sleeping arrangements for at least 18 workers. Extended vernacular form indicator set Physical manifestations f ish eries camps. The dialogue about camps as part of the fisheries development is duplicative of the discussion above since the ere cted construct was limited (refer to the above). However, the notion that these types of constructs were indeed only temporary camps versus permanent trade buildings and dwe llings is more associated with fact than conjecture, in spite of their duration or improved design. It may be that several of the crew periods of time, perhaps up to eight months or so. Because at least one building, apparently for cooking and dining was constructed of actual lumber, it appears now that some permanence was assigned to it, in spite of only partial occupance. The third building was for sleeping quarters made o f palmetto thatch and poles. Since the surrounding lands were not yet legally claimed, and were difficult to access, a fisher

PAGE 345

345 could easily have lived on the land for years without much notice. This is especially true since the entire region was occupied by similar constructs of ranchos operated by mixed American and Cuban interests. Physical manifestations n et works In again referencing Stearn physical descriptions he also noted important extended vernacular structures such as seine reels mullet roe drying frames, and machinery devised to haul the watercraft from the water. In addition, there must have been areas set aside for treating and mending the nets (probably near the net reels), along with an area designated for salt storage, such as bushels and barrels stored in the huts. Spanish Cuban fishers were required to buy sal t from Cuban dealers; however, this was unlikely for this later fishery, which appeared to have been owned and operated by American interests, as cited by Stearns as being Sweetzer and Thomson. Physical manifestations d ock system. Since used and discarded materials are often placed at a high value by maritime communities, there may not have been any significant building forms or architectural remnants remaining on the site, as they would likely have been salvaged and used by others. However, it is likely that the pilings on which the large, fish curing building was erected, could have been left in place. Early pilings could be stomped into the muddy bottom simply by se veral fishers jumping up and down on a rigged frame attached to a piling. For sandy bottoms, other measures were applied such as surrounding the underwater piling with rocks or a barrel and then filling it with concrete or gravel. If this is the case, then some aspect of dock placement by the settlers could have been influenced by that remnant configuration. This may align with the fact that the very first land purchaser (p arcel 5) chose the

PAGE 346

346 north eastern corner of ecause it ma y have retained some of this information and infrastructure, and leftover building footprints the buildings included a reference to being built up on pilings and extending out from and over the shore of the bay. However, t here is no evidence to suggest that a dock or dock system was used, especially since it appears that the watercraft were pulled onto shore or nearer to the fish processing building for unloading and loading tasks, as well as, securing them. It is likely that a wharf was attached to the fish processing building. Physical manifestations n ets. These are well documented. Stearns aptly described the fish nets used as both seines and cast nets There were two seine nets; one was 100 fathoms (600 feet) in length and 16 feet deep, while the other was 75 fathoms (450 feet) in length and only 12 foot in d e pth. He even described their me sh sizes as two inches, and one and one quarter inches, respectively. The circular cast nets were between 12 and 14 f eet in diameter with a preferred throw distance of 15 feet. Again, a ccording to Stearns ( 1 Point fishery were similar to those used by other fisheries in the vicinity, though the smaller fisheries at Palma Sola Bay used seines of around 60 fathoms (360 feet) in length. It is clear that the gill net was not in common usage aroun the pre settlement period. This does remark of an absence of form from the later installation and prevalent us e of gill nets by Cortez fishers. The gill net appeared as a diffused type of gear from the N orthern U.S. Atlantic fisheries and was already the most used type of fishing gear in certain North Carolina mullet and shad fisheries. Earll ( 1887) a colleague o f Stearns, noted that the gill net had transferred to North Carolina fisheries by 1844. ast,

PAGE 347

347 the dip net and cast net were favored over the gill net, perhaps due to the different topographica l features of the coasts. S Coast, with lengths running up to 150 fathoms (900 feet) in the Apalachicola fisheries. Stearns (1887) noted th at the gill net was in use in A palac hicola and the Cedar Keys when he visited those places in 1879 but their use was on a much more limited basis than the fisheries located at the Cedar Keys, Sarasota, and Charlotte Harbor According to local information relayed by fishers to Stearns, gill nets were first introduced in the Cedar Keys during the early 1870s. Again, the introduction was through fishers from the Northern U.S. Atlantic fisheries. It is likely that the gill net was then brought south to the es by fishers from the Cedar Keys, and from those who had migrated directly to the area from North Carolina where gill netting had been established earlier The gill net, as a favored fishing gear by certain fishers from these areas, could also have migrat Point area by some of the later Cortez settlers. Physical manifestations w atercraft. (1887) report of the Gulf Coast fisheries from 1879 he cited two types of vessel Point. The larger had a common length of 26 feet designed with flat, but roun ded bottom s and sharp bow s The stern for each had a form that was noticeably wide and overh ang ing Th ese vessel s were likely modeled after the same form of sailing vessel Pillsbury (King, 1963), who as a watercraft builder, served as an expert witness in providing historical details of these watercraft though descriptions of watercraft seemed to vary in preci seness Smacks were designed with

PAGE 348

348 live wells that allowed caught fish to be kept alive until delivery or sale ; however, Stearns did not indicate that live fish were marketed as part of this fisheries product In this case, the live well system may simply have been disregarded and unused, or redesigned for other purposes. Instead, the catch was sold as salted fish, m ostly with their heads still on a peculiarity of the Cuban market that then limited the use of br ine when the heads were kept intact since it reduced their quality Mullet roe were also processed on site suggesting an additional form construct Stearns 1879 account suggested that there were many similarities between the various constructs of the C harlotte Harbor and Sarasota Bay fisheries. Clues from his area regard to watercraft. Because of the limited length, they most like ly held a sloop, or single mast sail rigging giving attention to the available form for the purposes of my study. Many of the smaller fishing smacks plying the Gul f Coast waters were noticeably main sail with optional jib configurations. Stearns purposely suggested a simil arity with the lapstreak (sometimes referred to as lapstrake) watercraft found in fisheries of Maine and Massachusetts which were used for in shore fishing In these designs, the vessels also had flat bottoms with wide, flaring sides. T he mast was likely p laced forward on the vessel similar to the Key West vessels of the same size. It was likely unfixed to allow removal and placement on the boot floor during capture and hauling. Because of the connections of the fishers to the Bahamas and Key West, t he sa il configuration likely referred to the traditional leg o mutton shape in that it was tall peaked and triangular This presented a three sided sail form, with a n optional jib

PAGE 349

349 located over and beyond the bow. Because Stearns indicated that the buildings at ere owned by Sweetzer, who is recorded as having made trips to Cuba, the form of the larger watercraft could have reflected this Cuban fishing smack design, especially since they wer e required to make the extended trip as a destination to their markets. Some references to the Maine lapstreaks as having spritsail rigs, though a t the sprit design may have pre oint settlers, who are credited with bringing them to Cortez. However, such an early occurrence of the North Carolina spritsail design is not likely for the larger watercraft since it did not favor offshore trips. Stearns also documented smaller vessels of approximately 16 feet in length. The se served as t ender s to the larger vessels, and were l ikely akin to flat bottomed skiff designs, or launch for transporting fish hauls and supplies. They were likely also sloops with non fixed, single mast and sail desi gns that could be disassembled fairly quickly. Th ese watercraft were probably of local origin and could have represented early spritsail configurations; however, there is no record to date to substantiate this Most likely, t he sail for m was l ikely that o f a Bermuda rig to allow ease of use, which was used only sparingly. These vessels were likely poled by hand as in shore vessels. Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds Because certain fishing activities were aptly recorded by Stearns ( 1887) it can be conjectured that the seine and cast net waters and the shorelines of the adjacent barrier islands. served as the primary stati on where fish were processed first and then delivered from. The crew was also stationed there, rather than at other stations, representing a stand

PAGE 350

350 alone operation. In this case, Stearns cited Americans as the owners of the buildings ; however, there is no m ention of watercraft ownership He did indicate that the captain was in Key West at that time suggesting a possible business relationship with Key West interests The ca ptain was likely Solomo n Sweetzer, the local fisher from Palma Sola. With these circum stances in mind, Stearns cited that m ullet were the catch of choice and processed exclusively for Cuban markets While there is no evidence to date suggesting the doma in dimensions for the on as they likely b ecame after the 1880s or so, once land development began to surge, and fishing grounds were being exploited by more and more fishers who were land based on adjoining uplands to the fishery waters Because the early operations were limited by time in order to process the fish without ice, the most likely scenario is that the fishers operated with in a reasonably close distance to their upland infrastructure. Since mullet was the likely harvest priority, in shore fishing represented a r easonable range of fishing grounds pursuant to the investment in a fisheries processing facility. As a point of reference, it is known from the historical record that t he Hibbs Fish Company, the first dealer documented as work ing directly with the post set tlement fishers was cited in 1907 as having a fishing grounds radius of up to 50 miles ( St. Petersburg Times, December 1 1907). In the case of the pre settlement fishing grounds most likely occurred within this sa me range pursuant to the fishing construct as a processing station ; this is probably more reminiscent of an in shore range of north to south, rather than one that extend ed west and out to sea, instead staying close r to shore where the mullet as the primary harvest fish were sought. This is not to

PAGE 351

351 say that offshore fishing was not at least part of this earlier commercial fishing enterprise; indeed it probably was. The recorded history leans closer to the fact that mullet were harvested extensively as the primary fish between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay. They were also harvested during winter months in the Cedar Keys north to Apalachicola, but other forms of fishing also took place, unlike the specific targeting This suggests a wide ranging fish resource; however, the technology, watercraft, competing fishers, and type of fish sought for each fishery during the pre settlement period dictated a limited range standard. However, several of the early fisheries as far north along the coast Point served exclusively Cuban markets abroad such as Havana and Matanzas, rather than the local communities where the fishing was done The interesting dynamic here is that there were few Cuban fishers, most of them being of Bahamian or Ameri can descent. The biggest concentration appeared to remain in the Charlotte Harbor fisheries, which has an extensive history of rancho operations. For the sake of discussion, t h e market situation presents another conundrum of form related to the vague and obscure fishing grounds as a n intangible construct. The main question is to whom do es any fishing ground s apply? Since there was no permanent legal at that time instead serving as a temporary facility, a fishing grounds attac hed to it seems rather fluid, and without a reasonable confinement to any particular place, person, or group. In contrast, it is easier to understand the fishing grounds that attaches to a settlement since it is more permanently fixed as a place from which fishing occurs.

PAGE 352

352 The fishing grounds in this case, can be treated in an alternative reverse fashion indicating a suggestive This means that the fishing grounds from Cuba, since their markets supported this particular fishery, and extend ed fishing grounds of over 300 miles since additional harvests may have been taken In addition, the fishing grounds, as they were there was no permanent attachment through ownership. Since the fish were not delivered to American interests, this seems to make some sense. The ch osen market, in which the fishers sold their catches, would not matter when it comes to redefining the fishing grounds, though it appears as two different forms. Intangible manifestations act of fishing. Along the mid dle Florida Gulf Coast, and as already referenced, v arious historic accounts suggest ed that mullet were the most processed fish and that fishing was performed through the use of large seine nets and smaller cast nets According to Stearns (1887), t he prevalent type of fishing done from the fis heries of Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor were similar, with similar gear and other physical constructs. However, there were marked differences attributed to the act of fishing for the Cedar Keys Atlantic Coast. S tearns referenced only briefly how the act of fishing was influenced and formu lated within the fisheries. When it came to the act of fishing, Stearns was obviously concerned with the mor e physical manifestations of how fish were harvested and then processed, and how the fishers were organized.

PAGE 353

353 In the Cedar Keys, Stearns (1887) remarked that a me thod of blind hauling was done that resulted in a wide variety of fish and shellfish being cau ght. It was probably not a seine net type of pursuit since the shoals around the Cedar Keys were extremely grassy and filled with oyster beds, the latter of which would have wreaked havoc on the net materials though some fishers still employed it there T his suggests that some of the fishers were not likely influenced by their Ceda r Keys experience, and instead, brought their North Carolina methods forward since the mullet fishing there was historically based on being able to s ee the primary resource, which acquired a certain skill set beyond just dropping a net in the water and catching whatever happened into the net This may have been consternation for the original fishers who were in the Cedar Keys who were then prompted to look for better opportunities that seemed to coordinate nicely with the concurrent land boom taking place along the more southerly bay systems The presettle ment form p eriod fishers around the Florida Gulf Coast, as well as, those fishing and working along the North Carolina coastal areas were often part of what Stearns reported as fish gangs. Unlike the territorial gangs identified by Acheson team of fishers with varying skills, its captain, and the haul driver(s) or marketmen Also unlike the lobster gangs which were often based on a hierarchy of skills and local lineage, these gangs were of mixed origin and bearing, u complete his team. In some cases, locals were hired, but there is little evidence to suggest a kinship a rrangement existed in these pre settlement fisheries. Some of them

PAGE 354

354 were managed and owned by family members, such as in Charlotte Harbor by the Beacon brothers and later the Chadwick brothers one of who m would also own and invest in a Charlotte Harbor fishery by 1899 For example, a few small fisheries occurring around the bay systems of Tampa and Palma Sola were operated by relatives and c lose friends, but these were remarked by Stearns to be part time fishers who sold few fish, and operated more based on subsistence needs The act of fishing in pre of any intrinsic, personal desires, or special avocation from which the fishers could better themselves personally or practically. The living to fish attitude given to many Cortez fishers through the literat ure was not apparent during pre settlement times at the The a ct of fishing was really nothing more than a means for a living that did not pay well. In fact, Stearns repeated ly pointed out that most fishers were typically in debt, with most profits going toward sustaining the fishing enterprise. The lay structure was not much different than other fisheries in the United States where livings were earned as part of share systems. The indebtedness and insecurity of fishing as a trade has been written about extensively, so this is not surprising. That most, if not all of the fishers maintained no direct linkages with the local land based communities made it even more difficult financially and socially. The act of fishing appeared to be more of a burden that was difficult to come out from under once an investment into it w as made Granted, the captains and owners typically seemed to be much better off. In contrast to the fishers and crew, this is likely attributable to their local linkages.

PAGE 355

355 The couple of decades before the settlement period represented the beginning of a c hanging fishing ethic and connectedness with the natural environment as part of centuries long traditional methods The eventual passage of the recent Civil War into a longer term memory and recovery period shed new light on opportunity and investment in a dvances of fishing labor. While many will opine, myself included, about the dramatic and form changing effects from wind power to steam and fuel, or from the introduction of synthetic materials, the slow evolution of a changing vernacular landscape form ma y actually begin with the early ideas for reducing manpower in fisheries. Garrity Blake ( 1994) commented about how these types of advances would enable larger catches with fewer men While the railroad and steamboat certainly had their own course changing effects, they may have actually increased manpower due to increased production, and therefore, increased markets. More fishers were need to fill the demand produced by technological advances, but many would be inadvertently directed to the less than tradit ional components of the trade such as processing rather than direct fishing. The introduction of artificial ice is certainly most pertinent to any forthcoming argument here. Ice making and fish preservation through icing in hot, humid climates such as Flo rida changed how fish could be processed by actually. Fish no longer had to be gutted and could be frozen. While t his was apparently Point fishery by 1887, it was already established in the Cedar Keys. T he technology for creat ing artificial ice was discovered during the 1840s, so it had already been around for quite some time.

PAGE 356

356 The drive for maximizing fish harvests with most medium and large fisheries operations seems to fly in the face of any ecological considerations. The ac t of fishing with large nets was to earn income and provide sustenance either for family. It is unde rstandable how the hand craftedn ess of the act itself took on special meaning to fishers. The combination of the structure less vocation with the freedom of open water and the natural environment must have supported the sense of meaning. However, as competition and investments into the enterprise increased, and fish hauls for the small scale fisher did not, notions of ecological stewardshi p and traditional knowledge of the natural environment increased, or at least remained steadfast since the act of fishing continued in the vernacular sense, in spite of other changes. Certainly, as part of a long history, fisheries have been documented as being depleted due to overfishing. Without further research into the matter, it seems obvious that such depletions occu r r ed from too many fishers taking too many of a species in a relatively brief period of time that did not allow replenishment. This is b asic biology and ecology. Part of the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) includes these inherent characteristics of vernacular fishing skills, yet also is rounded by a knowledge of fishers that future harvests are dependent of some sy stem that avoids d epletion ( McGoodwin & FAOUN 2001). occasionally catch too many fish, causing many to be wasted. The rights of nature seemed to be preempted here for the sake of the catch as an act of fishing that was un planned and processed for maxim ization. The point here is that most vernacular fishing methods have a way of being self sustaining by their very nature. This is especially true for fishing, which, as a basically

PAGE 357

357 unchanged thousands y ear old p ursuit, really did not begin to move away from its complete set of vernacular handcraft forms until the mi d nineteenth century when sail began to decline, and fish preservation changed how they were processed So, the ecological belief system of pre settlement fishers represents a schism between the individual fisher who could make a living at fishing, was connected to family and land, and who could continue his traditional, learned system of fishing. The steepened knowledge, which was cumulative as p art of a local natural environment he was attached to, became in a way, a distinct ecological framework. This type of framework could not pervade other fishers and crews who were simply working to make a living, and did not have these other intrinsic conne ctions. Therefore, the ethics attributed to a fisher, and perhaps a small crew, were equally transferrable under those types of circumstances. Intangible manifestations e lapsed e xperiential The folklore of the pre settlement fishers is extremely limited and at first appears as nearly an empty set. attitudes and socio cultural dynamics taking place during that time. With regard to the pre two facets of the available cultures occurring at the time: a) that of the North Carolina roots of the ranch operators who were fading from the local area scene. In their detailed account of United States coastal fisheries along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from 1879 both Earll (1887) and Stearns (1887) included a modicum of keen observations about the attitudes and exp eriences of fishers living and working at

PAGE 358

358 various points along the two coasts. Earll remarked that in the Tidewate r region of the North Carolina C oast, most people who lived near water probably fished for sustenance. The topography of large bays, rivers, a nd estuaries connected to the sea through inlets provided hundreds of miles of access to both farmers and those wanting fresh fish to supplement their incomes and diets. Economic conditions resulting from the Civil War played an important role in shaping though none of them were likely direct participants in it. Instead, the aftermath effects may have influenced some of them to seek new opportunities based on stories about how things may have been better prior to the still raw schism with the Union. Because North Carolina had been a secessionist state, the lost cultural flux must have been strong for several decades after the 1877. History itself reveals the economic hardships encountered by many southerners after the Civil War ended. Facing a system of worthless monetary structure and enormous capital investment losses, m any southern towns also found a damaged built environment requ iring significant re covery efforts. Market connections and linkages were also depresse d or dried up and required long term recoveries. In a post war context, the number of refugees competing for jobs and basic living conditions also placed demands on a wor n out population. The emigration of Nor th Carolinians had actually begu n prior to the war, with approximately 30% of native North Carolinians exiting the state to places further west. Yet, these challenges also represented local opportunities that the youn settlers did not seem to favor. Perhaps, in a dding insult to the already injured economic

PAGE 359

359 structure, the 1879 fostered local s beginning to appear relatively cheap and widely available, and political ramifications from reconstruction overlays were not as strongly inculcated into the culture. Nevertheless, historic documentation suggest s that by the 1880s, the mullet fishing ind ustry in Carteret County was still going strong, second only to the harvests from Florida waters. This was partly due to post war improvements in transportation, such as newly surfaced roads and highways, re establishment of the railroad infrastructure, and steamer capabilities. These allowed a quick expansion of the c ommercial fishing industry ( North Carolina Museum of History, 2013 ). Improvements were also being made in fishing equipment and harvest methods, partly produced by Northerner influences and mul tiple attempts at profitizing the menhaden industry. It is known that the first menhaden factory was established in Carteret County by 1865 with several others following suit as they refined the business to improve its viability as a profit industry Ye t, a necdotal evidence suggests that some of the original settlers had a strong desire to move to Florida to provide the growing lumber industry at Cedar Keys with fresh fish (Green, n.d.). However, several North Carolina businessmen had already The appeal of Florida leaders to bring in new settlers worked in tandem with these circumstances. Considering these fa ctors that al l seemed to align, the lost cultural flux and continued sense of loss promi sed by a slowly recovering post war region isolated as it was, were probably revived as part of a new prosperity afforded to those who would leave and begin anew.

PAGE 360

360 Now, the foreign ranch o and commercial fishers from the Bahamas and Cuba dotting the mid Florida Gulf Coast during the late 1800s must have held a different elapsed experiential. Again, according to Stearns ( 1887), many of these fishers, especially the Bahamian s, were brought up in only fishing environments. In alluding to a vernacular sort of description, Stearns suggested early on that their expertise and knowledge of fishing was part of a hereditary process learned and handed down from their f orebear These p articular classes of fishers seemed to be highlighted by Stearns as more worldly in maritime grounding and bearing than their American fisher counterparts. Their acceptance into society was different in the Florida Keys versus the other fisheries north alo ng the Gulf Coast to the Cedar Keys. In Key West, for example, many had acculturated into the local society there, raising families, and becoming politically involved. However, as of 1880, Stearns wrote that there was vast difference between the older fis hers and their generation of sons. The older fishers seemed less able to adapt to improved methods of fishing, failing to give up their long standing traditional methods learned from their fathers, while their offspring were quite ready to adapt to changin g techniques. Stearns does not provide examples, though he did suggest that education levels were much different between the two generations, with the older fishers displaying an ignorance of sorts. This is surprising in that the traditional handcraft of f ishing was not formulated around a feeling of respect by Stearns as evidenced by his undetailed commentary on the subject. The elapsed experiential that reveals itself here is that there already seemed to be an ebbing of vernacular methods, most likely purer forms of artisanal fishing, and

PAGE 361

361 understanding that amounts to a sense of loss of a prior cultural flux that had sustained it for presumably numerous generations before that. Since Key West was the largest municipal ity and coastal port in Florida at the time, the availability of new methods, gear, equipment, and techniques was probably fascinating to the younger generations who envisioned more fruitful lives by adapting to these newer forms. In order to become Americ ans, and in essence, part of the American mainstream, this was a necessary course. Now, the Spanish Cubans did not seem to fare so well as the Bahamians. Stearns cited a disliking of them by American fishers in general, especially by those in the Cedar Ke ys, where the approximately 250 predominantly white fishers kept their distance fro m them. Again, like the older Bahamians, the Cubans were averse to changing from older, traditional methods, whether they were from their own cultures, or what they learned from Americans. The inability, or desire to adapt, did not mesh well with many of the North Carolina fishers who became part of that Cedar Key culture looking to improve their own standings in life after the challenges they faced in their native post war No rth Carolina. Though not a feeling shared by every fisher, t he squatting on prime fishery lands and fishing of the available resources from Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor by Cubans and Spaniards presented additional resentment, worsened even further by troubles brewing in Cuba at the time and the threat of yet an additional war with the Spanish. This feeling of resentment was actually ins erted into American culture and politics, even though many of these displaced Cuban fishers and their families had been living on the islands and fringe waterfronts along the Florida Gulf Coast for decades. While American citizenship and land ownership w er e a high priority

PAGE 362

362 for the the feeling was not mutual when it came to arguments of nationalism. This particular dynamic deserves a well studied research project that is beyond the scope of my study here. Discussion of the p re settlement period form The above descriptions though limited in the range of time continuum for historical descriptive circumstances, provide good examples of the magnitude of how the coasta l areas along the Florida Gulf C oast were already developed, and in some cases, overdev eloped with a documented built form, or a pre settlement form in the case of Stearns (1887) suggested that all of the buildings constructed along the coastal area there reflected similarities in design and construction, though he alluded to struct. This basic setup created the pre settlement water front conglomeration which can be illustrated through both historical documentation and contemporary conjecture. Again, b descriptions, a conceptual illustration of the pre settlement water front conglomeration at or near wa s possible as referenced previously as Figure 4 1 0 This knowledge increases the contextual backdrop for the historic study period beginning in 1887. With such endeavor s that at least some remnant of this activity was still present upon arrival by the first fisher settlers. While some human de forestation was very likely, the cabbage palm, palmetto, and pine sc rub upland s were probably still prevalent as cited by Stearns ( 1887) and also documented by Reid 846 survey of the Cortez coastal area ( Figure 4 12 ) Much of the mangrove shore fringes and islands were also wooded over by the time the settlers arrived. Whether in highly eroded ruins, scattered artifacts, or just

PAGE 363

363 a few clumps of debris, the pre settlement character of the historic study a rea whether contained within the actual study boundary or within a reasonable proximity like l y represented a debris field of the structure s of the commercial fishing operation described above Though Stearns cited the buildings of the operation as being of a higher, more permanent quality, a fact that he purposely clarifies from the other fisheries in the area, they still probably had an element of impermanence to them in that they were not homesteaded structures where such care and ongoing maintenance mi ght have been given them. It is likely though, that they were used right up to 1887. The impermanent character of the fishing enterprise did not mean that the built qui te an active place, perhaps even more so than after the first few years of the 1887 settlement date considering that at least 60 fishers were occupying six fisheries within a f ew miles of The pre settlement form that was phy sically manifested most likely represented a unique maritime vernacular landscape that revealed a network of stations oriented solely to commercial fishing enterprise; this is worthy of a separate study Considering this, the overall fishing construct s tha t spread throughout the coastal bay systems fr south along the coast to the Marco Island area established an interesting building mosaic as part of this wider historic cultural landscape However, th a t unique vernacular sy s tem of commercial fishing networks and individual operations quickly change d after a long established presence until the 1880s w hen permanent settlement and technology began to affect and change that somewhat entrenched version of the ever changing maritim e landscape

PAGE 364

364 Because the pre settlement form unique, mainly due to the limited breadth and temporary nature of its physical footprint and the differentiated circumstances of its intangible manifestations, it is not too difficult to discern a measurable fo rm change effect. Since the pre settlement form period has no prior form precedent as part of my study, it is unnecessary to include a significant affect to form table, as provided pursuant to Table 4 1 for th e more obvious affect to form occurring as part of a later, delayed analysis from the end of the historic study period Settlement F orm P eriod Occurring 1887 to 1897 Synopsis of the period The roughly 10 year settlement period represents the beginning, o r which becomes more defined as a fishing village now known as Cortez While it is the official beginning of a cultural form based on a kinship type of settlement structure, its physical form was most likely influenced by intensive commercial fishing activity that took place within the same tract of land, and the immediate bay area s The existing built infrastructure at if any was still extant at the ti me, was likely owned by a local, land based fisher or business group, for which a reference was traced back to and revealed It is known then, that commercial fishing represented the traditional landscape of the area based on the circumstances of this find ing. The settlement period occurred from 188 7 to 1897 when the original 13 parcels were surveyed and drawn up for sale by a local surveyor named E. B. Camp The se platted parcels were eventually purchased and repurchased along with seven additional p ropert ies to the east among 15 original settlers and one public entity as part of 20 separate transactions. All of these purchases, except one were by fishers native to

PAGE 365

365 North Carolina. The settlement form period represents a critical juncture in itself as encom passing the original development build out of the first official platting. This included the succession of individual land purchases up to when the final lot of th is original plat was purchased to complete the sale in full of the original platted lots the transition from a t emporary occupance to permanent then f ol lowed by rapid growth and development The plat, along with these initial land purchases e ffected a village layout form by actually giving it a distinct physical definition that could be examined into the future The common denominator of fishers being from North Carolina also effected a certain cultural aspect to the study that, admittedly, adds a richness of context. Certain indicator sets of the building mosaic form were changed through the focu s on creating a more permanent settlement versus a temporary fishing camp structure. Additional fisheries contextual buildings were also formed serving as a The oldest extant re sidential of less than five buildings extant from 1897 and earlier. Only two non residential/non fisheries buildings from the settlement period survive in 2013. It appears that the name of Cortez was attached much ea of the anecdotal literature suggests; the record appears to indicate a date of 1888, which suggests that permanence of place was an intended construct desired by those making, or considering land purchases. Since much of the extended vernacular had been already in the form of intensity, or the addition of similar form s on the physical vernacular landscape setti ng.

PAGE 366

366 The intangible form was represented by changes effected as part of the kinship culture whose trajectory was part of a closer knit cultural structure, as opposed to the motley assemblage of fishers as labor precedent occurring during the presettlement form period prior. Notable i ndividual critical junctures occurred in addition to the form period itself, which could be considered a distinct critical juncture, including a yellow f ever epidemic at the onset of the initial platting (1887 to 1888) which ma y have delayed some of the first land purchases (only three were sold within the first year), the introduction of the two story building (by 1890) governmental dredging (begun by 1891), the Financial Panic of 1893 to 1897 and t he first recorded fishing r elated death of a permanent fisher (1894) Table 4 2, which includes determinations of change for the form indicators, can be referenced as a primer for reading the following analysis of landscape form for the settlement form period. Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space The waterfront conglomeration during the settlement form period is a fairly documented archival record regarding village layout but is less clear regarding the building mosaic; while there is a standard of form for streets and parcels, the building mosaic lacks accuracy and orientation with regard to graphic evidence and extancy Therefore, it is presented here in as the recorded details allow interpretation as Figure 4 14 The e rected architectural form developed consistently along the waterfront regarding an early build construct that existed at the time of the first settlers arrival most likely included some building s and structures developed by fishers who did not have official, legal claims to the surrounding lands, since no record of indentures, deeds, or other agreements could

PAGE 367

367 be found. However, there is written evidence that several fishers, or fi sheries operator s referenced earlier, s uch as George Hats el and Solomon Sw ee tzer w ere operating from there out of buildings possibly erected and owned by them as separate from the underlying lands A s referenced earlier Stearns ( 1887) described part of this form from his study of the area in 1879 In building upon the existing and found construct by the original settler group, t he evolving f orm during the roughly 10 year settlement period also represent ed a n immediate evolution of form from rustic and temporary to basic and permanent. The The temporarily fashioned construct likely consisted of mixed materials brought to the site and gathered locally as part of the natural res ource availability pursuant to the original temporary fishing activities. The temporary nature of what some of the archival records suggest supports a dialogue indicating that the initial fishing construct along and over the water quickly transitioned int o a more permanent base of commercial and residential operations The reco rd also appears to indicate that some of the early fishers who would later be the stalwarts of the growing village, were most likely establishing the base of fishing operations while still living or working in the Cedar Keys and Palma Sola as evidenced by one of the first four settlers having been married in the Cedar Keys as late as 1893 T his transition between locales serves as a present indicator that can be construed as an intention toward a more purposeful permanence, limited the settler s investing ability which may have been guided somewhat by their financial net worth. However, by 1890, the more recent anecd o tal re cord suggests that more refined local

PAGE 368

368 yet still vernacular residences were already being constructed by them, such as the W. T. Fulford residence listed in the 1995 Cortez National Register nomination as constructed in 1889, and that there was enough demand fo r a retail store and supply operation at the waterfront supposedly in place by 1890 According to archival photographs, t he erected construct at the water/land interstice was, in fact, the quintessential conglomeration of quickly erected vernacular sq u ar es and re ctangle s connected to larger pier systems as lineal features supporting net spreads and access walkways erected between them. The construction method here appeared to be dominated by vertically hu ng, single wall forms with shed and gable roof syst ems. The piers appear to have been assembled most often using plank lengths that ran parallel to the run of the piers rather that perpendicular, as would define the ir later designs This method of construction appears to have served as a time saver in con struction, as well as, an efficiency preference, since longer board lengths could be purchased off site at less expense rates than smaller cut boards. Based on the historic photographs available, this would have required at least the construction of a box frame attached to pilings that met the bay floor, and were somehow driven in, and then extended above the water line to a height that also allowed them to be revealed up to six feet for other attachments and uses. The first three land purchases which occurred within the first seven months of each other suggest a desired focus on the earliest development along the western fringe waterfront. This also suggests the existence of a previous construct at this location referenced during the pre settle ment form period earlier as suggested by (1887) fishing grounds chart from 1879 that pinpointed the fish eries locations

PAGE 369

369 Interestingly, the first purchases were by fishers who resold their land without establishing permanent homesteads. This fact seems to attach an importance to the parcels, either as retaining some prior development value such as existing structures, or known location. The earliest nautical charts a nd coas tal survey progress charts from the 1870s indicate the extreme western tip channels closest to the west shoreline, though it also appears that a fairly deep channel occurred toward the inner harbor area toward the east, but without the closeness to the land afforded by from the extreme west It makes sense, that the earlies t activities at would have occurred here, and that the more permanent architectural construct also began to establish itself The apparent limitation, or change in future exacerbation of a mo re developed waterfront at the west shore would have likely been due to the availability of it by the two parcels that represented it The less lengthy, south platted shoreline was available by twice as many (four) parcels, though the addition of an after the fact parcel (numbered 14 ) in 1889 by W. T. Fulford created a slightly longer south shoreline, which was then made even longer with the subsequent purchases occurring after the settlement form period However, as the internal parcels not having water access were purchased through 1892, the southern waterfront area became more established simply because of the increase in new settlers purchasing the platted lots along its shore, as well as, the lots to the north of it, that were probably given an implie d waterfront connection through the north/south oriented street system. So, it most likely took about three years, by 1890 or 1891, for the southern shore to begin to develop in a more substantial manner than

PAGE 370

370 the other shore areas because of how the 1887 p lat was laid out. In addition, the north south street orientation probably allowed some individual squatting above the tidal areas and the open water evidenced through a dense development of camps and processing facilities that would have been available fo r construction and access because of the street system. The western shoreline was not accessible by any street system at the time. Th ese circumstances m ay explain the need by the earliest land purchasers to clarify their riparian rights, which can be found through recorded deed instruments Th e tightly erected construct of semi permanent buildings that probably dotted the western fringe waterfront probably reached an early build out during the first few years with the development of the Fulford Hotel compl ex, and later development of the individual, property adjoined fish houses and dock systems represented by the adjacent land owners where no public access was available. The apparent proliferation of a more permanently constructed waterfront enterprise bec ame even more concentrated as the southern shore land owners began to construct small camps for other fishers, who could, in turn, either provide a rental income or in kind exchange to the land owners, or assist them as crew members. Before submerged land laws were enforced in Florida, it is likely that at least some of the original land owners sold or rented tracts of land that were probably submerged at least part of the time. This is evidenced later, perhaps around 1910 or so, in the case of Millard Brow n, whose store appeared to be constructed beyond the legally delineated waterfront boundary of the 1887 prescribed p arcel 12 by then later subdivided into a 10 parced tract

PAGE 371

371 Additional evidence suggests implied exchanges of certain use rights such as dock space for fish houses, such as one by Jess Williams after 1906. There were likely other such local transactions, some made as verbal agreements suggesting a vernacular form o f land exchange (i.e., without formality of legal documentation) not dissimilar to how actual, physical materials are r e used. This notion of land exc h a n g e, and build up of the waterfront, not only by land owners, but also by others who may not have had a fully vested eventual legal action taken between two parties during the early 1930s indicating that such a dynamic did occur. In this case, the use of an erected structure over the water, and the ownership of the construct were being debated. Again, the development of a retail operation within the first three years of settlement, suggests a quickly growing built construct that also quickly trans itioned into a permanent settlem e n t beyond the tempor ary notions of just a fish camp. Historic records suggest a peculiarity of store owners were arriving from the Midwest Point such as the Brattons from Ill inois and as a comparison, the Johnsons, also from Illinois, who opened t he first store near Punta Gorda. W ritten records continued to refer though this is somewhat of a misnomer, since the permanent, two story residences were also being completed by that time by the original settlers, suggesting that an early aspiration and intent of the settlers also focused on wider business ventures of land leasing and resale, agriculture, and early form s of recreational tourism for both subsistence and profit Therefore, the waterfront and over the water construct developed in a more substantial, though not necessarily quicker manner than the upland commercial and residential constructs did.

PAGE 372

372 This suggests a dense construct at just beyond the shoreline and open water harbor areas, and a more thinly d eveloped construct among the purchased lands. The control of the land and tidal areas in this manner also favored later upland subdivisions that would meet the needs of the developing kinship cultural construct. Based on the written record, including but n ot limited to the local county tax reports census data, and private directories, the first three and one half years of the settlement form period probably saw a t least 10 fishers using the lands and their associated waterfront areas that would later define part of the Cortez fishing village boundary Th e number of fishers was more t han the number of land purchasers during th is time. B y 1895, the number of land purchases would nearly double, but the increased number of fishers a ccording to local census records, suggest ed a much quic ker rise in fishers versus land ow ners This reflects a strong fish camp construct, supplemented by the Fulford Hotel, already in place by then. S everal early fishers who o int, could even have built their own camps along the eastern south shoreline area until they were able to purchase some of the lands that connected them to the applicable shore front age. Under either scenario, and by the end of the settlement form period, there were 1 5 original settlers (not including children but including the Bratton couple as two because of her strong influence on the development of the village ) and at least 30 fishers. This accounts for a sparse upland residential construct supported by historic photographs, and a dense waterfront and tidal construct occupied by both land owners with a focus on stability, itinerants who also focused on some future stability, and others who did not achieve stability in the growing village.

PAGE 373

373 By the end o f the settlement form period then the overall construct would have been established as a completely vernacular set, constructed by the local land purchasers through shipments of materials to the site by schooner and cart with little, if any influence fro m professional designers and construction companies. The record indicates that J. Felts a local carpenter from Palma Sola constructed many of the early 1890s Cortez homes (Hall, 1986). Felts most likely had a close connection with J. E. Guthrie, who also owned land near Felts at nearby Palma Sola during the mid 1880s. The use of traditional know how based on established building practices of the time were used that did not necessarily inco rporate any local or regionally biased standard, other than materials, which would have been pine cedar, and perhaps cypress for the water oriented constructs. The vernacular construct, especially regarding the permanent residential buildings, developed throughout this period was a blend of diffused practices for constructing dwellings that could have been found throughout Florida and the elsewhere in the United States, deriving from the I house desi gn of two stories and two rooms wide, side gables, and a rear wing or ell Other than the materials being locally fav ored in building completion, the locational circumstances likely warranted the placement of the buildings and structures in a special alignment with the water sun and off water breezes; however, these practices did not seem to present themselves as a com mon construct Instead, the orientation of the residential building mosaic seemed more predicated on the established orientation of the plat. The tidal area buildings and structures were oriented according to access by watercraft, and thusly the available channels, and their connection to the primary fisheries buildings. Again, these practices did not necessarily reflect a regionally distinct

PAGE 374

374 or new introduction, only a commonly used practice found in other similar coastal communities, in spite of some of the written record suggesting transference from North Carolina precedents. Now, having limited the interjection of some special, local or regional flavor, there or fr om regi onal areas up to the Cedar Keys where some of the fishers spent time. B ased on the photographic record and identifiable use patterns, it is logical to s uggest here that decisions to build residential properties directly on or away from the waterfron t were already established as part of the applied vernacular generative thinking process. The original waterfront did not appear to ever reflect a residential character. This could have been based on learned or handed down experience with the demands and p erils of placement in such vulnerable way s or it could have been part of the business vernacular for accommodating the intended and emerging commercial fishing enterprise, especially since the waterfront areas were more individualized and separate, rather than common among the community. The fisher settlers could have understood the importance of reserving the waterfront for such purposes, based on historic use precedents, whereas, private residential would have used up the primary value of the land. Anoth er reflection of local vernacular incorporation could have been inserted into how the camps were constructed. In this case, they were obviously placed in the tidal areas on piers or elevated on pilings above the water line It is unclear if the original pi lings were driven into the bay bottom, or if they were stabilized by concrete surrounds. Beard (1914) instructed that pilings could be driven into muddy bottoms by attaching a

PAGE 375

375 log to two piles and then physically jumping on them by able men. For sandy bay bottoms, creosoted pilings were slipped into old barrels placed under the water, and then filled with rock or gravel. Since the early nautical survey records reveal a soft sandy bay bottom, the latter would have worked best The use of what appeared to b e cypress materials applied in mostly vertical configurations is intriguing. Lacking a predominant use of exterior batten s trips according to early photographs, the less permanent character of the flush application of siding to the camp buildings reflecte d an easily assembled and repaired construct that could be capped with wood or metal panels While important, the builders recognized the intensive function and prolonged wear that these buildings would be subjected to, and therefore, did not invest much into their design or construction. The extended vernacular con s truct did not represent a di stinct form change at physical increase in it and how it was laid out over the landscape The camps, net works, dock systems, and nets would have been remarkably similar. The appearan ce of steamer watercraft in the area, probably before 1890, was the biggest form change pertinent to the watercraft form indicator. While the steamer construct was much larger than the typical spritsail skiffs used by the local fishers, its shape as a wate rcraft form was also much different. The double masted schooners that were still in use would have been closer in size to the steamer but the detailed forms were again much different. While steam had already been prevalent in other areas by the 1870s such as Apalachicol a, its appearance along the mid Florida Gulf C oast by the end of the 188 0s went hand in

PAGE 376

376 hand with a changing vernacular that was emphasized and already in place at the turn of the century. Some previous studies of Cortez discuss ed the use o f space there as incorporating orientation to the laid out village construct. The emphasis seemed to be pointed at how all of the first streets led to the waterf ront. However, this assumption does not appear to be supported by any factual basis, since t he first land purchasers did not seem to offer any input into this In fact, the layout of found in many other fishing communities. The most notic eable is how the waterfront was privatized, and the lack of a parallel waterfront street to allow retail and wholesale integration. Additional discussion about spatial considerations that is more fisher oriented was focused on the separation of transient f ishers from the property owners and the formation of fish camps out over the water, creating a virtual lived in community away from the upland village. In a way, this extension of the livable community represented a thematic form of village design not pres ent in other types of settlement villages outside of the TFV construct. Lacking ice, fish hauls during the settlement period were mostly preserved with salt and, to a lesser extent, smoke curing for personal use While ice was available in nearby Palma, t he supply. This would not occur until after the turn of the century when a small icehouse was constructed. T he use of salt involved gutting the fish, rubbing and filling them with salt, and st oring them in barrels. These barrels were then sent by schooner to other processing facilities, or were taken directly to them immediately after unloading a catch.

PAGE 377

377 Some of Palma Sola fisheries used a brine solution for fish preservation. The timing of this would have had to been nearly perfect, and it is likely that m any prepared loads of fresh fish became spoiled and unusable. Mullet does not store well due to its high acidity, so the cost of storing has always been at odds with the proces s paid for it by the pound ( Cato & McCullough 1976). The availability of ice as more of a luxury during the settlement form period certainly transform ed the process, as well as, the space utilized. For example, the lar ge ice houses that were constructed in other communities to store the large chunks of ice, often up to 200 pounds and at two feet square with a thickness of 12 inches. Sawdust was then applied over the ice as an insulator to slow its melting. Much later, w hen ice was readily available and lo cally processed the fish were harvested and unloaded at the dock, where they were immediately iced and packed in 100 pound boxes ( Brad enton Herald, February 2 1952). Earlier, however, they were packed in special barrels or large boxes used for packing sa l ted fish (Green, n.d. ). The packing of fish such as mullet in North Carolina and several New England States during the late nineteenth century was regulated. The size of the barrel and the method used to salt, or dress the mullet was done according to cer tain protocols where a government inspection finding of incorrect procedure could produce a hefty fine (U.S. Fish Commission, 1899). Village layout form indicator set Boundary Only anecdotal evidence is available to date that offers suggestions for by a group of fishers who seemed to have connections with each other prior to its settlement. It would be a wasted exploration to conclude that m ere happenstance or dumb luck was behind

PAGE 378

378 s Point being chosen as a place for the initial settlers It is apparent from the pre settlement form period discussion earlier in association with the wider economic and political trends taking place at the time that the mid Florida Gulf C oast presented op portunities for those knowledgeable of its resources. The reasonable researcher would also surmise th at there must have been strong desires by the settlers in establishing a fishery that would allow them to ply a traditional trade of fishing they were most ly familiar with, not only as crew members working for others, but as captains of operations and as self willed entrepreneurs The defined, orig inal boundary for the historic study area began as a subdivision of the U.S. Government Lot 3 delineation survey in September of 1887 by land surveyor E. B of the original owner, a northeasterner from Rhode Island who did not appear to ever occupy or ho mestead any of t he nearby lands, as referenced under the pre settlement form period documentation and analysis Basically resembling the south west ern quarter section of a circ le the 1887 subdivision consist ed of three sides including a northern boundary delineated as a st reet, the east boundary formed by the sides of three vertically oriented parcels and the natural shoreline running westerly and then northerly from the southeast corner in a semicircular path to close the boundary shape at its westernmost point ( Figure 4 1 5 ). This original subdivision of just under 20 acres established a surveyed boundary for what would become the historic fishing village of Cortez, and repre sents the first definable form of the historic study area from which the cultural effects are evalu ated forward

PAGE 379

379 The original 15 settlers purchased parcels consisting of the 1887 subdivision, including additional parcels that expanded parceled o wnership beyond this original boundary by 1897 as shown in the graphic tile set in Figure 4 1 6 E xcepting the 1912 school boundary, the village would eventually expand further by a near doubling of its east/west length toward what is now determined by 119 th Street. This eventual expans ion would more than triple the s ize of the village to approximately 70 acres from the 1887 subdivision area The settlement form period shoreline was dramatically different than its 2013 configuration as shown earlier in F igure 4 6 Based on archival warranty deeds and legal descriptions, as well as, historic maps and ph otographs, the filled in waterfront expanded the original shoreline seaward by well over 230 feet at some points. In Figure 4 6, t he vertical dashed line represents the eastern extent of the 1887 boundary (not to scale) Parcel configuration The settlement period of 1887 to 1897 includes the addition of lands to the original 1887 subdivision increasing the original 13 platted parcels to 20 parcels ; however, the first internal subdivision of any of those parcels would not occur until 1907. So, it is reasonable, as part of my study, to frame the growth of the village as part of these initial purchases prior to internal land subdivisions. Even though land speculation could have been part of the reason for the original settlers to purchase, it represe nts a different aspect of village growth beyond settlement, especially since nearly all of the original purchasers up until 1897 established some permanency there

PAGE 380

380 Including the 1887 subdivision plat promulgated by Gardiner, three additional subdivisions took place during the settlement form period. subdivision, the initial subdivision encompassed 13 parcels totaling approximately 20 acres consisting of seven 1 acre parcels, and six larger parcels b etween 1.77 acres and 2.27 acres each ( Figure 4 15 ) It is unclear why the 13 parcels were configured into six with waterfront frontage and seven internal, with a north south system of four streets leading to the south shore, and a single north boundary road leading to the west shore. T wo of the 1887 parcels appear to have been somehow assigned to two unknown persons named Fa ries ( parcel 5) and Lene ( parcel 11). However, no record s of these purchase transactions have been found to date. The first propert y sold according to land purchase agreement dates was parcel 5 by J. T. Flowers on Oct o ber 6, 1887 ; this was only a month after the subdivision drawing was completed. The second purchase occurred several months later by W. J. Foreman during January 1888. H owever neither of these individuals is cited by any of the popular literature as being one of the original five fishers though they did both appear to have linkages to them. Both were actual l y residents of Palma Sola and Perico Island, respectively, and owned property there, with Flowers holding land interests as a neighbor to J. E. Guthrie and his Palma Sola land holdings. Foreman too, was linked to Guthrie through familial ties of his first wife making them relatives by marriage The irony of this rela tionship lies in the fact purchases until 1890, allowing five other settlers before him access to the lands for purchase.

PAGE 381

381 Joseph Fulford was actually the third land purchaser by 1888, and was a brother to William Nathan and Sanders who are also cited as the original settlers. The first have be en W T. Fulford who signed a lan d purchase agreement in April 1889. Since he represents the first of the original settlers who would stay permanently though delaying his purchase for nearly 19 months after the initial subdiv ision, it strengthens the argument that neither he n or any of the future fisher settlers had any influence on this first village layout form. This is further supported by the fact that his purchase was a site planned purchase out of the U.S. Government Lot 3 and not as an official plat addition t o the 1887 recorded subdivision. Instead, it is an after the fact consideration that carved out a new parcel 14 of approximately 2.1 acres from the larger U.S. Government Lot 3 essentially adjoining and expanding the east boundary of the original 1887 vil lage boundary F rom the earlier pre settlement form discussion, Lot 3 was the larger U.S. Government Lot that totaled 61.3 acres as referenced on Samuel Figure 4 1 2 ) which was purchased in its entirety by the Gardiners. This additional lot by the first cited permanent fisher began to effect a n altered and revised form of the original boundary. Again, as history attempts to reveal and compl ete the transactions of the oft cited first five Cortez settlers, as well as, the complete set of t he original subdivided parcels, and according to deed agreement dates, the second property purchase d by a future permanent settler is dated May 21, 1889 by D. S. Fulford (known as Sanders), who purchased parcel 5 at the northwest corner. This was actually a repurchase of land from J. T. Flowers who was the very first purchaser back in 1887. Surprisingly, and not in

PAGE 382

382 alignment with who were the first settlers of the seventh purchase is dated March 14 1890 by W. J. Forem an, who purchased parce ls 3 and 8 running from the northerly delineated street south to the waterfront. This added to his earlier purchase of parcel 13, creating a linear land holding spanning from the waterfront north to the village boundary, an extensive, and perhaps the most valuable of all of the eventual holdings since most of the village commercial activity would occur within and along these parcels Though Foreman was reportedly from North Carolina, he did not appear to be a highly dedicated fisher either Instead he was an agricultural producer, and apparently, a land speculator. Not surprisingly, J. T. Flowers also a ppeared to be a land speculator and entrepreneur, though he had also been c ited as being a fisher Flowers can be documented to have hawked health elixirs fo r sale to anyone who would buy them. The addition s of Foreman and Flowers as jacks of all trades and not as purely dedicated fi sher s and as part of the original settlement form is interesting in that it indicates an apparent economi c market conducive to a just established group of settlers around open purchases of lands. One cannot help but inquire about the promise of the fishing industry at the time where a retail operation could survive in such isolation. A specific q uestion that der i ves from this asks w hy the retail store was able to establish itsel f so quickly. This leans toward a pre established commercial need. It is apparent that standing and that the fishery resources were stil l plentiful. Prior connections and networks had already begun, as well. This quickening of settlement after temporary occupances indicates a strong propensity of for growing in a rapid pace through 1897

PAGE 383

383 when 24 lots overall were purchased o r repurchased and numerous buildings and structures were erected especially at the waterfront and tidal areas The attractiveness, or ripeness of emerging settlements to distinct groups of business people who were not part of its dominant trade, was part of the growth of Florida as a n apparent paradise. While there may not have been any specific influence by them on cultural context of the form, they certainly had the ability to add to it. Understanding the purchase dates for the first propertie s allows a better understanding of how began to be settled and how it began to take shape and develop form. By the time of N. in 1892 four of the originally subdivided parcels had still not be en purchased by any of the fishers. Parcels 4, 2, 9, by 1894, and finally parcel 1 and a n outparcel school site in the order of their transactions, would finally complete the bui ld out of the 1887 subdivision by 1897, where expansion, and therefore, alteration of the bou ndary was ongoing. It is important to note that the village original boundary form began to expand even before the 1887 plat parcels were fully purchased. The fact that the last properties to be purchased were landlocked is not clear since it appears th at additional waterfront lands available to the east could have been carved out by N. F ulford who did not choose to do so even though he was a fisher This may have resulted from the ki nship premise in that the adj oining parcel to the south was held by hi s brother, which in essence established a single, large familial compound. Also, based on the historical topography, the waterfront areas to the east appe a red to have less waterfront access since they were rather swampy and wooded, filled with mangroves and increased wetland indentations ; these

PAGE 384

384 topographical elements may have made them less desirable to at least certain commercial fishers The eighteenth tran saction by L. J. C. Bratton (Mrs. Bratton) dated November 28, 1896 is important to note since it would prove to have a special impact on the landscape form of the growing village As a married couple, Mrs. Bratton and her husband William became very involve d in the development and social life of Cortez. Though they were from Illinois and not from Nort h Carolina, and not considered to have been quintessential fishers, they held title to several acres of land in Cortez and other areas to the east Th e prime real estate in Cortez would really prove to be t heir purchase of the linear strip of lands designa ted as parcels 3, 8, and 13 from W. J. Foreman. This land purchase has increased significance since it was nearly four acres, giving them the fo u rth largest holdings at the time, and because it represented the primary non fisheries retail operation in the burgeoning village Though the Brattons arrived toward the end of the settlement period in 1896, they quickly began developing their portion of the waterfront of parcel 13 from the two story, side gable, frame store that was already there since at least 1890. Their contribution would give a non characteristic stylistic definition to the more vernacular water front conglomeration with the expansion of the existing 1890 waterfront store into a hotel, and the development of the first lar ge wharf to acc ommodate the run boats servicing Cortez. The pyramidal roof character of the retail building constructed at the end of the wharf added a dist inct, untypical vernacular form that served as the first marina facility, while the hotel expansion adjoining the e xisting two story store structure served as a place for visitor lodging and a sundries operation Since D. S. Fulford is

PAGE 385

385 appears that there must have been some compe tition between the two The development of the Bratton dock structure seemed to coincide with the initial dredge cuts in the bay systems by the U.S. Army between 1891 and 1895 suggesting some speculation of increased water traffic and accessibility positi vely affecting the economy of Cortez. There may have also been some business relationships be tween the Brattons and fishery outsiders such as John Savarese and Henry Hibbs, whose fisheries businesses were booming at the time from Tampa and St. Petersburg, respectively. Hibbs had over 200 fishers by 1896 and operated a fish house out of Cortez, as well as, from Disston City (present day Gulfport), and nearby Terra Ceia. Hibbs was from Newport, North Carolina, so it would not have been difficult for him to es tablish personal and business connections with the fishers and landowners at Cortez, w ho happened to be from Carteret County, North Carolina along the Atlantic coast. Savarese, who was not from North Caro lina, held title to several run boats that served th e area and was a nother relative by marriage to J. E. Guthrie. In referring he fact that the 1887 plat was created before any of the recorded deed dates by the fisher purchasers does not rule out the possibility that informal meetings and discussions took place between Mary Gardiner as the seller and the fishers as interested parties This would have includ ed Flowers and Foreman as the first buyers, who had some keen knowledge of the area and the platted configuration perhaps in co ncert with J. E. Guthrie. T he resulting plat could hav e been designed according to a local understanding of the nput from them However, in revisiting the early addition of

PAGE 386

386 parcel 14 by W. T. Fulford, it seems unlikely that such discussions occurred. At least it suggests that preference for lands were not included in the 1887 subdivision. So, for the purposes of construing the original village layout form at settlem ent it is accurate to conclude that it evolved over a 10 year period that expanded organically beyond its original boundary to accommodate the needs and desires of t he fishers that purchased lands in an irregular manner, but that seemed to benefit the kinship arrangement Circulation The 1887 plat provided for four north/sout h streets and a single north boundary street running east to west ; this represent ed the original upland circulation pattern The latent anecdotal discussions suggest that these streets, as designed travel ways were limited to the platted area with no established connections to areas to the north and east of the village during the early settlement period. Because of the land s ales taking place at that time it is very likely that access streets were already in place as crudely developed trails that ran eastward, and then northerly toward the Palma Sola area, which was the nearest developed area by the end of the settlement peri od. The se traveled routes most likely became worn as sandy paths on which continual use often establish de facto c irculation patterns. Green (n.d. ) cited the roads as being sandy at least until 1908, when they were then surfaced with locally available oyster shells Since gas powered vehicles were not present during the settlement form period, various form s of surreys and wagons were used for hauling and land based transportation. Therefore, while the standard, modern garage was not yet an e stablished structure of the residential construct, other structures for housing the lesser

PAGE 387

387 vehicles and perhaps the animals that powered them were probably in place along the circulation paths These paths were pre designed, so there is no real evidence tha t natural circulation paths emerged or altered the designed patterns. Neverth e less, the condition of the travel ways through Cortez and outward from it continued to be similar to sandy trails characterized by rutted sections making land travel a major task As lands outside of the 1887 subdivision were purchased, the northerly boundary road continued to ex tend eastward and a new north/south road would accommodate W T. F acce ssible streets. The development of a new street, Bayview Avenue, the one block long section of street from 125 th Street to 124 th Street Court, then known as First and Seconds Streets, respectively, probably began to take shape through parcel 13 as part of retail ve ntures. Notwithstanding the pre designed character of the circulation pattern up to this time, the use of this area as a community activity center dictated the official designation through a subseq uent subdivision plat, but one that not occur until 1912. Given the arduous journey expected from land travel during the settlement period, water transportation was still the most efficient means of movement by the settlers though the community remained relatively isolated A decent road out of Cortez to plac es like Palma Sola and Braident own were still crude paths through thick undergrowth of palmetto bushes, some of it requiring the traversing of low lying wetlands. T he average amount of time for a boat trip to points along the Manatee River could have taken an entire day by sail depending on the wind and weather. Yet, even as late as 1916, schooner travel to the local towns was often done in large groups by

PAGE 388

388 willing settler captains (Eaker, 1994 ). So, t he importance of the water approaches to the settlement village, as it began to orient itself to the retail component now in place on the southern shoreline at parcel 13, cannot be understated as the first vestiges of a dominant built form beg a n to take sh ape there. Th e waterfronts at the ends of Second and Third Streets (124 th Street Court and 1 24 th Street, respectively) historically served as the primary gathering place s for itinerant watercraft and the villagers and visitors who frequented the shoreline and the retail operations there The activity also served to demarcate an area around which the c ommerc ial fishing center of the town and the developm ent of the extended vernacular construct along and over the w ater most like ly began to form It should also be noted that the land purchase agreements also helped to define the street system such as reserving equal splits of half chain strip s (32.5 feet) as part of the deed instruments. Subsequent purchases and repurchases would occur steadily thr ough 1909 that would further affect both the street configuration and the boundary of the settlement. Building mo saic form indicator set Since historic documentation reveals established pre settlement commercial fishing activity there is possibly an influence of built form that could have guided the first buildings and structures of the settlers. This could hav e resulted in a reused, partially built construct of fish camps and dock systems. It is possible too, that no purely nat ural or pristine form defined the shoreline and upland areas where the settlement began to develop as fishers arrived and cleared tracts, constructed buildings and structures, and established longer terms of occupance Instead, the already manipulated envi ronment could have included an altered landscape

PAGE 389

389 of sporadic vegetation rising slightly above a previously developed remnant of wooden fish processing buildings, perhaps some constructed with wood board ed sides and flat or gable roofs mixed with local nat ural materials such as palmetto logs and thatch Additional building remnants such as the fish camps (sleeping quarters) and even net camps including thos e described by Stearns (1887) from 1879 may a lso have been extant at the time serving as a model or as usable footprints or for foundation supports. When the original settlers arrived they most likely also found remnants of the ranch o complex cited as being in the area, along with a disturbed, but still mostly natural environment that may have been excessively timbered, but without any significant, more permanent structures. At this point, depending on the c ondition of what the earlier campers and fishers left behind, the form of the built environment began as the se ttlers were next influenced by how the lay of the land was divided into purchasable parcels. Such divisions of land obviously affect future built form since the limitati ons of space and land usage set a pre conceived development form in the mind for the max imum use of the land. This process of forming in the mind of what can be built is predicated on the intended function. Residential buildings and appurtenances Simply building a house to live in is not the same as building one that is oriented to a workin g environment, or one that has multiple functions. For example, while commercial fishing may be the primary intent of function and use of a property, gardening for sustenance may also fit into the mind of the fisher who ensures adequate orientation for lar ge tracts of land to accommodate this. Local gardens were a distinct part of Tidewater South villages and fishing communities, in general.

PAGE 390

390 Chiarappa (2005) said that the landscapes of the pound net fisheries in the Great Lakes were always visually connected to the shore. This is a valid argument for many fisher villages, and is perh aps true to a degree in what would be come with its street system that terminated at the water ; this resulted in the appear ance of the street form to con tinue in another form into the open bay and the construct erected there However, with at least half of the settlement parcels being landlocked and removed from the water, there is doubt that the importance of a residential to the stre et that did convey into the bay was a matter of extreme importance. Based on historical photographs and existing building footprints, there does not appear to have be en any set pattern or method for residential building placement. It is known th at the first substantial and permanent residence, and perhaps the first major building in the settlement, as built by W T. Fulford is still extant and was constructed facing west several hundred feet away from the waterfront as the dictate of the street d irected What is most important is the placement of the structure away from the water, nearer to the northerly property boundary, with an apparent reserve closer to the shoreline for intended commercial fishery operations. It appears from the record that D. S. Fulford developed his western shoreline in a more purposeful, water oriented manner in that the complex of a single one story building with two story residential units attached was built nearer to th e water in order to be m ore am e nable to visitor ap preciation of the waterfront, rather than as part of a ritualistic orientation to the waterfront that is often cited as a requirement in the fisher vernacular of maritime building tradition In other words, it seems there was less intent toward commercial fishing for this construct and more toward waterfront tourism. There

PAGE 391

391 is a caveat to this train of thought, however, in that D. S. Fulford could have developed his property with a water orientation in a way that also s erved the burgeoning fishing en t e rprise by accommodating other fishers looking to settle in the village. The waterfront orientation would have made sense in this respect as temporary housing that also afforded dockage. Since the original settlers mostly hailed form coastal North Carolina, and some documentation suggests transference of built traditions, a search was performed for vernacular structures within C arteret County, North Carolina for shared similar ities of cont extuality, and timeframe s Some congruen t tidbits were evident, but only with enough sufficiency to make a couple of generalized statements not detailed enough as conclusive evidence of any revealed cultural pattern, such as whitewash paint and yard picket s As part of a larger regional diffusion ( Kniffen, 1936 ), vernacular structures in the coastal south were similar in form, but with no significant nuances found that reflected localized adaptations Many descriptions of coastal North Carolina describe th e individual communities there as being isolated and reflecting characteristics of being seafaring towns located directly on the water. This description could be used for any number of coastal communities in the South historically, so there seems to be no significant revelation here An improved and usable description would also include details that factual ize the local vernacular between the two and how they share the architectural forms of one and two story dwellings, with both front and side gabling a common basic form found in buildings.

PAGE 392

392 The early residential construct of the settlement period strongly favored the I house form representing a plai n and easy design with a wood, rough lumbered frame. There was often a single front entry centered, with off set gable windows evident in the settlement period houses. The typical exterior siding was horizontal clapboard that provides some indication of a h igher quality structure. Many of the non residential structures at or over the water were clad in vertical siding arrangements. The early houses were often constructed in phases such as the 1889 W. T. Fulford house, which is documented as beginning as a single story structure and later modified as a two story residence While this was certainly possible, that earlier configuration would not have matched historic buildings occurring at the time. It eventually received a cross house configuration with lowe r and upper porch projections. Most of the settlement period residences included this feature, also known as a verandah, and was typical of the Tidewater South residences ( Noble & Geib, 1984) All of the early documented structures appeared to be elevated between two and three feet on top o f concrete or brick piers. Th ese types of treatments along with the added verandah are perhaps the signature diffused elements, though the verandahs also appear in other regions. Exterior architectural adornments were a lso minimal on the settlement period residential buildings, reflecting a functional purpose of structure as shelter that could be relocated and disassembled, as necessary. One major difference is that in Beaufort, North Carolina, many of the vernacular str uctures seemed to have had cupolas, or Cortez there is no evidence of a predominance of historic structure s with that type of exterior form addition based on

PAGE 393

393 historic photographs and documentation. The use of t his system in North Carolina allowed the spotting of mullet running along the bay harvest grounds, obviously an erected type of form determined by its applicability to a fishing method. Since whaling was a long standing traditional fishing occupation in North Carolina, the walks were used even earlier for the spotting of whales beached along the shoreline Thicker analyses could reveal direct adaptations of these types of form indicators if they are found to have be en an influence at Cortez For example, one internal form detail indica te s the use of specialized venting systems as above porch attachments that were widely used along the North Carolina coastal areas to increase air ventilation. However, this type of form addition even if found on Cortez structures, speaks too little to as sessing form in the wider landscape. Since my study does not place a remarkable significance on minimal degrees of form that represent microscopic considerations of form adaptation and influence, there is no necessary discussion that follows this tangent unless the otherwise minor detail somehow provides significance to the landscape form The basic vernacular construct of residential buildings during settlement then, represents a distinguished vernacular of mostly two story, wood frame structures with sid e gable roof systems using locally available pine and cypress materials They were mostly rectangular in their basic footprint changed later by mostly rear additions, or ells. This represents the first and dominant erected form that seems to have been alig ned with regard to similar vernacular constructs found in other communities in the area and around the region.

PAGE 394

394 Nuances in the individual designs are evident in how they were ultimately detailed, but still lacked the ornamental detailing found in later hou ses. Partial and wrap porch extensions were common to the highest percentage of these buildings. Clapboard exterior siding placed horizontally also appeared to be the most common application A few owners constructed storage units for animals and wagons. E very residence would have included a t least one water tank on the i r property to at least catch rainwater, though there is evidence suggesting that an artesian well was also located within the village and that some residences di d not have water tanks for potable use Most water tanks woul d have had flat covers as part of a catchment system, while some had conical or gabled covers. However, the residential construct is a limited form in the traditional fishing vernacular landscape of Cortez, based on histor ic house locations and the strong fisheries contextual structure of the waterfront conglomeration. Non residential /n on fisheries buildings and appurtenances This form set is limited. The first building to fit into this construct, other than the D. S Fulf ord mixed use complex, would likely have been the purported 1890 store that carried the form of the residential buildings common at the time as two story single depth, I structures. However, based on an examination of historic photographs and the building itself, the original building appeared to have enlarge d fenestration on at least one of its long facades, and achieved access from the shorter gabled end. Its orientation to the water was purposeful in that it must have been constructed to serve the fishe rs and the flurry of contextual activity that began to form soon after settlement. In fact, its original location appeared to situate it partially over the water. By 1897, it is not likely that the Brattons had constructed the west wing to the 1890 store, since they themselves had

PAGE 395

395 just begun to settle in the village. Therefore, the non residential/non fisheries building set was a limited construct during the settlement form period that also limi ts the discussion of it here. However, o ne of the original erected forms in the village, t he first Fulford Hotel, a complex of three buildings most likely was constructed toward the end of 1892 s ince the Manatee River Journal (May 26 1892 edition ) informe d the reader that the lumber had arrived for it by schooner. This suggests that the lumber was likely cut at, and delivered from Cedar Key which had a strong l umber industry and which Fulford probably had connections to since he worked and lived there fo r several years before establishing By 1893, the hotel was already being advertised as the Curiously, another report in the Manatee River Journal from August 6, 1892 made refe rence to a multitude of watercraft with 21 people residing there, but did not reference any non residential buildings. This leads to an inquiry as to an alternate date for when the 1890 s t ore appeared. The same may h ave been true for the other settlers, as well, based on the varied dates of their land purchases, and the simple requirement that they most likely established dwelling units over time early on prior to relocating permanently. By 1897, there were up to 40 fishers at Cortez with reports of new houses having been recently built there, indicating an ongoing building process In early 1894, it was reported by the Manatee River Journal (January 2, 1894 edition) that D. S. Fulford had lost his partner from drowni Point. Having been in the area for three years before his drowning and having

PAGE 396

396 suggests that this partner whose name was L. F. Kelly, also from North Carolina, could have assisted in Since Fulford was married in the Cedar Key s in 1893, rather than Braident own or other nearby town it appears that he still may have been living there well aft which strengthens the notion of Kelley having had a certain modicum of influence and decision making ability over some of the form construct. According to deed records, Kelley seemed to have a nother partner in ownership of this piece of property named W. H. Adams. It is curious to think that this may have been the one time owner of the Tampa Fish and Ice Company from about 1885 to about 1900. Adams transferred his interest in the property in 1893 to D. S. Fulfor d. The fact that this particular Adams could have been part of a Tampa fisheries processing facility makes sense with the other connections to Tampa and St. Petersburg that were occurring in Cortez at the time. Kelley could have been in the process of esta blishing a business relationship prior to his drowning that did not ever come to fruition. Fisheries c ontextual b uildings and appurtenances With up to 40 fishers trying to make a living in Cortez by 1897 and 10 fishers now owning land there, the resident ial construct was creating a n internal presence in the village as a permanent construct, and in an extended form as part of the fish camp scene over the water. In tandem, the erected waterfront conglomeration was emerging as the highly contextual form s of the camps and the fisheries processing buildings were increasingly apparent in the landscape and as part of an emerging waterfront skyline Here, the fisheries houses

PAGE 397

397 t hat connected to the street that connected to their land. They distinguished themselves from the average fish camps as larger structures where fish hauls were first brought. However, additional fisheries houses were erected by outside dealers and captains such as George Hatsel who did not appear to own any land in the village proper. This is part of the enterprise agreements between fishers that resulted in a denser built construct along the waterfront. The captains who had built their own camps a s processing facilities were reverting them to just being camps, actually reducing the number of fisheries processing facilities, and increasing the camp configuration. The fact that the fishers and captains were selling to distant dealers or who were ser ving as middlemen in the fisheries processing schema, highlights the initial difficulties in balancing business with commercial fishing. Both seemed to be full time operations, yet the relative isolation and transportation limitations of Cortez continued t o hamper the fisher as dealer structure. However, certain infrastructure was need ed that allowed quick processing and loading of the daily catches on the run boats to avoid spoiling of the catch. Some records suggest that the fishers in Cortez may have ban ded together in leasing space at the Old Dock in Tampa, yet this arrangement d id not appear to offer a stable or economical situation for the fishers ( Manatee River Journal, April 26, 1894 edition) Therefore, the transition from impermanence to permanen t settlement in Cortez seemed to create distinctions between fishing, processing, and marketing. Th e formatted set of relationship s resulting from these distinct acts would last at least through the following fo rm period up to 1921, when land owner / dealer c onstructs would begin to form as part of the Cortez cultural flux

PAGE 398

398 By 1895 d uring the season al harvests the steamer Mi stletoe which was owned by Jo hn Sa varese out of Tampa eventually captained by local fisher and landowner C. D. Jones who purchased parcel 7 in 1890 w ent from a single, weekly run, to three runs per week from Cortez as the harbor dredging improved navigation The steamer added to the sail form of the watercraft during this period Less than 10 years earlier, the Mistlet oe was running further north out of the Cedar Keys. It was reported that the Cortez fishers shipped their catches to only one fish house located in Tampa also owned by Sa varese (M anatee R iver J ournal May 14 1 896 edition ). However, Henry Hibbs also had a piece of this action with his fleet of sailing schooners appearing at the loading dock in Cortez. Several schooners were also transporting goods and produce between Cortez and other ports. Now, Savarese was related to J. E. Guthrie by marriage, further en hancing the kinship cultural makeup of Cortez though he was from Italy, and not U.S. born However, competition emerge d from Hibbs, who also establish ed a fish house at Cortez around this time Hibbs was known to work closely with fishers by giving them c redit advances so they could purchase gear, supplies, and daily living articles (Gulfport Historical Society, 1985) The temporary fishing camp of was now evolving into a settlement of commerce and permanence. With such a large contingent of fishers already there and working, the fisheries contextual erected construct w as fairly pronounced as part of the waterfront conglomeration. By 1897 there were several captains hauling fish with their crews. Prior to 1895, some fish catches were sent t o the Cedar Keys via a variety of schooners such as those operated by the Fogarty family near Palma Sola This marketing changed as

PAGE 399

399 established dealers delivered them to St. Petersburg or Tampa for secondary loading onto railroad cars for delivery to consu mer markets. The active fishing dynamic between fishers, captains, and dealers is not fully understood in Cortez. Most written accounts do not detail the structure between these three entities, though it is clear that many of the original fishers were act ive businessmen. One example is the Chadwick family. Clay, Steve, and Hubbard Chadwick were brothers from Beaufort, North Carolina who came from a line of entrepreneurs in the Atlantic Coast commercial fishing industry. They established the Chadwick Fish C ompany in Punta Gorda by 1901, but had purchased parcel 10 in Cortez in 1894, retaining ownership of it until they relocated to Punta Gorda The extent of their Punta Gorda fishery indicates that they employed over 100 fishers, virtually dominating the fis heries around Charlotte Harbor. It is likely that the Chadwick brother s also operated a fish house in Cortez, either as an independent structure built over the water, or under an agreement with N. Fulford, who had sold them parcel 10 or with other fishers By 1897, a n amended fishing law was in place that prohibited net fishing in Florida waters between June 15 and August 15. The catching of mullet were further prohibited during an additional period from November 15 to December 31. The lack of available f ishing enterprise left the fishers in the village to return to their North Carolina relatives or cater to the tourism trade, which had already taken hold in Cortez Of course, it was reported that the pompano season was in full swing during May, so there w ere other fish being taken by hook and line allowing some of the mullet fishers to work

PAGE 400

400 as guides. Yet, the notion of a part time fishery does not seem to make sense given the quick pace in which development continued at Cortez The earliest photos of Cortez reveal ed a dominant vernacular form that was quite simple represented by gabled roof systems above facades that faced the water front This orientation allowed the dock systems to be attached to the structures as they extended out from the building over both land and water The efficiency of unloading the daily harvests required an open, central passage system that can still be seen in the 2013 fish house construct s. The orientation of the historic front gable and open entry was common for the time p eriod, as found in other communities such as Chokoloske e Punta Gorda, Sarasota, and the Cedar Keys. In fact, there appears to have been no regional standard, other than the materials chosen, that dictated the ultimate construct. The general construction o f fish houses was common throughout the United States. Perhaps the most distinct regional quality lay in how the fish houses were constructed as part of a network over the water in the bay. In Charlotte Harbor, they were strategically located in remote loc ations to enhance processing activities. This structure could have been used by Cortez fishers who were fishing those areas, or who preferred to deal with the dealers there such as the Chadwicks, even though it was further separated from Cortez than the Ta mpa Bay docks, depending on where a fisher was fishing. E xtended vernacular form indicator set Physical manifestations f isheries camps Several reco rds appear to differentiate bet ween fish camps and net camps. The net camps were less for human habitation than as a means for storing and working on nets and equipment. Some were open on their sides but covered by a gable roof system. While some referred to Cortez

PAGE 401

401 in general as a fish camp, the structural connotation was a imed at small buildings erected on pilings at or over the water that were partially enclosed but wrapped with an overhanging porch extension to allow processing work that was protected from sun and rain. However, several of these evolved from fish process ing facilities while dealer networks were e stablished. In some cases, they were used as net and fish camps. Both types were part of the extended vernacular systems that were organically and more densely developed around the waterfront activity area of the south shoreline extending east to about 123 rd Street (originally Fifth Street) The net camps along with several fish camps were directly connected to an associated system of net spreads, and in some cases, a fish camp structure. A network of raised docks and walkways often surrounded the camps and were sometimes strategically placed adjacent to the fish houses. The first fish camp buildings were developed over the water on pilings using the vernacular design of basic wood structures with both shed and gab led roof systems. These buildings were constructed for human habitation but consisted of only the most basic living amenities The y were described by some of the early residents as small but having a large presence concentrated in dense configurations along the waterfront and foreshore (Eaker, 1994 ) and were only big enough for a bunk or two each. There is a resemblance of the settlement design of these camps with that of Stearns (1887 ) descri ption from 1879 of similar presettlement structures suggest ing a diffused vernacular that was found throughout the coastal areas of the South. The design s of the fish camp s were partly based on the intended use for the more transient occupant who had not invested in the available land purchases. The separation of the fish camps implies a desired separation away from the homesteaded

PAGE 402

402 properties, although some transient fishers seemed to have boarded with established fishers at certain times. This became more of a trend as the settlement grew, mostly out of economic need. Regardless, the fish camp becomes a distinct regional import to the vernacular TFV with a determination guided by weather as a purposely built, erected construct intended for a duration controlled by economics. The fact that they were constructed in large numbers represents a form of the worker or corporate housing constructs of industrial America. The obvious question arises here pertaining to the relationships between the landowners and those occupying the camps, though it is likely that some of the camps were probably occupied by some of the landowners, as well. Physical manifestations n et works Nets were mostly laid out in 100 yard sections over extensive net spreads that were in essence, part of t he dock system that diverted fro m main walkways to the in between areas for net access. While the net spreads gave a horizontal appearance in their filled form similar to rolling waves, there was also verticality in their design when they were barren of net materials, and in how they rep resented a tent li ke quality. With up to 40 fishers in Cortez by 1897, and a growing number of camps, the infrastructure required for what would have amounted to ve been quite extens ive. This is evidenced by historic photos and the horizontal character presented by the net spread form over the water. There is a lso some evidence that the less encompassing, but more dominant net reels were used by some fishers. These structures, though confined to a roughly 10x10 horizontal footprint, dominated the sur rounding landscape form when present because of their atypical octagonal shape, and the one and one half stories height to which they

PAGE 403

403 reached that rose well above the flatness of the net s preads Though some records suggest that net reels were fairly east to construct and use, there simply were not enough of them to suggest a typified landscape construct along the Cortez waterfront. Based on the historic photo collection to date, there were likely three of these structures during the settlement period. However, the net spread system was forming a distinct co rral pattern paralleling the entire south shoreline, basically extending the village into three horizontal strata, or zones: a) the exte nded construct built over the water; b ) the waterfront conglomeration; and c) the upland construct. Physical manifestations d ock system. The extensive dock systems that extended over the open water from the fish houses, shorelines, watercraft docks, and between net spreads and camps provided a continuous networked linkage between fishing related functions. The dock system is physically and functionally related to the net works, making them nearly indistinguishab le. Yet, they deserve to be recognized separately since there are instances where they serve d varied purposes and functions. In a way, the dock represented three distinct form occurrences. The first form occurrence is its support structure marked by the p iling system that is vertically oriented, partly above water and partly hidden below the surface and below the bay floor. Even without the inclusion of the walkways for which it is constructed, the pilings represent a long standing, historic form that is u niquely identifiable by itself in its water element. It has a maritime character and form and can be present by itself without adornment and continue to evoke an intrinsic function in the landscape. The second form occurrence is the horizontally oriented w alkways and railings, or, if the pilings are the support system, the body of the dock. While the horizontal form conveys travel, provides direction, and

PAGE 404

404 gives access to the water, it becomes meaningless over the watery environment without the support of th e pilings. The third form occurrence represented by the dock system is its footprint that extends from and over the water. This is perhaps the m ost revealing of the three form occurrences with regard to noticeable form change and impact upon the vernacular landscape. It is also the most peculiar to individual communities as fishers establish physical connections to the water. Only a small percentage of the overall dock construct supported non fishing functions such as unloading general retail goods or load ing and unloading of passengers. The configuration of an aesthetic off ered by these constructions as they interacted with the net works was a dominant feature of the village settlement, taking up an open water area that was likely well over 10 acres in siz e. The form of the dock system was simple albeit extensive consisting of common vertical pilings set at distances of only a few feet. The walkways were also simple and were constructed of both perpendicular and parallel planking attached to a basic box fr ame. The box frame was in turn, attached to the vertical pilings. Historic photographs reveal the construction of the open water dock systems as more crudely designed, whereas, the subsequent period loading dock systems were more extensively designed and m ore strongly constructed to allow for the increased weight of loaded materials and transports. The expansive footprint that the dock system would encompass as it tied into the erected constructs is evident from the visible pilings that remained after the 1921 hurricane surge destroyed the horizontal system in its entirety. Physical manifestations n ets The primary nets used during the settlement period were gill nets, seine nets and cast nets The gill net has been the most common

PAGE 405

405 net in use in Cortez since the first settlers arrived. The gill net system causes fish to become entangled so that they can not free themselves. Originally, t he gill net was la id out as the watercraft circled the fish school usually along a precise course that the school was expected to travel while in pursuit. In many cases, additional mechanical power was unnecessary toward the end of the process catering to a more vernacular system. The seine net was used mostly for near shore collections as part of tea m hauls. These nets were typically seasonal devices and were laid out in extended lengths where fish were corralled and then pushed to shore like a sideways scoop Cast nets were used as needed by fishers, but were limited in the roles for commercial fishi ng due to their small size, though it was referenced earlier that fishers in Palma Sola Bay were using t hese exclusively during the pre settlement period. However, individual fishers just starting out could more easily afford these nets and earn some money from them or at least provide food for themselves and their families With up to 15 foot diameters and a high degree of strength and skill, an individual fisher could make significant hauls of mullet amounting to several hundred pounds. Settlement form pe riod nets were made of cotton or linen and required continual, daily care to such a degree that a particular vernacular form developed out of this in the net spreads and net reels that made up a larger percentage of the construct built over the water, alon g the shoreline, in yards, and as part of the building mosaic in the form of the storage shed. Cotton n et care required more ph ysical space than any other art ifact of fishing. Historic photographs reveal the acreage taken up by the net spreads docks, and camps. Large amounts of space were r equired since storing of nets was best accomplished in open, airy environments. The sheer magnitude of the resultant form is

PAGE 406

406 one of the most dramatic, yet least observable today. Th e disappearance of the natural fiber ne ts, and the devices used to maintain them is perhaps the biggest change in the vernacular lands cape that has ever occurred in Florida Gulf Coast TFVs Adkins and Bour geois (1982 ) suggested that the care of nets amounted to a fifth Th e additional requirement of storing lime used for treating the nets after each use to clean the accumulated slime from them had at least a minimal effect on form in the quantities that had to be stored, and the locations in which it was stored such as addi tional storage sheds. The cotton nets were in place until the 1950s but were introduced to commercial fishers just after World War II. The inference is that the cotton nets were certainly the only type of nets used during the settlement period, and also th roughout the historic s tudy span This generates the idea that the complex of this extended vernacular form should have remained fairly stable throughout the study period, with exceptions given to increases and decreases in its size or activity. Physical m anifestations w atercraft. The easiest discussion s of generative form lies in the watercraft, which are more easily transferred forms than those making up the village layout ( somewhat topographic dependent) and the erected forms found in the building mosaic especially during initial settlement stages. It is doubtful that many of the original settlers came to the Cedar Keys and Cortez with their watercraft trailing behind them if they even owned them outright at the time. The youthful ages being in the teens and twenties would likely not have supported an ability to do that especially during the difficult decades after Reconstruction However, the use of small sailing skiffs would have sufficed during the interim. The promine nce of the localized spritsail skiff adapted to North Carolina from the northeast would have been a

PAGE 407

407 watercraft form that was also suitable to the shallow waters of the Cedar Keys, as well as, the sandy wading depths found around Perico Island and Point Documentary evidence suggests a strong transference of this form into Florida, so it is easy to also conjecture that its ultimate use at was a strong formation in the generative mind, even in the Cedar Keys where the visible spritsail form was not as easily apparent amid the milieu of watercraft forms. However, the form likely arrived in The early fishing watercraft of the settlers were small and made of wood materials during the sett lement period. The available wood, according to an analysis of extant frames would have been mangrove and cedar, which reflect ed local traditions and usage. Part of the construct would have been made of cypress as another locally available wood, that when combined with the other woods formed an extremely rot resistant, pest resistant watercraft. The spritsail skiff, as adapted to North Carolina fishing grounds found its way to the Florida Gulf Coast and H early on, adapting over time and throu gh the acquiring of the local experience on the local waters there (Allen, 2003). According to Allen, the adapted designs of settlers were interpreted by the local builders from P alma Sola, and later those that established residenc es at Cortez. With input from the fishers who were plying the waters daily, the local builders made small refinements resulting in earl y design nuances in the shape and height of its bow, the sweep of its upper rail edge (sheer), and rake of its stern Wha t made the spritsail truly unique was its use of a long diagonal sprit that spanned from the bottom of the mast upward at an angle to it.

PAGE 408

408 The spritsail skiff was commonly used along the Atlantic during the 1890s, and was unique to those waters earlier tha with it s long, diagonal sp rit Its basic form was simple and inexpensive to construct. Its optimal use was in shallower waters of bays that were protected from the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Oc ean. There is no mystery that its use was quickly adapted off the North Caro lina C oast with its protective barrier island forms and also to those of Sarasota and Palma Sola Bays with their similar natural protections. It has a history of being used for sh ellfish and transportation to at least the end of the nineteenth century. With the spritsails, a peculiar topsail was designed for North Carolina watercraft as displayed and interpreted at the North Carolina Maritime Muse u m at Beaufort However, this sepa rate topsail did not appear to be adapted by the fishers The first watercraft were often referred to as skipjacks with the dominant use of sails occurring from 1889 to approximately 1920 ; after that the one cylinder motor began to replace its sail power, but it was a slow progression. The se skipjacks were typically 16 to 18 feet in length and had round ed bottoms (dead rise) The sails were made of white canvas referred to by some as ten ounce duck The spritsail mechanism could be unfurled and take n down easily in order to revert to pol ing when fish were sighted ( Green, 1985, p. 67) The typical skipjack crew was one fisher per watercraft consisting of a team of four boats Once the fish were caught and loaded onto each vessel the fishers w ould pole back to their fish camps and docks Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds During the settlement period the fishing grounds encompassed the enclosed bays, inlets, shorelines, and riverine systems of the Manatee River, Palma Sola and Sarasota Bays. Historic reports even

PAGE 409

409 prior to the settlement period revealed an abundance of fishing opportunity. The impetus for the settlers choosing the Hun camps and purchase lands most likely derived from this history that must have been known by them already through written reports and interpersonal communications, and their fresh experiences on the water s as captains of their own watercraft. When this abundance waned, as expected from time to time, the fishers extended the fishing grounds reasonably according to the watercraft and fishing methods used. Without any significant municipal or land development to the south, there was special care taken by the fishers in understanding the limitations of catch, distance, and handling. Therefore, the fishing grounds were at first limited to their unique, vernacular constructs and methods that dictated time and dis tance. Early on, the fishers could not simply catch some fish, and then wait for another catch to maximize each harvest. There was no ice or refrigeration to keep the fish alive, and they were focused on the mullet, rather than the larger prey fish that m any early fishers kept fresh through the use of live wells. Daily hauls required turnover at the base camp on the same day, or within a reasonable time depending on the ambient weather conditions, in order to successfully process the fish, otherwise they w ould begin to decay. The fishers learned to use distance, catch, weather, and timing in such a way as to establish a pattern of local applicability for when and where to fish, and how they would be processed later so that they could be sold or traded succe ssfully. By the end of the settlement form period, however, and based on wri tten reports from 1899 there are indicat ions that the early fishers had already extended their harvesting outside of the Sarasota and Palma Sola Bay systems, moving south to the

PAGE 410

410 Placida area, suggesting an extension of the fishing grounds that ties in with the fisher Fulford was known to spend several days out fishing near there, which at least confirm s an extended fishing grounds, and a process for either selling fish to remote dealers, or bringing back a successful haul for local processing I t is important to understand how these fishers extended their marketing connections that could have allowed them to unload their harvests at the fish houses where they were fishing rather than store them on their own watercraft over such lengthy periods of time While the salting of fish would have allowed this, the inability to process the catch and then store them was simply not available without distant land based connections. The same held true for ice preservation, which during the settlement period, was a les s likely scenario. So, it appears from the written record that the fishing grounds were extended based done by making late catches and bringing the m b ack to their own fish camp base, or through the use of distant, land based connections and agreements. What also appears is the d esire by Cortez fishers to spend their time fishing, rather than processing the catch as a dual objective. Intangible manifestations a ct of fishing. The settlement fishers came from traditional fishing families with origins formulated along the middle coas t of North Carolina where mullet was the most valuable fish sought and fished for. The availability of that resource to an even greater degree in Florida allowed them to adapt the knowledge they had already accumulated as young men who likely learned it fr om their fathers. The use of nets and sail during the settlement form

PAGE 411

411 represented a form that was not dissimilar to what had already been part of their own traditions. There is little information available on the possibility of ov erlaps between the settlement fishers and those that may have already been fishing the grounds to that period. It is known though the historical record that a mix of Americans, Bahamians, and Cuban s were there in a rather large range along the coast at lea st until the 1880s. The knowledge that could have been gained from these established fishers was immense, especially giv e n the possibility that some of them may have been fishing the grounds for their entire lives, as indicated by anecdotal evidence regard ing the ranchos by the early surveyors. However, this remains unclear, but presents a possibility for future exploration. The act of fishing must have held significant implic ations between the new settlers and the established rancho operators and fishers. The politics of nationality and the intricacies of social divides that were occurring at that time likely influenced the act of fishing between both groups. The potential for large hauls of mullet as the primary target of the Cortez fishers, appears in the historic record as more of a common occurrence rather than the opposite, suggesting the relative abundance of the resource in the local waters, and perhaps one of the reasons that the peninsula was targeted by the early settlers. Of course, the mullet were also cited as being elusive at times, which suggests that the fishers, even with their traditional knowledge adapted to this particular species, were not a lways successful when fishing ( early reports in the Manatee River Journal from 1900). It is known from the archival record that there were differences between the methods used between North Carolina and the Florida Gulf Coast fisheries. This may

PAGE 412

412 suggest w hy certain fishers from North Carolina headed south. First, in regards to mullet, North Carolina had enacted special laws by 1879 regulating how they were to be stored. For example, the storing barrel had to consist of 25 inch staves and have 13 inch heads In addition, mullet were graded according to the size of gill net used. Similar laws were in place in Maine and other states to the north. However, Florida did not have these specific laws at the time, though the methods for dressing fish were likely car ried down from the North Carolina precedents, especially since the mullet, according to the U.S. Fish Commission (1899) was considered to have the highest level of importance above all finfishes between North Carolina, Florida, and other Southern States In addition, t he storage units for salted fish were of extreme importance in order to preserve the quality of the fish. The concern of turpentine leaching into the fish devalued the mullet, requiring a non leaching wood material such as white pine from th e Northern States versus the widely available longleaf pine found in the South. A well packed barrel of mullet could last for up to six weeks. The typical method for dressing mullet was to split it down the back so it lays flat for gut removal. In Florida, the head was removed due the larger size of mullet found, whereas, in North Carolina this practice was not done. Once flayed the fish is then soaked in clean salt water, rubbed in salt, layered and then sprinkled with more salt. Another big difference be tween North Carolina and Florida was who was actually doing this packing. According to the U.S. Fish Commission (1899), Florida fishers performed the task of packing after fishing more often than their North Carolina counterparts who were more likely to us e assistants.

PAGE 413

413 Intangible manifestations e la psed experiential. The elapsed experiential of the settlement form period village is not documented and not available since the village itself had not fulfilled any type of form entrenchment or cultural w eathering in situ to supply this particular indicator of form. Some context may be discernible for interpretation here though, in that some forms from an elapsed experiential could have begun to surface later among the settler group as the local cultural construct took shape. Of course, an elapsed experiential playing between their Florida experiences and their roots in North Carolina were likely taking place as they adapted to their new location. In this case, there may be different sets of the elapsed experiential worth mentioning here. The f irst experiential is derived from the context of the soon to be displaced Spanish fisher s who had a fairly long history of fishing along the Florida Gulf Coast Rec ords indicate that some of the Spanish fishers became fairly e ntrenched in the impermanent fishing cultures they established, and the physical constructs that persisted over time, though they were crude and temporary, even by vernacular standards. Since it is known that they left behind at least some element of a bui lt construct, and perhaps even a tradition, the record reveals some clues for discussion here. However, the Spanish fishers represent a distinct and separate elapsed experiential that, unless a direct connection can be found that links them to the Point settler group, becomes a disconnected analysis, better reserved for another study. The second elapsed experiential reverts back to the North Carolina roots of the original settlers. It seems that t he only forms of folklore that can be discussed are t h ose that may have been transported to the settlement village through the chains of passage

PAGE 414

414 from North Carolina The experiences of some of them in the Cedar Keys, P alma Sola, and other areas bear a worthy analysis some of which has been discussed herei n, but again most of which is more relevant to a separate, later study, since excessive detail of these experiences are unnecessary to the historic study period of my study, which analyzes landscape form change However, the arrival or appearance of distin ct form changes is highlighted as part of the overall analysis when warranted for each study period Discussion of the settlement period form The overall vernacular landscape form of the settlement form period represents a significant change of form from the pre settlement form period since it transitioned from a temporary construct to one that was more committed and permanent. This is a collective significance where 10 of the 15 indicators were determined to have a positive finding for significant change Some of the form constructs, such as the fisheries contextual buildings and nearly all of the extended physical manifestations of form, except watercraft did not change enough to warrant a determinant of significant change. Based on the above analysis of t he form indicators, Table 4 2 provides a positive or negligible change determination finding of each form indicator during the settlement form period as compared to the previous historic study period It is kn own from an analysis of the pre settlement form period that up to 60 fishers were already harvesting fish at temporary facilities at and within close p roximity to the eninsula, representing an intensively used ecosystem and shore area imprint of human activity This may not have even in cluded several other fishers operating out of the area who also must have built temporary camps along the peninsula and perhaps along the shores of what would eventually become the entire

PAGE 415

415 Cortez historic study boundary. These would have included various ca ptain s fishers dealers mentioned in the historic record such as Solomo n Sw ee tzer, George Hatsel, Henry Hibbs, and John Savarese. Even some of the early settlers could have erected temporary fish camps prior to settlement. The settlement form period identified a predominance of fishers originating from N orth Carolina and having formed around some modicum of kinship, whether through familial ties or as part of origin cultural relationships and connections. While variou s individuals from bot h the pre settlement and settlement form periods appear ed to be outsiders, especially those that did not own land in closer inspection reveals them to also have actually had insider connections, related more to kinship rather than business These early connections among the fishers created both physical and intangible constructs that did not necessarily create a truly unique overall form from other Florida Gulf Coast TFVs, as much as they did in creating a more stable sense of it. The waterf ront conglomeration began to take on a more permanent physical form by the end of the settlement form period as properties were purchased and land connections began to merge with the use and benefits of the waterfront and open water areas. This resulted in the obvious spurt in fishing contextual development along and out from the water front joined by the establishment of permanent homesteads in the interior of the village. However, since the residential area served the cultural construct in a less contextua l manner than those tied more directly to fishing enterprise, it did not emerge as a primary point of study. However, since permanence was being attached to the residential form, it also transferred to the waterfront conglomeration, but not as part

PAGE 416

416 of a ph ysical structure, since experienced and generational fishers held long standing traditions based on knowledge of waterfront hazards. This was reflected in how most of the residences were constructed away from the water, allowing the waterfront to emerge as a temporary, yet intense co nstruct that superseded the pre settlement construct of a few buildings and infrastructure. All three of the indicators changed between periods for the village layout form indicator set, which is not surprising given the privatiz ation and purchase of properties that would define Cortez as a village. as 1846 became more tangible through official land purchases and private subdivisions that established a settlement beginning in 1887; known in the real world to only a few, became more tangible as it became individualized and inhabited with permanent intent versus just as a place from which fish could be harvested. Its physical form, though existi ng in nature, was virtually absent to the human mind since the only real reference to would have been through a fishing or recreational cruising activity that was then relayed to others somehow. Each indicator revealed a constant flux of change as the orig inal prescribed plat boundary expanded to include new property purchases. Thusly, the physical boundary and parcel configurations expanded accordingly changing the shape of the village. The upland circulation pattern as the third indictor of the village layout form set established itself along with these additions. Two of the three building mosaic indictors, residential and non residential/non contextual, were determined to have chang ed significantly from their pre settlement conditions. The most obvious change lies with the residential construct since fishers

PAGE 417

417 were now establishing permanent homesteads and families. In a sense, raw land was now being molded to suit personal lives and occupations with long term occupa nce and direction. The built residential construct, while still basic, was completely different in it application on the land beyond just the physical shapes it took. The commonness of the two story residential structure marked a distinct form change to be sure. The significance of the purchased boundary around the residential construct also became part of the house, extending its physicality. With the institution of kinship and familial ties, some of the residential boundaries enlarged, though definable bo undaries might have become less clear over time. The residential construct, as a form in the vernacular landscape emerged during the settlement form period as a fairly predictable model for establishing form definition and permanence, but would be short li ved. Though limited to only a couple of individual buildings, the non residential/non contextual construct also established itself during the settlement form period, though commerce had already been a part of the pre H owever, it now helped to nurture a growing community by including access to items not related to fishing. Instead the addition of goods and supplies, and gathering places for nurturing cultural lives reflected the permanent construct. These constructs pres ented a civility and humanness to the vernacular landscape that was not present during pre settlement. The fisheries contextual form is presented as not changing significantly. This is because the fish houses were similarly constructed as cheaply construct ed buildings erected at the shoreline extending over the water. The mere addition of one or two of these as new buildings did not change form as the other indicators did. A changed form

PAGE 418

418 does not necessarily result from the addition or replication of it whe n the physical form is the same. I acknowledge that this can change as a matter of degree, while for others it would be a matter of context. Because the contextual nature of the construct did not change between the two periods, since the processing of fish hauls may have overlapped, and because the development of new constructs was limited, no change is positively determined. The extended vernacular form during the settlement period is fairly split as not significantly changing from nearly all of its physi cal manifestations, to comp letely changing with regard to those defined as intangible It is not difficult to understand that the fish camps, dock system, and nets did not change significantly enough to warrant a positive finding. These particular indicato rs were already present along the shoreline that had previously accommodated up to 18 fishers. Since net reels were used by the pre settlement fishers, the addition of the new form of net spreads established a change to the extended vernacular in both shape and size. Whereas the net reels created that dominant form that is so distinct from other vernacular shapes in the fishing context, t he net spreads were also dominant in their expanse, and in how they mimicked the sail horizontally, rather than vertically Fish camps were found to be similarly constructed so the addition of new camps was not significant. The same held true for the nets, which have continued their basic forms and inherent meaning as personalized gear for millennia. The watercraft did refl ect a change to the physical manifestation of the extended vernacular form. First, the introducti on of the steamer as a distinct vessel is the most obvious. While stea mers had been around since the eighteenth century their use along

PAGE 419

419 the mid Florida Gulf C oast for fisheries development did not appear until the 1890s. This is mainly due to the absence of business opportunities for steamboat use, which was up to then dominated by sail powered schooners. The economics of steam took some time to be worked out t o make it worthwhile. Even by the time the steamboat era ended during the 1920s, its use persisted in limited commercial capacities Nevertheless, in Cortez, it was useful and became part of the fisheries context. The double masted schooners continued to ply th e local waters, reflecting a co ntinuance of the historic form in Cortez but also on a limited basis. It did not appear that the local fishers owned these types of vessels, but the importance of them to the available form is self evident. Schooner fo rms were prevalent around Cortez and the Florida Gulf Coast until the 1920s. Similar to the fishing nets, their forms had been long standing and traditional, but not yet changing significantly during the settlement form period. However, the schooner had al ready begun a decline in its appearance by the 1860s. The form of the sloop is the most pervasive watercraft affecting Cortez. While it was used extensively during the pre settlement form pe riod, its adaptation to the mid Florida Gulf Coast was reflected by the addition of its diagonal spar that created a four sided sail rig. Its use seems to have pre dated the however, as ident ified by Stearns regarding the Charlotte Harbor area fishers prior to 1880. It is known that certain group s of fishers from the Atlantic Coast were already in that area who could have transported their local vessels south. Becau se of this, the spritsail sloop does not warrant a determination of significant change to the vernacular landscape, though it is inclu sive of it. The poling skiffs are additional vessels that reflect a similarity

PAGE 420

420 of the hull form of the spritsail, and therefore, the major details regarding their overall shape are not significant enough for the purposes of my study to examine further. Pe rhaps the most telling change in the vernacular landscape occurred with the intangible indicators. All three appeared to have represented significant changes. This is also not surprising given the change from an unsettled place to one that is permanently l ived in, with permanent artifacts attached to an emerging cultural construct. The fishing grounds changed significantly because they automatically became attached to a land base where culture was establishing itself. Because it was a fishing culture, there is an assumption that the fishing grounds it attaches to become more defined and permanent, as well. The pre settlement fishers seemed to have a wider swath for fishing grounds with an ability to relocate according to the benefits offered by the local reso urce. Therefore, the fishing grounds could also easily and conveniently change. These too were impermanent notions or concepts to the pre settlement fish er, whereas they were permanent and vital to the Cortez fisher during the settlement form period The se ttlement form period marked the beginning of a trend of local knowledge that would be physically and intangibly handed down to subsequent generations that shared the land and water connections. Vernacular technology limitations during the settlement form p eriod also restricted the fishing grounds available to the fisher settlers. Again, this resulted from being tied to the abutting land and investing in the permanence of the place, whether knowingly or not. The act of fishing in settlement Cortez is tied to a much deeper understanding and meaning regarding the relationships between the fishers and the resources that were connected to them physically and intangibly The act of fishing presented a

PAGE 421

421 manner in which the fisher made a living, but it also reflected on his status in the community, which was now a permanent construct. The act of fishing became a shared construct molded by the fishers and passed onto subsequent generations In establishing the fisher settlers also established a new act of fishing adapted to t heir new locale. During the pre settlement form period, the common shared culture was too obscure and ill defined This is not to say, that the crews of pre settlement fishers did not have their own indicators leading to a defi nable ac t of fishing construct; i t is possible that one could be described. However, the act of fishing between the two periods changed because the installation of a cultural base, again attributable to the notion and effects of permanence versus impermanence. Th e elapsed experiential is also a significant change between periods for many of the same reasons. The specific fishing culture of the Cortez fishers and their families revealed a much different construct of lost cultural flux and a continued sens e of loss than those of the pre settlement fishers. Because Cortez grew primarily from a North Carolina origin, there was a common sharing that was already experienced by the settlers, and that could be shared with future generations. As part of a finely knit, growin g community, the elapsed experiential was distinctly becoming removed and replaced by the new locale and the experiences it would generate. The mix of generations and fishers from a variety of locales as part for the pre settlement form period could not mat ch this distinction even if one could be revealed. Therefore, the elapsed experiential is a changed construct that spanned the entire settlement form period in Cortez.

PAGE 422

422 A further inquiry here would be to examine how the lots of the captains and compared with those of the other inhabitants at Cortez. In many maritime towns, such as Beaufort, North Carolina, captains of ships often lived in stately residences commanding impressive views of the harbor or waterfront areas. Garrity Blake (1994) wrote that capt ains from the late nineteenth century North Carolina coastal towns often lived in upscale dwellings, many of them adorned with ship materials and large parts of ships. Forrest (1988) suggested that local identity, as part of an internalized aesthetic incor poration came from land ownership and the traditional fishing occupation as indicators of power within a culture in some Tidewater communities. This could have been true at Cortez, which, sort of developed under that influence. The tradition of land as a s the fisher and his family to the place as more of an aesthetic rather than material symbol. The connection to water as part of the traditional occupation strengthened the conne ction, and hence the internal power in the community even more. However, at Cortez, a different patter n in scale, title, and economy was prevalent due to a difference in these types of dynamics. In Florida in general, almost anyone with a boat seemed to be given the respect of being referred to as captain. The title of who was not a captain. However, based on at least one writing, the requirement to address one as a capt ain waned after veterans began to return from World War II, reflecting an apparent social disjuncture either gained out of respect for servicemen or from a social analysis that deferred to wartime ranks over symbolic tradition

PAGE 423

423 oint, and its early growth that focused on fishing, created an obvious distinction between those who owned vessels and those who did not. It was not uncommon for the primary fishers, and hence, captains to develop their properties with initial two story, v ernacular structures. By 1893, D. S. Fulford was able to construct at least two double story buildings and a third single story, side gabled stand alone as part of a complex for attracting visitors. The historical record reveals many of the earliest dwelli ngs of these primary movers and shakers in the growing building mosaic as being two story residences with horizontal weather board as exterior siding, a common, primary form of the upland area. Now, compare this with the single story structures of the sing le fishers who lived in the various fish camps strewn across the tidal areas and the qualitative difference is easily noticed. While many of the itinerants may have owned watercraft, it seems as if their ambitions were satisfied through the simple living a fforded by the contextual nature of the modest structure, which may have been part of the separation of power groups in the village. Many of the itinerants remained as outsiders since the long road of apprenticeship meant a slow rise up the ranks competing with other emerging fishers who inherited knowledge and equipment from their forebears. In fact, Forrest (1988) noted that fishers historically could rarely purchase entire sets of fishing gear and equipment as part of starting into a traditional occupati on such as fishing because it was just too expensive. The unpredictability of the trade worsened the prospect, preventing many to simply move on. In this way, through the landowner structure of kinship, captains knowingly or unknowingly controlled the land and the hierarchies attached to it. The displaying of

PAGE 424

424 evident later in Cortez in the residential designs of a few of the larger houses. There is an overarching consid eration here of how the original fishers were able to fund their investments at Cortez. Most reports suggested that fishers, in general, did not make a lot of mon ey, and were often in debt ( Stearns, 1887). Tax records from 1889 indicate that the fishers cl aimed possessions am ounting at most to a modest $ 200 with most of them claiming less Their ability to buy land was most likely through agreements that may have extended payments over time, though the recorded deeds do not indicate this. The fact that Hun which many of them were blood related or had been associated with each other previously may have helped Since the available census records from 1895 and 1900 suggest that all of the settlement form period settlers, except for the Brattons hailed citing Sider, 1986) where family members help each other become successful, from the brothers and friendships sug Cortez, and from the other nuclear family members typically at home while the fisher was away fishing. The help they provide is taking care of other things such as daily chores, and fisher side jo bs so that the fisher can spend more time fishing. Kinship in the settlement domain also seems to nurture the vernacular and continuation of local traditions. Poggie and Gersury (1984) suggested modernization and non fisher involvement occurring in the fi shing industry helped to displace this traditional knowledge and prevent its generational transference. Longtime fishers

PAGE 425

425 the fishing industry could not easily understa nd without the benefit of it having been Blake (1994) wrote that from nerational ties to fishing, or patri o back even before settlement connections to both of these issues regarding long standing traditions and its eventual breakdown as cultural dilution occurs. Con textual Growth Form Period Occurring 1898 to 1921 Synopsis of the period The contextual growth form period is marked by what could be des cribed as a process of characterization of Cortez as a TFV It is a period where the initial settlement activities that are more temporary in nature, i.e., periodic visits and stays, circumstantial fishing, low investment of buildings and structures, land purchasing without development, etc., transition to those th at are more permanent. A number of critical junctures occurred over the 24 growth trajectory along with only a subtle dilution of its North Carolina heritage as more outsiders moved in The indicators of form can be followed by referencing the graphic tiles found in Figure 4 18 Cortez achieved a build out of purchased parcels by 1909, extending again in 1912 with the addition of a new publicly owned school Based on U.S. Census records, and b y the end of the period (1921), there were approximately 240 people living in Cortez, with approximately 70 listed as fishers. Approximately half of the se fishers were natives of North Carolina. The biggest growth spur t occurred between 1900 and 1910 when th e village population more than dou bled from 81 people to approximately 193

PAGE 426

426 people. The number of fishers during the time increased from 24 to approximately 60, with 60% of these native of North Carolina. As a comparison, nearly all of the property owners w ere from North Carolina by the end of the settlement form period (1897 ) which had a population of approximately 70 people, 30 or so of whom were fishers. T he quintessential elements that create d the vernacular context during the settlement form period were strengthened, and to a degree, were on the verge of becoming entrenched during this time ( Heath 2001; 2009) As already alluded to, t he temporary character of the fishing camp transitioned into the permanent village of Cortez toward the end of that period, and new settlers were still arriving by 1921. The apparent economic success (and notoriety) of the Cortez fishers, along with a tourism industry that was encouraged as part of, or immediately after settlement, seemed to work in harmonic synchronization with the built construct an d the traditions the community began to establish and embrac e, even if it was a n unwitting settling in of the cultural nuance s that gave Cortez a more stabilized character as a uniquely defined and isolated encla ve that was developing in similar quick fashion as other waterfront communities but would differentiate itself through its entrenched traditional fishing character In 2013, t here are approximately 30 primary buildings plus additional lesser buildings an d structures remaining from this time period, m ostly residential in classification The vernacular landscape saw its most cultural progression defin ed by an ongoing momentum from the settlement period as the Cortez community of fishers solidified their economic base, and new generations began to emerge over the next 20 or so years into a commercial fishing village with strong North Carolina roots The

PAGE 427

427 growth of Cortez in this way was not necessarily considered a dist inct phenomenon since other communities along the coast were also growing rapidly according to various degrees. However, future patterns would begin to separate Cortez from these other communities in creating a more resilient contextual community that main tained a fair amount of physical integrity from its origin character, which would not be replicated by th ose other communities. The contextual growth form period in Cortez represented an extensive build out of the waterfront extending into the bay By lat e October of 1921, Cortez achieved its most significant vernacular form with approximately 60 houses in the village, several retail establishments, two fisheries processing facilities, and an active waterfront conglomeration and extended vernacular physica l construct that established a distinction from the residential upland area. The form of sail power was still eviden t, but beginning to wane as the aging watercraft were being steadily converted to motorized vessels. The end of the period culminates in a major storm and flooding event, resulting in a dramatic diminution of its most culturally significant architectural construct at the waterfront which is discussed in the next section The process of rebuilding from this experience added to its resiliency without changing its essential intangible character, while re covering a semblance of its destroyed physical construct, but unlike other communities that opted for noticeable change as part of their recovery activities Table 4 3, which includes determinati ons of change for the form indicators, can be referenced as a primer for reading the following analysis of landscape form for the contextual growth form period ending in 1921

PAGE 428

428 Waterfront cong lomeration and the use of space The waterfront conglomeration for the contextual growth form period of Cortez is depicted in Figure 4 17 Historical documentation exists that assist s with identifying and locating buildings and structures along the active waterfront during this time. By 1921, the Cortez waterfront reache d its peak as a highly vernacular, dense construct in its physical formation, while still in the process of assuming its identity for two of its three intangible manifestations. The use of highly vernacular as a term is appropriately applied to the end o f the contextual growth period since the effects of modernism and technology had not yet pervaded the waterfront construct, which was continuing to expand as an interconnected system of camps, docks, and net works. T he Cortez waterfront continued to reflec t traditional tendencies with regard to its built construct, while coping with technological and political advances from a variety of external sources. The mix of front and side gabled forms, some with room extensions from their non gabled elevations (wha t McAlester & McAlester 2 006 referred to as the one and one half units deep shape ), evoked a strong, pre railroad character with the vertically applied siding and roof peaks giving a vertical flow to the building area planes. The wood shingle roofs had n ot yet changed to the metal panel cladding that was being applied to the roofs in other rural areas. The traditional Tidewater South, two story I house form was sporadic in the waterfront conglomeration, occurring at the extreme western shoreline and as a single example along the south shoreline, one serving as a hotel, and the other serving as a retail store. However, it was popular in the more upland areas.

PAGE 429

429 The anchor form of the waterfront conglomeration began with two standout features from which the ot her buildings and structures seemed to spread out from The early Albion Inn and its associated dock with retail building seemed to dominate the visual architectural scene due to their size and prominence along the waterfront. Based on historic photographs the irregular shape of the Albion Inn renovation, with the attachment of the east wing to the formerly fron t gabled two story store bu i lding was revealed as part of the backdrop. The unusual form of the hipped roof attributable to the dock retail buildin g is unique among the gabled olio of buildings that extend the west shoreline and open water area. In a way, the dock building, and its lengthy dock structure, both of which served together modern, more perman ent treatment to the water front construct. While the roof lines without revealed gable ends were certainly newer and different in the village, the horizontal lap siding applied to it was also different from the other structures in the immediate vicinity, ex cept for the retail store and hotel they were associated with. T he overall built structure of the waterfront conglomeration extended over the water from the s hor eline, but also gave the appearance of being closely attached to it as having accumulated in s mall incremental expansion over time. The dock extensions filled in the water spaces between the build ings, creating a web like structure, with the only open space reserved for net spreads and watercraft access and dockage. The form of the extended vernacul ar construct crudely expressed in Figure 4 1 7, reflects an organic accretion of human built forms along the waterfront, as part of a displacement of the water surface an extending of the waterfront, and perhaps even early reduction of the available water column by the fishers. Later versions of the waterfront

PAGE 430

430 conglomeration would reveal a leap frogged effect that seemed to provide a distinct separation of the fishers, the dealers, and the upland area. Instead of the contextual growth form period interconnectedness between buildings, structures, and functions, there would later be an extension of net spreads without buildings in a U like manner around a central bay. The approximately 20 buildings that made up the Albion Inn, camps, and fisheries processing facilities along the waterfront area were clustered so that they appeared as an integrated, unified set that allowed a communication with each other through a system of docks and net spreads that did not require passing over the uplan d s areas. The front gable roof dominated the roofline form with less and less puncturing of the skyline from sail masts, which were in rapid decline by the end of the period. While still used for auxiliary power, sail clot h and the wood masts they were attached to were increasingly being stored away; at first in the vessel, secondly within the camp buildings, and finally, in upland storage facilities and rear and side yards of residential dwellings. In thi s way, the yard be came a living work yard that also served to extend the commercial trade to the familial life or in shore crowd by extending to the available space s there. The practice of extending space was the refore a common practice that evolved from earlier traditions that made it an inherent part of the commercial fishing cu lture yet found among a disparate geographic representation. In other words, the practice was not only found in Cortez, but also in a wide variety of commercial fishing communities. The over the w ater construct became the truer workplace and center of commerce pursuant to the commercial fishing enterprise. Walking to the shoreline from

PAGE 431

431 to business transition that was never fully separated and distant ; instead, always connected to fishing somehow, yet still a distinct demarcation Entering the waterfront conglomeration from the water meant th e opposite, i.e., a transition from business to familial life again, not a complete separation, but enough to ma ke each distinct However, it also meant that many outsiders did not have to intersperse with family life, whereas, business could be conducted without actually entering the uplands of the village. This arrangement kept that minimized distance from, and be tween the two. Basic w atercraft form was steadfast with regard to the in shore vessels that were now being motorized. However, as the motor began to exchange the sail, watercraft superstructures were also now beginnin g to emerge as cabins built mid deck tow ard the bow. So, while the basic form of the watercraft retained its essence, additions and reductions were changing its dimension and silhouette across the maritime landscape. Fishing in what could was debatably still a new f rontier meant a re established way of life and income for several of the fishers and their growing families, prompting an influx of new fishers through the encouragement of the original settlers. The developed, yet still isolated waterfront adapted quickly to certain cult ural advances marked by individual adaptations that were then mimicked by others causing an advancement of changes Yet, the temporary character of the built construct remained mostly as a common standard for th e fishers, while variations of a typical vern acular also began to emerge with outsider, non fisher influences that were blending into the community by outsiders who could make fishery livings through symbiotic relationships without becoming part of the highly localized cultural entrenchment

PAGE 432

432 To man y outsiders not living in Cortez, t he waterfront during the entire contextual growth form period, including its emerging character during the settlement form period, was symbol ic of the hard working fishery and its inhabitants The roughly constructed wate rfron t over the instability of tidally influenced bay bottoms that directly connected to a seemingly infinite body of water that offered an invisible bounty represented a separated culture apart from more mainstream tendencies of waterfronts that were bein g developed even though all of Florida was still not far removed from its frontier status. While Cortez, as a whole was not totally unaffected by progress, its waterfront through 1921 was even less affected continuing to reflect the impermanent character inscribed in it through the traditions still being handed down from generations. Since most of the original fisher settlers were considered young, even according that evolved along with their own growth over time. The adaptability of younger generations to newer methods is cert ainly evident in post 2000 societies; however, one watercraft, had they all been in their fifties or sixties. While certain fishing traditions may still have been handed down from abutting generations, they were influenced to a greater extent than their forebears since their exposure to these adv ances were part of the cultural flux that began to encroach upon them as part of significant events and modernization not witness ed during earlier generations. In other words, the settler generation was coming of age, revealed in bits and pieces as part of the waterfront conglomeration.

PAGE 433

433 The density of the wate rfront construct reached its pea k to the end of the contextual growth form period as Cortez became a built out community and the 14 overall waterfront parcels that would ultimately define its shoreline boundary were purchased as individual parcels By the end of the period, a well defined a rea of waterfront activity that extende d for half of the south waterfront established itself according to the originally prescribed north/south street termini. The accessibility of the waterfront was limited to those few parcels and their early business networks including establishing markets a nd recruiting new fishers helped the original waterfront in expand ing. The eastern waterfront failed to develop commercially during the period instead retaining its residential character with individual fishing constructs at tributable to the adjacent land owners. Village layout form indicator set Boundary. The 1921 Cortez village boundary was fully established by 1912, which also represents the breadth of the study boundary. It is based on the extent of the original village settlement ( roughly the western half) and its growth to a complete build out ( roughly the addition of eastern half), a nd includes the extent of the Nation al Register of Historic Places N omination boundary approved in 1995. This means that what is commonly referred to as the 2013 village boundary has basically been in place for 91 years. While the village may now be considered by some to have undergone a contraction of sorts, it has certainly not gotten larger. By 1921, t he entire contextual growth form period boundary contained ap proximately 60 acres, though the shoreline a rea would be severe ly altered through fill after this period. Some of the filling actually began prior to the end of the period, but not enough to suggest a highly altered shoreline. Some records indicate that th e eastern most shoreline was filled in 1904 ;

PAGE 434

434 however, this is not likely since the four landowners who controlled those areas were not established on their properties for a sufficient amount of time to support the time and coordination needed for this work. In addition, chronological mapping does not reveal shoreline extensions either. Of course, fill for this type of endeavor may have been available from the local Intracoastal dredging projects, yet there is no known literature that documents this. In addit ion, the more likely date for the extensions of these lands southward into the bay is either 1964 or 1984. The last fisher related land purchase occurred in 1909 with the column of parcels located along the west side of 119 th Street. However, t he village boundary experienced an irregular extension when the Cortez Rural Graded School was constructed in 1912 along what would become 119 th Street The north/south linear path of 119 th Street would then become the extreme eastern historic study boundary with th e 1912 school creating a boxy extension to the east at its northern boundary. The rendition or appearance of the school boundary changed throughout this time in how the villagers perceived its extent. While it was treated and maintained as more of a rectangular confine, the actual, delineated boundary was an irregular polygon that followed the a rterial road to its north and the angular parcel run prescribed by the Georgia Florida Land Company from its large scale development plat created in 1909 While settlement in the village had already been expanding eastward beyond the 1887 plat as part of t he settlement form period the vacant lands of U.S. Government Lot 3 still held by Mary Gardiner were only slightly slower to be developed. This extension of the village to the east created a sort of a future infill area that remained fairly sparse even th rough the 1940s.

PAGE 435

435 Though pr e 1921 plats do not indicate it b y 1909, t he Georgia Florida Land Company parceled out a roughly five acre area between the 1912 school and the Nathan Fulford property to the west who purchased his in 1894, effectively causing a d e facto pre reasonable area, and altering its boundary, though no development of it occurred soon after. With this pre contraction, and b y 1912, the extent of the fisher related boundary was set in stone Therefore, the earliest completed boundary of Cortez occurred during this second period under three distinct critical junctures. Two of these junctures took place in 1909 with the company pre contraction and the private individual land p urchase of the eastern parcels, followed by the third in 1912 with the construction of the school, and the implied outparceling of the school grounds, as a joint public/private transaction. Parcel configuration. The additional lands between 119 th Street as the expanded eastern extent of the village, and the original settler boundary established by 1897 filled in completely by 1909. By 1912, the full extent of the village was set in stone when the Cortez Rural Graded School was constructed to serve the children in the area, mostly from the historic village. Also by 19 09, recorded deed instruments indicate that t he Georgia Florida Land Company had out parceled a roughly five acre area to the west of the school grounds running along present day Cortez Road effectively establishing a final village boundary that, with the exception of the Cortez Trailer Park and four minor land splits occurring after the study period, matches the 2013 parcel configuration. For the purposes on my study, this carved out p roperty is not considered and represents a

PAGE 436

436 reduction of the historic boundary configuration but occurring as a post settlement form period diminution. Nevertheless, t he Cortez village set ting still experienc ed rapid increases in population and growth in its developable construct. Beginning with approximately 80 to 100 people living in Cortez as it formed during the first five years of the contextual growth form period it quickly increased its population as the original families expanded and new fishers arrived through recruitment or as part of the development boom By 1909, approximately 30 land components were claimed by approximately 25 owners, under a less than stable transactional flux that would be ongoing throughout the historic st udy span This reflects an unstable form in parcel configuration, as part of the village layout indicator set that is quite different tha n the stability of the building mosaic up to that point, in spite of ne w erected buildings being added. The first internal subdivision of multiple designed lots in Cortez occurred in 1907 20 years after the original E. B. Camp plat, when the two original properties (parcels 11 and 12) were survey ed and platted creating 22 total parcels, adding 20 new lots to the original settlement subdivision. Parcels 11 and 12 relate to the present day locations of the A. P. Bell Seafood Company/ St ar Fish Company waterfront docks bui ldings, and processing facili ties. The west boundary of p arcel 12 also fronts present day 124 th Street (formerly Second Street), which evolved into a main commercial avenue in the village, leading directly to the highly developed waterfront area that included the Albio n Inn complex site adjoining the west si de of the street at the waterfront. It also included unfortunately become a victim of the 1921 storm surge. Other non residential uses occurred along the street at

PAGE 437

437 least to 45 th Avenue. At least some of the buildings used for these purposes were converted to residential uses and are still extant in altered forms. There is a strong assumption when considering this first subdivision that the form of the commercial area was in full development phase, and that the economic op portunities envisioned by J. E. Guthrie the first fisher to purchase parcels 11 and 12 in 1891 were quite evident. This subdivision would in esse nce, become the heart of the commercial fishing enterprise in Cortez in how it established the precedent for allowing mixed types of growth in the village. This notion do es not support that fishing ente rpr ise was the o nly type of activity desired in Cortez, or that it was somehow being controlled by those early fishers who held a modicum of power and control in the village. The trends of subd ivision and land ownership tend to steer away from this, being tru mped by purely economic considerations of which fishing was a major focus, but certainly not as an exclusive paradigmatic enterprise from which everything else should follow. Other fisher/landowners performed similarly with their land holdings. Now, t his is not to say that the subdivided lands were simply put on the market for the money they represented either, since several properties were split among family members as marriage and children dictated There could have been a symbiotic justification for Gut subdivision whereby newly arriving fishers and commercial fishing industry representatives were also seeking to establish themselves into the contextual enterprise of commercial fishing. le no matter what the exact circumstances of his original subdivision were. The simple fact is that Cortez was growing rapidly and needed new, individual parcels within close proximity of the fishing

PAGE 438

438 village activity to accommodate the wider cultural whims of the growing fisher population which more than doubled by 1910 Unless a fisher wanted to establish his own self sufficient enterprise, it reall y made little sense to sit on large land holdings as time went on. The original fishers likely sensed the gr owing appeal and exposure to the salt air to Northerners who had begun to visit Florida after the Civil War to appease depression, consumption, and other maladies of the time. The first purchase r s of the lands before the fishers began to invest the Gardiners, were indeed Northerners from Rhode Island, who sought such relief. The fishers who had land purchase on their minds, took advantage of the opportunities made available to the m as a group, rather than individually, and it would be only a matter of time before their original investments provided som e modicum of financial control and social power. likely became pronounced by the surrounding land sc hemes prompted by the Georgia Florida Land Company, which de signed a large scale, 785 lot subdivision of over 800 acres in 1909 that encompassed nearly the entire peninsula, and virtually surrounded the already established fishing village. Basically a grid ded design with a large central parkway serving as a central east/west axis that reserved smaller lot design around large open space areas the development focused on a golfing theme. Present day Cortez Road was designated as more of a collector road in t he design but was named Bradentown Street, with a newly proposed arterial boulevard named Cortez Camino bifurcating the peninsula running east and west. By 1910, a two story, bay front clubhouse would be the only real manifestation of the development. This clubhouse would soon become vacant within a couple of years,

PAGE 439

439 with the woo d it was made out of used for building new structures and repairing old ones in the village. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that much of the Albion Inn renovation and expansion was accomplished by recycling these materials. On close examination of this large planned development it is interesting to notice how some of the minor streets held the names of some of the original settlement fishers including Fulford, Guthrie, and Gre en Of equal interest is the naming of the eastern north/south avenue grid with mostly northern state names. Such dedications may suggest associated land ownerships and/or marketing tactics to lure certain investors. Warranty deeds suggest that some of the original fisher settlers such as N Fulford purchased these lands or were given rights to them by the developer. However, t he development of the surrounding lands to this magnitude also reveals the pressure that some of the Cortez settlers must have felt in response to its potential Even though Cortez appeared as sort of an outparcel to the larger planned development, there are no records to suggest a selling out of parcels within the boundary of th e fishing village p roper, by the fishers at the time Ce rtainly the fishing village was a very recognized e ntity by outsiders, especially when one considers the fact that this new subdivision was actually named as the Cortez Addition to Cortez reflecting some kind of designed relationship to, or extension of t he vernacular fishing village outside interests In a report from the Chief of Army Engineers to the Secretary of War (U. S. Congress, 1910) regarding the improvement of the Sarasota Bay waterway, a 1909 letter from L. J. C. Bratton described the development by foreigners as being over 1,000 acres intended for residential and business purposes. Of course, it appears that the

PAGE 440

440 roots. Typically, many Southe rn natives referred to Northerners as foreigners (Pe a cock & Sabella, 1988). While Mrs. Bratton was a retailer, land speculator, philanthropist, and Sunday school teacher, her interest and role in expanding local infrastructure for enhancing commerce was ob vious, but mostly unclear ; this is especially noticeable from her departure from the village before 1910 It is known that she held interest in lands near the propose d development, that her parents also lived on and invested in land nearby, and that the Bratten [sic] street name did appear on the revised 1921 plat. the fishers were taking advantage of miscellaneous land holdings they had accumulated as part of their overall business acumen, or that the subdivision designers were negotiating with them somehow in order to garner local approval and perhaps sales agency. However, the golf theme represented a much different character that would likely have prompted a schism betw een the two areas, as evidenced by future battles between the Cortez fishers and surrounding residential owners. While the quaintness and charm of a coastal fishing village has various appeals to the romantic senses of many people, the reality of smells, s ounds, and modest living have proven through time to be perceived by newcomers as nuisances that often did not create much neighborliness. In fact, the reality of Cortez at the time likely proved more of a nuisance t o many of the transplanted land owners, w hose unsuspecting outlook of their coastal purchase did not consider such harsher realities of others making a living nearby i.e., the sights, smells, noises, and presence of what basically catered to light industrial types of activity

PAGE 441

441 As the waterfront in the fishing village began to intensify and become denser with increased development of fishing related buildings, another major subdivision within the village took place in 1912 by the Brattons, who based on their other land purchases in the area prio r to this, were well aware of the economic opportunities provid ed through land conversion. Their subdivision of the original parcels 3, 8, and 13 increased the new number of lots in the fishing village by 29 while also establishing Bayview Avenue with a 6 0 foot right of way, though it was only one block in length. The subdivision shows the addition of a new street at about its midpoint as Cortez Avenue, a 30 foot right of way, which would equate to present day 45 th Avenue. The naming reference using Corte z i n such a manner suggested it as having an elevated hierarchy of importance y et the narrow width now suggests otherwise. Anot her interesting point is that it duplicate d the major thoroughfare found in the 1909 Cortez Addition plan The Bratton subdivis ion plat a lso indicated Cortez Avenue ( 45 th Avenue ) as extending eastward into the village, which had been referenced only textuall y as part of other deeds for road reservation s requiring multiple future deed amendments subdivision also included the names of purchasers, which seems to suggest that there was a ready market for the lands, which may also have prompted the Brattons to subdivide and then sell as their time in the village was waning With a stifled economy and a world war, no significant re platting of lands would occur until nine years later in 1921, when th e plat for the Cortez Addition would be amended with a completely different configuration that eliminated the grand design of large public open space areas that at first he lped to buffer the surrounded village. The revised des ign reduced the number of lots dramatically from nearly 800 down to about

PAGE 442

442 273 by establishing ranchettes of various size s from approximately four acres to over 40 acres, while retaining the higher densi ty blocks still abutting the recently expanded village at its eastern boundary, and along Palma Sola Bay around the shell midden area to the north At this point, it also identif ied as an outparcel, the 5.4 acre piece of land occurring within the northeast corner or the h istoric village, which was officially deeded out by 1909, and now referenced as parcel 86. To reiterate t his effectively removed that portion of land from any future consideration of it being part of the hist oric village since it represented a wholesale, corporate removal of land, and no fishe r or Cortez village resident, per se appears to have purchased it previously. In essence, it appears as not ever being part of the village to begin with, which is reflec ted in the g raphic tiles form indicators In July of 1921, the last official major subdivision to occur within the historic village boundary until well after the end of this historic study p eriod was a n a pprov al for 17 lots, increasing the number of lots b y another 15 in the village This was named the Willis Subdivision, with the original owner, Augustine Willis, having purchased the two original parcels by 1892 though he would not be alive to transact the 1921 subdivision Willis became the second fisher to succumb from a direct fishing accident after falling in his watercraft in 1914. So, by the end of the con textual growth form period, the original subdivision in 1887 of 13 parcels increased to 20 by the end of the settlement form period, to approximate ly 33 by 1909 as a build out or actual purchases of the available village lands as large parcels and eventually to 97 as part of three major subdivisions occurring within the village study boundary by 1921 Of course, additional land splits would take place over the duration of time to 2013.

PAGE 443

443 Circulation. The circulation system shows obvious expansi on by the end of the contextual growth form period, but only as part of providing access to the newly created parcels eastward of the central core of the vil lage As mentioned already, the appearance of Bayview Avenue and Cortez Avenue (45 th Avenue today) as part of a 1912 subdivision of parcels 3, 8, and 13 increases the understanding of how the circulation in the fishing village took shape. The designation o f Bayview Avenue with a 60 foot width, which was the one block section of street running parallel to the waterfront, and in front of the Albion Inn and its wharf, strongly suggests its importance to the village as a being part of the centra l village commer cial activity. The plat also seems to suggest that Bayview Avenue, matched to present day 46 th Avenue e xtended or would in th e future, to the east, as well, though the streets are offset, and have been since their establishment. As of 1912, the Cortez Ru ral Graded School helped establish the eastern road boundary as 119 th Street, which serves as extreme western boundary for the purposes of my study. In addition, 45 th Avenue West was also esta blished as a right of way, however, several deeds had to be revi sed to reflect the dedication of the roadway. Some deeds were simply not clear in this regard, referencing a land purchase as being subject to road dedication requirements that might follow. This would reoccur until the street system fully conceptualized l ater on. The 1921 Willis Subdivision added the new 20 foot street that was to become 45 th Avenue Drive. It also delineated 45 th Ave, wh ich had already been established as the primary east/west axis through the village as a 20 foot street. On its east boundary, ano ther 20 foot street was added connecting properties south of the central east/west

PAGE 444

444 axis, wh ich would become 121 st Street Court This addition basically established what would become the ultimate street network for the village with additional extensions of these streets as the parcels were developed By the end of the period, the roads within the historic village were still made of sand with a mix of oyster shell. The arterial along the north boundary of the village, Cortez Road ( or Bradenton S treet as it was called then 45 th Avenue was a ctually referred to as Cortez Street) had be e n coated with a bitumen surface by 1940. Land speculation originally dictated the evolution of the street system in Cortez, though the basic street pattern in place by 1921 would remain intact to 2013. Land divisions of t he origina l purchases of large land tracts into smaller parcels affected travel patterns to access the new parcels by the new owners. At least one historic, irregular path that existed during the firs t decades of the twentieth century is still discernible from 2013 aerial photographs, suggesting early use patterns for dock access. Building mosaic for m indicator set B y 19 21, the number of parcels in the village increased from the o riginal 13 parcel subdivision to 97 parcels, thereby effectively increasing the potential and realized density of the built construct. There were well over 50 dwelling s serving approximately 250 people The waterfront along the southern shoreline of the west half of the vi llage was developed with commercial fishing buildings to a near maximum capacity as lands were available. The number of fishers living in Cortez grew to a pproximately 75 with approximately half of them native to North Carolina, representing a subtle dilu tion of the North Carolina kinship structure. Residential building s and appurtenances From 1898 until 1921, Cortez developed in a rapid fashion with new dwellings spread out across nearly every

PAGE 445

445 available parcel. The range of dwellings from this timeframe are the most extant to date with at least 40 still represented 29 or so of which were considered eligible for listing in the 1995 Cortez National Register District N omination The placement of growth was still sporadic though, with most of the development occurring between the historic Second and Fifth Streets (124 th Street Court and 123 rd Street Court, respectively) The north tiered lots between Second and Fifth Streets began to fill in with residential constructions, mostly vernacular cottag e design s with front and side gable forms often represented. The emergence of the hipped roof was also becoming more pronounced with a possible influence from the Bratton /Guthrie dock building as the first example. The flat roof did not seem to be a domina ting form except for some appurtenant structures. In 1918, at least one architecturally designed resid ence was constructed among these northern lots, representing a nuance of form that strays away from the contextual vernacular. This building is represente d as a two story, The overall architectural form of the bui ldings began to change from the typical two story side gable designs to mostly single story cottages with the three roof forms of front and side gables and hipped represented equally The appeara nce of all three of these form s reflected an individualized preference that strayed away from a collective cultural pattern in Cortez. The availability of various designs, whether purchased through pattern books, or used as references, increased throughout the United States during this period leading up to the mid 1920s land and development boom just prior to the Great Depression The increase of pyramidal roof designs in the village appeared to make sense since their popularity surged in Southern U.S. com munities during the first few decades of the twentieth century as being more economical and requiring less

PAGE 446

446 materials (albeit more complex in configuration). They were also more spacious than the one room deep I houses that seemed to represent a standard de sign in Cortez during the settlement form period. The side gable form was also represented revealing a steadfastness of the original I house form, but with more focus on the reduction of height and the increase in single story floor area and expansive por ches. The porch extensions were beginning to be incorporated into the design of the structure either as an extended roof or integrated attachment that flowed evenly from the roofline. However, none of the residential constructs favor ed a distinct maritime vernacular as some of the literature about Cortez has suggested. The only exceptions may be in ho w the houses were consistently elevated on low rise piers, and perhaps how some of them reflect ed simple and basic maritime cape cod forms with side gabled structural elements that diffused from northern marit ime areas after the two story I house and single story extended porch influences began to fade What is revealed is a diverse collection of residential construction that is actuall y not uncommon for many U.S fishing villages during the ear ly twentieth century ( Ennals & Holdworth, 1981). Non residential /n on fisheries buildings and appurtenances Non residential/contextual buildings occurring wit hin the village increased as a small er subs et in direct response to the social needs of the village. However, their cultural significance was important for establishing a tread of permanence in the community. These buildings also helped to create a distinct social network that lessened the industri al remoteness of the village by giving need to establishing networks with other communities at first by water, then as part of an overland connection as automobile

PAGE 447

447 use created demand for improved travel ways beyond what had beg u n and lasted for a time as rutted wagon trails In essence, the establishment of schools, churches, and buildings housing other similar institutions would serve to permanently embed Cortez and its fisher families into the community in spite of their isolation. In fact, many of thes e types of buildings, and the social institutions they represented, would finally allow outsiders to also have access to the community, lessening their own trepidation and mystery about the place. This in turn, would foster a first step inclusion of Cortez to the wider community, allowing them to benefit from infrastructure improvements and other public services The non residential area occurring between 124 th Street Court (Second Street) and 124 th Street (Third Street) continued to serve as the active cen ter of the community. This may also have included a wider sphere of participants from the larger Cortez Peninsula as it developed quickly with non residential and non con textual buildings including a collection of retail and service businesses. However, th e primary fishing activity did extend just to the north to accommodate of the west shoreline. The Albion Inn was established as an expansion from the two story retail supply building built partially over the water but accessed at the terminus of both stree ts, its scale marking a dominating presence. Cato and McCullo u gh (1976) suggested that the supply stores that seemed to show up in isolated villages increased the opportu nities for fishers to frequent the area they were served by and in some instances, t o establish a more permanent presence there This may better explain why waterfront retail embedded itself so quickly after Even though there are relatively few of these buildings, the

PAGE 448

448 e ffect on the waterfront conglomeration i s both readable and clearly visible. Figure 4 19 illustrate s a tightly conjectured aerial perspective of the waterfront and bay configuration for the non residential/non fisheries buildings, fisheries contextual buildings, fisheries camp buildings, and doc k system based on historic photographs taken around the time of the contextual growth form period. There were t wo non fisheries/non contextual buildings that maintained a continuous visual prominence when considering the waterfront conglomeration and that are worthy of some discussion here These included the 1890 waterfront store, which was a retail building also referred to by some as the Burton store which was highly prominent ; it was expanded to become a complex of buildings, structures, and land alterati ons from different time periods. Also, the 1908 Church of Christ building, mostly indiscernible from the waterfront from a volume standpoint appeared very visible in the landscape from the water due to its tall steeple, which reveals its own highl y readable context. In addition, another building that did not have any visual prominence from the waterfront, but may have been part of a significant intangible landscape connection for its impact to the community, was the 1912 school This building was a first publicly constructed building representing a higher design style that would become a symbol of community after the 1921 storm that affected Cortez. Regarding the first building with visual prominence, t he 1890 store served as the initial supply sto re for fishers from Cortez and most likely fishers from other villages along the coast who plied the surrounding waters. It was perhaps the only point of public ingress and egress along the waterfront during that time, and the form periods that followed. T his access was located at the west side of the building, extending west

PAGE 449

449 for perhaps 100 feet or so. Oriented toward the water through its narrow, front gable side, i ts large side window sets are clearly remarkable during its early placement. However, its s trange, later configuration during the contextual growth form period added to its distinctiveness of the landscape. For one, its bifurcated west elevation attached to a two story, perpendicular wing gave it a contrast to the smaller scale of the buildings and structures found scattered among the conglomeration of buildings that formed around it. During the contextual growth form period, it would have complimented the Fulford Hotel complex located at the northwest corner of the village, representing two high ly visible anchors in the landscape. However, a wider, more structurally sound wharf and dock were constructed extending from the southeast corner for several hundred feet. This wharf was the most significant in the village at approximately eight feet wide and for part of its history, included a rail s ystem for hauling loads by rail cart. Another feature of the wharf was the modernized building located at the end of it, that together with the dock were commonly referred to as Bratt but later purchased by Joe and Lena Guthrie The importance of this building is that it too was prominent from the waterfront conglomeration view with its cross hipped roofline that hovered over the water, as a new form that contrasted the skyward projections of the gabled ends and extensions that seemed to flay out above the water. The second dwelling constructed by W. T. Fulford in 1906 would incorporate a pyramidal roof above that two story structure, reflecting a similarity of roof design as another prominent bui lding viewable from the waterfront. At least seven buildings would be designed with this standard by the end of the contextual growth form period. Even the ranch form of the building with its horizontal, more permanent quality was new

PAGE 450

450 and markedly different from the lesser quality buildings erected by the fishers around the waterfront conglomeration. Given that the Bratton /Guthrie d ock construct was originally erected by outsiders from the Midwest who were not fishers, and who seemed t o have solid financial backing, this is not surprising. So, while the Bratt on/Guthrie dock and Albion Inn, as an overall individualized complex, anchored the waterfront conglomeration construct, the effect was one that was out of context architecturally, e ven though its location was perhaps the most important to the village as a whole. The Church of God building constructed in 1908 also became a visible addition to the waterfront conglomeration as its steeple punctured the skyline While places of worship have historically been focal points of many communities because of their centralized locations, this building was located away from the town center toward the east near the 1895 school building. At the time, this area was considered the outskirts, as bein g east of town; in this case, the town would have been the area extending from 124 th Street. The land for the building was incidentally, donated by the Brattons, whi ch is important since their influence as outsiders should not be understated. The fact ual t heme regarding why they donated land for the church building on a parcel beyond the main activity center is not clearly understood though Mrs. Bratton had relatives near Cortez However, it was also likely predicated on the availability of land and the ne ed for such a venue. There is a suggestion that the quick growth reduced land availability closer in. By 1901, D. S. F ulford had left his enterprise in the village for Grove City to the south, another fishing area where W T. Fulford would spend time fishing as the more immediate fishing grounds of Cortez proved unfruitful. The apparent abandonment of

PAGE 451

451 the Fulford Hotel complex would result in a discontinuance of the northwest waterfront from recreational fishing activities. The two story buildings would eventually be destroyed by fire before the end of the contextual growth period. During this time, the waterfront landscape owned by Fulford would lack sufficient activity on it, thereby fostering a stabiliz ation of it as remainin g unchanged waterfront, i.e., parcels 5 and 6 and the uplands attached to them, did not seem to incorporate the commercial fishing character as the southern waterfront area did. Instead, and because of his focus on creat ing a hotel enterprise, it represented perhaps the first recreational focus of Cortez from which it would continue to build upon to 2013. This was a significant and important piece of land in Cortez with its extended waterfront and future location at the f oot of the Cortez Bridge. The fact that it was never committed to a commercial fishing enterprise is remarkable. Its evolution into a trailer park and small water dependent retail node, while certainly par for the course, historically, would have one of th e biggest effects on the Cortez shoreline that kept it tight and limited in extent. The occurrence of the trailer p ark by 1935 may have served as an insulator to other types of development, including commercial fishing for a while, though corporate develop ment interests would eventually attempt to transform the property. By 1912, other important non fisheries/non contextual buildings were erected in the village. The village members decided to incorporate in that year, and as a response of that action, comp leted a small jail made from tabby that is still extant in 2013. The only remarkable quality of the building is the materials from which it was made, making it peculiar among other buildings. Of course, its location along the 124 th Street line of commerce is worth mentioning. Another important building along the waterfront was yet

PAGE 452

452 another retail supply store owned by M. F. Brown located at the southwestern corner of parcel 12, the latte s store, according to historic rec o rds, was originally owned by Guthrie, is clearly evident in at least two historic photographs, one of which clearly reveals its physical orientation within the waterfront conglomeration. This structure would be destroyed by the 1921 storm surge, with additional photographic evidence revealing only its frame foundation remaining. The 1912 school, still extant in 2013, and perhaps the most uniquely designed building in Cortez has deep architectural and social implications for the village community It formed an east anchor to the village, though it was not visible from the waterfront. Its Greek styled portico and parapet roofline, along with brick construction created more of a non contextual intrusion into the villag e, as part of a wider, publicly influenced des ign that was certainly not unwelcome in the village, but from a contextual perspective, was out of character with the vernacular setting reflecting a solidified mainstream attachment to the outside world through what was the most permanent building erecte d in Cortez by that time. Five other schools of similar construction were commissioned around Manatee County at the time, so Cortez was not the only recipient of the design. Though not visible from the waterfront, its impact on the vernacular landscape is importan t for other reasons, a couple of which are worth mentioning here. The location of the school grounds at the eastern periphery of the village seemed to represent a limit, or confinement of additional development to the east. The relatively small si ze of the village up to the point of its construction served as a demarcation point of sorts, providing an easily recognizable edge to the upland physicality of Cortez,

PAGE 453

453 especially with its western facing faade, and as a barrier from the encroaching development taking place from the west and north. The use of the school by the villagers during the 1921 storm represented a safe haven amid an almost instantaneous destruction of their waterfront and the lifeworld that w ere q uintessential component s of their village character. In an ironic way, the sense of place that would eventually develop in Cortez decades later probably began from this school building, as part of the memory of what had once been a pinnacle of their vernac ular development. While the school itself was invisible to the viewer from the waterfront, its future symbol as this place of refuge held a significant spot in the waterfront conglomeration landscape as a sacred structure since they all became connected t hrough catastrophe. This will be discussed in a little more detail in the next section. However, when observing and evaluating form in the landscape, there is a challenge in discerning between the obvious, visible form of the waterfront lan dscape, and this esoteric, intangible connection of a building that was fo r all intents and purposes, non vernacular or anti existed during the period. In my view, the vernacular landscape was affected by the addit ion of this building, but it did not change significantly. This is not only because of my focus on the waterfront as the cultural collective of primary indicators where the building was physically absent, but also because additional, significant changes at least up to 1921 failed to take place as a result of it. Fisheries contextual buildings. By 1900, there were several schooners and at least two steamers serving Cort ez. Since some init ial improvements in the Sarasota Bay and Manatee River through linear cuts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been

PAGE 454

454 completed by 1895 or so, water travel increased in tandem, opening up Cortez to a wider array of supplies, artifact ual influences, and cultural nuances made possible through the increase of travel and pers onnel not as prevalent during the settlement form period. However, by 1900, the emerging village, even as rapidly growing as it was, was reported as still being a camp where fishing was done as a seasonal pursuit reminiscent of a recreational destination rather than a s a year round working waterfront where its fishers also lived and were establishing permanence in both the physical and intangible constructs As it became permanent settlement, it carr ied a s ense of transition from the pre settlement fishing activities as part of an actual fishing season, which was already a report discussed earlier Later reports about several of the Cortez settler fishers indicated their returns from North Carolina where they were spending the non fishing summers. Based on anecdotal information, only two fish eries processing buildings were in place by the end of the contextual growth form period According to historic photographs, these appear to be similarly located in an extended alignmen t with the Bratton /Guthrie Dock, as being located furthest away from land, and oriented toward oncoming watercraft for ready unloading. This makes sense since the two operators, Savarese and Hibbs, did not appear from the record to own land i n the village. Other s such as George Hatsel were reported to have fisheries buildings in Cortez, but the extent to which these buildings processed daily catches is unclear. Nevertheless, the two that are referenced as exist ing up to 1921 do appear as one story, side ga bled buildings with extended porches, constructed with vertical exterior siding and wood

PAGE 455

455 shingles. Each w as attached by a southerly running dock that connected with an east/west running pier. As a comparison, the fisheries operating around the Charlotte H arbor fishing grounds to the south developed a system of processing facilities scattered throughout the bay and coastal islands there. Basic descriptions of these structures were referenced by Taylor and Cook (1990) as two different types that may have som e shared influence with Cortez constructs. As part of the extensive fishery based out of Punta Gorda with its early railroad connection by 1886, fishers organized a system of remote buildings directly in the bay as over the water ice house constructs, and on the tidal and upland areas of flats and islands as residential fish ca mps While descriptions are provided only for buildings occurring from 19 20 and later, earlier construct s likely had similarly constructed characteristics but due to the extreme envi ronment they were exposed to, were no longer extant for study. Taylor and Cook (1990) also indicated similar rectangular frame vernacular buildings with gabled roofs. The roofs were clad in metal panels while the siding was mostly cypress applied with wid e boards; battens seemed to be added only sparingly For the ice houses, the wood plank siding was doubled for better insulation. Wood decks were commonly attached for vessel mooring, access, and as work areas. The ice stations were attached to pine pilings but in a temporary manner, allowing them to be lifted off of the pilings and relocated to different areas around the fishing grounds. According to the historical record, it appeared that these movable structures may have been attached loosely to the pine pilings with special grommets or clips allowing them to rise and fall with the tidal fluctuations.

PAGE 456

456 While the allowance for tidal raising of structures is akin to a learned protective tradition, it did not appear on most land based constructs studied by me The simplistic manner of structural mobility i.e., from one location to another, reflects the common standard of construction of these types of buildings found throughout a variety of traditional fishing landscapes in the United States during the ninete enth and twentieth centuries, and the possibility of shared influences here is at least a remarkable consideration. At least one group of fishers from North Carolina was likely involved in these types of operations and constructs. T he Chadwick brothers had purchased lands in Cortez by 1894, and went on to operate one of the largest fisheries in Charlotte Harbor by 1900. Since none of these buildings appear to remain from before 1920 in Cortez or Charlotte Harbor, it is difficult to assess if the Chadwicks b rought some of their construction methods with them from either North Carolina or Cortez that resulted in these remote fish camps and cabins, though it is possible. However, the historic record does suggest that they could have been formulated as early as 1886 when the first railroad line reached Punta Gorda. Of course, by 1879, St earns (1887) had already documented various buildings of wood and thatch constructed as fisheries camps along the Florida Gulf Coast between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay. E xtend ed vernacular form indicator set Physical manifestations fisheries camps. T he historic array of small and medium size camps associated with the commercial fishing industry alon g the Cortez waterfront occurred along the entire length of the water front congl omeration of the mid southern shoreline, and sporadically along the other shorelines of the Florida Gulf Coast By 1921, most of the landowners in Cortez held ownership to a t least one camp complex that extended over the water and included watercraft storage structures open

PAGE 457

457 on its sides. In some instances, some of the internal parcel landowners shared camps with those having riparian rights or arranged a right to have access to the physical waterfront area While the overall construct of fisheries camps represented a modest quality, t he expanded over time with additio ns extending the building to accommodate additional gear and equipment, as well as, living space. Porch extensio ns appeared as work areas, many pieced together with a motley collection of wood boards with no particular design intent other than to enclose space or limit exposure to the elements of sun and rain. Some presented lattice attached to the porch roof column s for a combination of diffused sun and light. T he smaller camps were nondescript, appearing as shanties with four basic walls and a roof. While there is no detailed historic record to ascertain a precise count, the overall number of fisheries camps build ings and structures by 1921 is possible to have been between 20 and 30. This accounts for 12 waterfront owners who each had these structures, and several of the internal landowners, who also built camps out over the water. There were also some non Cortez r esidents who appeared to have constructed camp buildings in this area, but there is insufficient physical evidence to provide a detailed location of each of them, though some are referenced anecdotally. Perhaps the most interesting relationship regarding t hese camp constructions is their continuance from the early Spanish rancho occupatio ns, to the pre settlement form period, and the organized proliferation of them in the Charlotte Harbor coastal fishing grounds area. As mentioned earlier, t he fact that one of the progenitors of the organized construct of fishing camps could have been a familial group of fishers from North Carolina who had

PAGE 458

4 58 owned property in Cortez during the settlement form period leads to a future analysis for determining a flow of influence In this case, it is unclear if the fishers spread the fishing camp structure from North Carolina or Cortez down to Charlotte Harbor, or if the fishers were influenced by what had already been appearing in Cortez by 1894, when they purchased lands in Cort ez. Either way, the proliferation of constructs with similarities in form and location along a wide stretch of the mid Florida Gulf Coast, as noticed by Stearns (1887) warrants additional study beyond the scope presented here While fishing camps were d ocumented as outposts along North Carolina coastal islands by the eighteenth century, they were also documented as part of the Spanish fis hing ranchos that dated to the eighteenth century. The question of influence, especially with regard to the locational form and use of the structures as part of a large fisheries system reveals a commonality between Cortez and Charlotte Harbor enterprise that does not appear to have been specifically studied in detail. Since they both shared the initial contact market of Tampa, the constructs may have evolved from a few individuals working as part of a network of businesses, rather than just as something that caught on by sheer luck and happenstance of a found artifact. Physical manifestations net works. T he three fold increase in fishers in Cortez by 1921 and the requirement for an expanded net mending and drying infrastructure in Cortez resulted in an expansive over the water system of h orizontally configured net spreads. These basic frame systems were ma de from chea p timber and rough h ewn lumber that formed basic vertically placed box frames closed by horizontal lengths attached to extended wood pilings. To allow enough air circulation for nets that were

PAGE 459

459 often in 100 foot lengths, the nets were draped over the extend ed frames or racks as they were also called, creating and undulating pattern of fiber material and cork or wood bobs Planks used as walking platforms were placed around the spreads to allow fishers to access them and maneuver the nets across for spreadin g. Each net spread varied in size, but most were rectangular in dimension, additions to them made as the net load increased among the fisher crews, as part of a communal facility, or according to agreements between individual fishers. The overall system o f the net works created it own pattern, or mosaic on the open water landscape that spread along and across the waterfront. The fisheries camps and processing buildings rose from the net spread structures as intermittently placed, yet all connected as part of a web like system that allowed fishers to access the primary dock structures leading to the two or three fisheries processing facilities. Therefore, the growth of this construct up to 1921 appeared as an accreting outward ly growing form, whereby the clo se proximity of the structures to the shoreline was determined by the hierarchy of abutting, upland s land ownership and the rights of access allowed by those landowners. Later, riparian rights would complicate how the access to these areas would evolve, p itting some over the water structure owners, against those land owners and with land sovereignty issues claimed by government interests While the basic configuration of the net works structure changed only in size versus shape or materials during the co ntextual growth period from the settlement period, it impact on the waterfront as a nearly built out over the water form depicted it as a distinctive extended vernacular form, attributable to TFVs of the Florida Gulf Coast. While net reels were used extens ively in many TFVs in the United States, there were

PAGE 460

460 relatively few in Cortez, though Stearns (1887) indicated that they had been the primary ng the pre settlement form period. Physical manifestations d ock system. By 1921, the dock system had also expanded but in the same vernacular manner as it had u p to 1897 The addition of 24 years had little influence on the slow evoluti on of technical methods for dock construction, except that ther e was more of it as a physical construct contributing to an almost overcrowded water/land interstice. Some docks, such as the one initially constructed by the Brattons extending from the Albion Inn to the south were lengthened a nd strengthened to allow ru n boat loading and unloading. Also, the docks were reinforced using thicker lumber components such as 4x6 floor joists and palmetto pilings bolted together to form thick bulkheads up to 36 inches thick. This method of construction was not new for the time since materials could be hauled to the site, but it represents another aspect of creating a more permanent erected structure that contributed to the overall vernacular landscape in Cortez. Figure 4 19 illustrates how the basic formation of the dock system extended into the surrounding bay and ma y have existed along the Cortez waterfront The Bratton /Guthrie d ock was perhaps the most significant of these constructs since it accommodated a wider varie t y of activities and business ventures, serving more as the community wharf. I t was not limited to only fish and fishing gear loading and unloading, but also served in function for general supply deliveries, ice deliveries, and tourist watercraft. Because o f this variety, it was purposely constructed to accommodate larger vessels with reinforced structural capabilities. The Bratton /Guthrie d ock,

PAGE 461

461 therefore, served as the anchor wharf from which the larger dock system was connected. Based on historic photogra phs, the docks appeared to extend from each waterfront parcel to a system of net spreads and camps. The more commercial waterfront between the Albion Inn and 123 rd Street Court provided perpendicular dock connections that ran more or less parallel to the s horeline. At the most, there were two or three of these structura l tie ins to the overall system all appearing to be loosel y and minimally constructed in a very temporary manner. There is some reasoning that can be conjectured here that may support the l ack of development creep toward the north along the western shoreline. Parcel 7, the largest land parcel of the original 1887 subdivision of 13 parcels, and sandwiched between the two western shoreline parcels and the Albion Inn parcel was owned by the se venth settler in Cortez, C. D. Jones who had left Cortez for Palma Sola by 1903. His absence as a permanent settler though visiting on a temporary basis but not as a commercial fisher since he captained the Mistletoe steamer, would have stifled developmen t of the property beyond the fish camp he had constructed over the water at the end of a long dock. Since he kept the property to near the end of the contextual growth form period, his infrequent visit s, and employed status as a run boat captain would prod uce little opportunity for it to be developed. The two individual properties along the extreme west shoreline owned by D. S. Fulford w ere temporarily abandoned by him by 1917, leaving this significant stretch of waterfront property vacant and untended. While it is highly likely that itinerant or even some established fishers used the abandoned buildings and structures up to 1921

PAGE 462

462 of that waterfront until his return around 1930. Of course, the fact that the Fulford Hotel complex was basically destroyed by fire during his absence c aused a diminution of the available waterfront form of two story gabled buildings. Physical manifestations nets Not every indicator will reveal dramatic changes worthy of elongated discussions between periods. The use of seine nets and gill nets by Cortez fishers had not changed significantly by 1921 from the earlier settlement period though gi ll nets were not identified as equipment a pre settlement period. Seines were often used during brief periods as the mullet ran along the coast early in the season during the fall. Some fishers used stop nets along with beach sein es in order to redirect the movement of fish toward the seine. Some fishers likely used stop nets throughout all of the harvest periods. Historic photographs reveal seine fishers hauling in catches of fish along the beach, presumably on one of the nearby b arrier island stretches of Longboat Key or Anna Maria Island. In contrast, seine net fishing accounted for the most of the fish harvests in North Carolina coastal fisheries for over 100 years until at least the late 1970s. The only exceptions to this prim acy were the years 1937 to 1940, where the gill net edged out the seine net in total harvests for each of those years. Cast nets were still essential instead continuing to rep resent a subsistence or recreational pursuit. In physical terms, the types of nets used, and the processes for maintaining them was an unchanged vernacular indicator set from the settlement period ending in 1898, until the end of the

PAGE 463

463 contextual growth peri od in 1921. Other changes were unraveling that were more socially ordained, based on varying values both internal to Cortez, as well as, external. Though gill nets co ntinued to be the primary fishing net in Cortez schisms between fishers began to develop during the contextual growth form peri od that saw an increase in stop netting and seine hauling with the advent of powered launches and motorized equipment such as the land mining based, gasoline powered that pulled the net from the water into the vessel without requiring a team of fishers. Even in Cortez, with its build up of a kinship oriented fishing culture, the differenc es of opinions on this issue were so great that it would le a d to th e apparent d ynamiting of one gill netter s house by stop netters during the contextual growth recovery form peri od later The interesting fact in this growing disagreement on gear and method in Cortez is that many of the stop netters were not native to North Carolina sug gesting that different cultural values were present in Cortez during this period. In fact, several had long roots as Florida natives. T he problems between the fishers in Cortez associated with these different net types revolved around use of the net and th e amount of resources taken. Fishers employing gill net s were typically viewed as being more mobile fishers than those using stop nets. Gill netters could locate fish from a vessel and employ the net virtually anywhere within the fishing grounds. The 300 foot to 3,000 foot encircling gill net system was a standard net used by Cortez fishers who typically would tend the nets since catches would have to be retrieved within a few hours to prevent damage to both the fish and the nets. These nets were typic ally used for mullet that were plump from roe, when prices per pound were elevated. Some fishers would use floating or

PAGE 464

464 underwater gill nets, which were assembled to lengths of over one mile, and which were considered more stationary, but used the same mesh trapping device. These gill nets would be placed overnight based on tidal influences, and were used after the spawn run period when mullet prices were lower. A continual effect upon fishers was in the form of an evolving regulat ory environment involving g ear and that had already been implemented in Florida even before the fisher These laws, occurring in Florida as early as 1 881, partly out of the establishment of the U. S. Fish Commission just after the Civil War, sought to protect species that were declining due to overfishing depletion. Part of the onslaught of regulation s was being carried out by recreational fishers who had been visiting Florida coast al areas as t ourists ; they did not live there, at least n ot permanently. The enactment of fish laws and rules would create the notion of a fishing season to the general public. However, this was somewhat myopic since the catching of fish according to a schedule was already an inherent form of the tradit ional knowledge that would typically be follow ed by established natural patterns of fishery abundance and availability. Of course, harvests were also predicated on market pricing, when fisheries operators would set higher fish prices The management and ca re of nets also remained stable. They were still made of natural fiber cotton with predetermined net mesh sizes, and lengths determined by the size of crew, and the advancing technology for hauling the nets back into the vessel. Though this would be an imp ortant consideration for watercraft, and the act of fishing, it had no significant effect on the nets as highly contextual artifacts

PAGE 465

465 Up to 1921, the maintenance of nets also remain ed stable. The cotton net material, as a cellulose fiber, continued to require constant attention and repairing if a fisher wanted to retain his gear investment This required the use of net spreads that also increased in spatial allocation in tandem with the number of fishers employing cotton nets. The drying o f nets through proper airing out was one of the most contextually significant aspects of the vernacular TFV that prevented them from degrading due to a chemical process referred to as overheating. In some instances, the accumulation of slime, fat, detritus and other organic substances on netting that was not properly spread would cause a reaction akin to generating enough heat to cause them to catch fire and burn. This was reduced by rinsing or treating the nets with a variety of agents including lime, tar salt or solutions made with them. According to a 2013 display at the Florida Maritime Museum at Cortez, the fishers typically used lime and saltwater rinses While the form of the net structure remained stable, the addition of agents for maintaining net s on the waterfront as an effect to the vernacular landscape form is fairly debatable. There is certainly an effect when considering the overall process of maintenance, of which the preservation agents are part of, and to which they certainly contribute. H owever, from the landscape scale of my study, the zeroed in resolution of the agents themselves is not considered in detail. Its preliminary consideration does reveal the different levels of resolution the researcher can gravitate to, as Kropf (1993) helpe d to clarify in his study of urban form. To restate, the basic form of the fishing net in Cortez did not necessarily change during the contextual growth form period. The favored fish sought still deferred to the

PAGE 466

466 mullet, and the fishery topography was still confined, requiring little need for adapting new methods or nets. Physical manifestations watercraft T he gasoline engine prompted the most significant change to watercraft during this period. In fact, the conversion from sail power to gasoline powered w atercraft represents one of the most significant changes to the extended vernacular landscape form in Cortez, and most other TFVs that were entrenched or emerging at the time as well. While the transition was incremental since the first mass produced mot ors were not widely available until at least by 1915, by 1921, the adaptation of watercraft origi nally fitted for sails to outboard motors, and the standardization of vessels effecting a wide cultural swath across the United States was already in full swing. By 1920, the moto rized culture was already publis hing reports of fishers being able to be more competitive and successful than their o a ring and sailing counterparts ( Motor B oat Publications 1920) Standardization, the manufacturing of a common identically designed set of components that could be used for a particular line of watercraft or among different types, was seen by its proponents as necessary to watercraft production for increasing quality, lowering costs, making them more affordable to the public. Ironically, some naval architects saw a lack of quality deriving from local watercraft bui lders due to craftsmanship, which is even today looked at as having a much higher quality than mass produced products. In 1921, the naval design community even suggested that prestige for the local builder was better achieved by aligning with a business that had the benefit of nation wide adve rtising ( Deed, 1921). The mass production of watercraft

PAGE 467

467 prompted by their motorization would begin to markedly reduce local water cr aftsmanship. T he first motor ized vessel in Cortez was apparently purchased and i nstalled by N. Fulford (Green, n.d.) sometime around 1910. This seems fairly early since the first boat motor in the United States was not given a test run until the AMC compan y did it out of New York in 1896, but only a few of their models were manufactured immediately afterwards, numbering less than 30 total It is doubtful that Fulford received on e of these first products Cameron Waterman developed the first widely available outboard in 1905 receiving a patent for his design in 1907, during which he manufactured around 3,000 of the motors out of the Detroit area where up to 200,000 automobiles would be produced by the end of 1908, and over eight million by the end of 1914. N were being touted as developed primarily for the fisher, suggesting a ready market based on either demand, or function ( Whittier, 1957). Norwegian immigrant Ole Evinrude designed an outboard motor out of Milwaukee creating the second successful mass manufactured outboard motor which was tested in 1907, but was not patented until 1911. His patent was followed by another mass production of over 25,000 outboards by 1915. The wide cultural desire for powered watercraft would result in ov er 750,000 outboard motors purchased by Americans during the 1930s. While early mass produced motorized boat motors may not have been readily available to the Cortez fishers, it is possible that they were rigging their own motorized systems as an adapted technology to their sail watercraft. Through a thicker descriptive analysis of boat motorization, t he historic record does reveal this type of activity as

PAGE 468

468 occurring in Cortez and other TFVs It reflects an adaptive skill of at least certain of the first fi sher settlers as embracing technology and moving away from tradition. t was suggested b y Green (n.d.), that he had a 4 horsepower Barker motor. The Barker Factory was out of Norwalk, Connectic ut and began manufactur ing motors as early as 1900. The company did manufacture a single cylinder, 4 horsepower motor, which seemed to be widely available by 1905, or so. It is possible that Fulford had equipped one of his vessels with this motor that woul d have predated the smaller, refined outboards made available later by Waterman and Evinrude. This accounts for the anecdotal accounts of extremely noisy engines used by some of the fishers around this time. It also suggests that conversions to power were occurring early on by some fishers, and that others were either reluctant or not able financially, to convert their own vessels. As a matter of record b y 1908, some of the local watercraft builders heard Cortez fisher A. Willis plying the Manatee River i n an open launch with a very loud motor and envisioned the quickening of the end of sail. However, Robie (1921) reported that sail ing rigs were still prevalent along the Cortez waterfront supporting the suggestion that the persistence of sail as opposed to the sudden and wholesale change to motor was still continued Cuban fishing smacks under sail power were still seen on the local waters by the end of 1921 (Warner & Warner 1986). Other areas such as those along the coasts of North Carolina saw a significant reduction of sails used for fishing, yet they still persisted in those places (Garrity Blake, 1994). This persistence is not surprising, and does not reveal much significance in its temporal quality, since cultural adaptation to change i s complex across a wide and varied geography. Sometimes, rapid change in

PAGE 469

469 extremely localized geographies such as Cortez may have occurred in response to other technologies, standards, methods, etc.; however, it was not the case for motorization, which depe n, ease of availability, willingness or resista nce to change familiarity logistics, the list goes on Regardless, the basic watercraft form was noticeably changing after centuries of a fairly stable form configuration, and were now being represented by a mixed indicator set that consisted of unaltered sail craft, large and small motorized vessels, and rowing skiffs, with a few vessels from the north adding to the mix either as part time fishers or as recr eational visitors ( Smith, 1930). Smith further identified a Tampa Bay sharpie along the coastal area that he saw as a mimicked design from Pamlico Sound along heaply constructed with a flat bott om up to 50 feet in length. It also retained its two sail masts and had a quickness that allowed speedy delivery of fresh fish from the fishing grounds to the shipping points along the coast. He also identified the smaller skipjack with its retained single mast configuration. This is the name that Asa Pillsbury used for describing many of the watercraft in the area during the early Cortez periods. The skipjack attained a length of only 20 feet with semi vee bottoms, and had a sprit with a jib. Perhaps most interesting is Smi lapstrake watercraft at Cortez. Here, he purposely makes a distinction between a group of watercraft he purposely referred to as occurring at Cortez, and those found at o ther TFVs along the coast from Charlotte Harbor to Apalachicola. lapstrake connotation was based on a design out of Maine and the northeast United States that Another interesting, and perhaps

PAGE 470

470 coinc idental reference to the lapstrake watercraft came from Stearns (1887), who documented the watercraft (he called them lap streak) along the Florida Gulf Coast near Charlotte Harbor in 1879. In Cortez, they were represented by a similar but looser mainsail and jib configuration as the skipjack just referenced but achieved lengths up to 24 feet, and had round bottoms. di stinction made of a few out of l iterally hundreds of vessels that were in operation between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor at the time. (1996) suggestion that certain traditional watercraft forms were representative of distinct local cultures where the knowledge of their design and construction was passed down and then found later as a diffused, spatially distributed artifact that achieved at least some modicum of success, albeit for a relatively brief period. The slow transition is not surprising since the estates of the typical fisher were nary flowing with m oney. Of course, many of the successful captains and the Cortez l and owners who were making profits beyond fishing were able to make the transition more quickly. They would use the power of the motorized launch to tow the smaller skiffs to the fishing groun ds where the gill net form took prominence over other net equipment, not only in Cortez, but also in many fishing communities along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Again, f or those who could afford a motor in Cortez, there was no sudd en shift from the vernacular watercraft being used after the turn of the twentieth century to a standardized watercraft that was purchased as a motorized fishing boat. Sail rigged and simple rowing watercraft were modified by making room for motors, elimin ating their centerboards and sail components and outfitting them with new motor systems. In some

PAGE 471

471 cases, the sail rigging was preserved as a source of auxiliary power. Many of the original fishers had learned their fishing methods using sail and oar watercr aft. In fact, their distinct knowledge of fishing often revolved around this knowledge. Their generation would be the first to begin a withdrawal from this tradition, marking a significant change that would insert itself into the act of fishing. By the en d of the contextual growth period, gasoline had become a permanent retail commodity in Cortez as indicated by at least one historic photograph revealing a Red Crown Gasoline sign at the Bratton Dock most likely after 1921 The Red Crown product was availa ble after 1911 as part of the breakup of the Standard Oil Company. In the Cedar Keys, McCarthy (2007) suggested that the waterfront form was rapidly changing to one without sails where fishers were now pulling up to the docks to fill their gas tanks with t he newly constructed fuel supply stations. A similar change was occurring at Cortez. By 1921 more than 100 run boats were passing by Cortez, many of them stopping at the Bratton Dock. The demand for gasoline required at least weekly refueling by gas launches from the Port of Tampa (Antonini et al., 2002). Ice deliveries also increased as the fishing hauls increased. New dredging of the bay in 1919 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers replaced the o lder cut dredged during the mid 1890s. Increased water traffic and commerce on Sarasota Bay was a main arbiter for this improvement prompted by some additional support by Cortez fishers and business persons, who must have sensed the scale of commerce that was developing from the transition to motorized deliver y methods by water, in spite of it also occurring over land. The spoil from this dredging activity would be used to effect a new shoreline boundary form in Cortez.

PAGE 472

472 At about the same t ime, the transition from animal drawn wagons was also revealing itself i n Cortez. The increasing availability of powered land vehicles would also affect local vernacular forms with the first Model T Ford showing up in Cortez around 1915 or so. Its form is identified in the waterfront conglomeration sketch in Figure 4 17 as an emergent form that would affect the character of the waterfront not only in and of itself, but as a revolutionary paradigm of technology. Ironically, or coincidentally as the case may be, the boat motor seemed to catch on quicker than the automobile at fir st in Cortez. Part of this was due to the lack of quality roads leading to and from Cortez. Even by 1921, the Cortez arterial remained a hard surfaced, but non paved road always subject to rutting and erosion from heavy rains It was not until that year, that local engineer Jack Leffingwell was ask ed by Manatee County officials to design a road that could be improved between Cortez and Manatee Avenue in order to improve travel to and from the communities along the Manatee River. Travel by 1921 was still m o re efficient and quicker by water. However, the effect of the auto would begin to affect the upland vernacular landscape in Cortez with the construction of the Cortez B ridge that extended from the northwest corner of the village across the bay to the barri er island. Though under construction, it would not be fully completed by the end of the period, but would serve as a monument to a changing vernacular landscape represented by motorization of bot h watercraft and the automobile. The overall effect would re sult in a n evolving and significant diminution of the local vernacular watercraft as an artifact and symbol of a particular fishing culture with an identifiable origin (North Carolina), along with the first appearances of sig nificance loss of traditionally learned skillset that involved the use of sail and watercraft handling.

PAGE 473

473 The new, non vernacular watercraft structure would now be oriented toward increased production and extending the fishing grounds that would in turn, slowly progress, but with a contin ual reference by the fishers, young and old, to the benefits of former watercraft structures and cultural significance. However, t watercraft was ensconced as a physical connection to his identity as a fisher regardless of its form, and his attention to it reflected a sense of pride and worth of his reputation as part of the ciated with that lifestyle ( Peacock & Sabella, 1988). Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds. The fishing grounds for the Cortez fishers continued to encompass the physical area of the bays and estuaries of Tampa, Sarasota, and Charlotte Harbor. To the fisher, the grounds were related as being female, while the schools of fish were male (Frederikso n, 1995). It was the primary working landscape of the fishers, without which fishing could not be done, and the associated vernacular construct would not have evolved. Similar to how farmers shaped their upland landscapes from barren fields and unsettled f orests, so did the fisher with the extended landscape, or fishing grounds of the open water and tidal areas, not typically thought of as part of the working landscape ( Cannavo, 2007) Referring to it as a waterscape i s not suffic ient, since it extends from the upland as part of a physical and less than physical manifestation s of the TFV landscape Never a purely definable spatial artifact, its boundaries shrank and grew as the fish ran and were a vailable to what remained an in shore fishery to the end of 192 1. The first in shore commercial fishers of Cortez, who had by the end of the contextual growth form period committed over 30 years to a vernacular tradition of

PAGE 474

474 fishing were fading as a distinct vernacular group of artisanal fishers as newer technologies such as motorization, ice, and refrigeration allowed them to adjust their methods accordingly. Toward the end of the contextual growth form period, the second and third generations of fishers were able to visualize and sense an expanded and evolving concep t of the fishing grounds. However, the availability of the physical grounds also began to shrink with new land development, recreational fishing, and an ever increasing regulatory environment. Since the fishers had long adapted to an inshore fishing tradit ion, the extension of the fishing grounds did not immediately occur in tandem with it simply because they could now reach them more easily Instead, t hat would come later mostly from an increase in regulatory mea s ures Instead, the biggest change was in their efficiency with regard to the act of fishing. In spite of slow adaptation, t he contextual growth form period still presented technological innovations that were being applied even in small scale commercial fishing industry locations such as Cortez. The generations that followed the original fisher settlers were able to use the traditional fishing knowledge that was handed down from their forebears in an adaptive manner that suited their own indivi dual and collective purposes. Notwithstanding the increased accessibility of the fishing grounds to fishers due in part to motorization, after 1900, the fishing grounds became expanded in a sense as fishers were seemingly able to spend more time in it as i ce became more easily available through remote retailers and specialized ice run boat system s such as were developed in the Charlotte Harbor fishery. While t here is no evidence to date that the Cortez fishers developed this kind of system which allowed fi shers to extend their time in the fishing grounds there is a high possibility that at least some of them extended

PAGE 475

475 their fishing grounds as far south as Charlotte Harbor through the develop ment of personalized and commercial fishing connections from older established relationships such as with the Chadwicks as referenced earlier, herein. Inter fishing grounds relations expanded opportunities for the Cortez fishers However, the argument that fishers were somehow spending more time on the water may not be completely accurate. In contrast, the newer technology also allowed fishers to spend less time in the fishing grounds according to McCarthy (2007) since they could get to fishing grounds and return to port quicker. So, there was a continual waxing and wani ng of the fishing grounds both temporally and spatially. In my opinion, and based on the historic record, it seems as if fishers opted for increasing their time in the fishing grounds by the end of the contextual growth form period especially when the fis h we re running Their ability to travel f urt her and to acquire ice in remote areas not available earlier allowed them to stay longer rather than having to return quicker. This of course depended on the scale of the catch, which with exception of brief unp roductive fishing excursions, did not seem to have a temporal bearing of the fishing grounds during the overall period. And while motorization may relative newness and expense of acquiring the latest technology was not available to all fishers. This represented a disparity between groups of fishers that may have revealed itself in one group of fishers choosing stop net systems over the more traditional gill net system. H ence, the ability of some fishers to extend the fishing practice, also served to creating a challenge to the local val ue system and ethics of fishing that had been relatively stable for most of the contextual growth period.

PAGE 476

476 However, anecdotal evidence sugg ests that by the 1920s the Charlotte Harbor fishing grounds were developed under a loosely def ined territorial system. The in shore system of earmarked fishing grounds, which is unusual. The local, in shore water s were often attached in a n intangible manner to the villages and large landowners generally abutting them. This is in contrast to the open Gulf of Mexico, where fishers historically fished unfettered from notions of territoriality. In one way, the accessibility to the wider open water areas through power motoring could have opened these areas up, therefore expanding the grounds. Yet, in Cortez during the contextual growth form period, there seemed to be a commitm ent to mullet as the primary catch, and steadfastness with fishing the same waters that the early setters did. Of course, this steadfastness was likely predicated on the availability of the fish, which the fishers up to 1921 continued to rely on without si gnificant, long term declines or unproductive seasons, though the first real instances of catch reductions and low productivity would occur later. While t he relative abundance of fish was good, it did not require a search for new grounds, though the power motor did allow some fishers to search for other fish that brought higher per pound prices These fish, such as grouper and snapper did requ ire fishing trips beyond the in shore area yet there is no predominance of these activities that significantly affec ted the vernacular landscape form The narrowing or shrinkage of the available fishing grounds was also a very real problem for the Cortez f isher in both physical and intangible terms. The freedom to fish where one wanted, that was part of the settlement f orm period form, was developing

PAGE 477

477 into a more defined, programmed form as part of the contextual growth form period The land booms that were evident in Manatee County before and after the F irst W orld W ar resulted in attracting increased development and land speculation activities that began to encroach upon the village and the adjacent in shore, historic fishing grounds of the first settlers. Part of this shrinkage was prompted by the improvement of the Intracoastal Waterway that began in the 1890s, and repeated in 1919 in Sarasota Bay based on local support for enhancing the opportunities for water oriented commerce. Th e resulting chain of development impact appears to have been fostered by a som ewhat self inflicted conundrum that attempted to balance traditional fishing with accommodating commerce Extensive residential waterfront develop ment, much of it delayed until after World War II, would begin to surround and affect Cortez as part of intense land subdivisions and planned community design ( Antonini et al. 2002). As development occurred during the period, many fishers saw reductions i n the shoreline tidal area where mangrove fringes once existed, serving as nurseries for many species of fish. Another element of the shrinking fishing grounds was revealed as part of the brew ing feud between gillnetters and stop netters. The ramifications of how the fishing grounds were perceived differed between the two gro ups, and both physical and intangible issues resulted from it. From this schism, it is possible that a more territorial breaking up of the overall fishing grounds began to develop. The issue of encroachment began to develop as par t of this, for example, as gill stop vernacular skill sets of the traditional fisher was in knowing w here and when to fish

PAGE 478

478 based on an implied knowledge of fishing locations, or spots, as belonging to a certain fisher, at a certain time. This developed as part of the settlement form period, and continued through the contextual growth form p eriod. Later, t his would be referred to as fishing space management, little known and applied through any scientific allotment system up to 1921. Anderson (1984), in discussing this as part of post World War II fishing trends, referred to it as a form of reciprocity betw een fishers (p. 794). As an implied knowledge set, it combined with the learned knowledge of weather, topo graphy, and tides to name a few that co mprised a total vernacular know how set that extended the fishing grounds accordingly. The accomplished traditio nal fisher also incorporated other esoteric aspects in to his knowledge of the fishing ground s whereby he could to the shore (Gilmore, 1998, p. 272). Finally, the continuing regulatory environment, much of it fostered by encroaching development was beginning to be felt by the fishers regarding their fishing grounds by the end of the period. All of the fishers, though typically strong advocates of free e nterprise and property rights on land, began to question the efficacy of laws that restricted where, when, and how they could fish They saw a reciprocity responsibility when it came to both freedom and rights where a particular code of mutual no harm betw een neighbors was to be followed (Frederikson, 1995). The imbalance was to the fishers, an affront to their traditional knowledge of the fishing grounds th at seemed to be ignored in favor of non fishers who may never have even been on the water. The questi on of who actually controlled the horizontal and vertical components of the fishing grounds was an immediate, internalized response that would take years of virtually

PAGE 479

479 silent consideration by the fishers before it would be e xpressed The encroachment of the fishing grounds by non fishers was akin to a long historical record of confrontations involving sod busters, and the Spanish rancho fishers and American fisher s along the Florida Gulf Coast ( Frederikson, 1995, p. 179). So, though the various structures of the fishing grounds waxed and waned during the contextual growth form period, it also chan ged significantly in its extent. This significant change was reflected in a reduction of the fishing grounds physically as new development encroached and invaded space. It also became reduc ed as part of an esoteric, intangible sense of overlapping between fishers that was becoming less respected than how it was perceived by outsider non fishers fr om prior generations. However, the fishing grounds to extend their usual fishing grounds and either spend more time in it because technology allowed it, or less time for the very same reason This represents an added Intangible manifestations a ct of fishing In contrast to the changing spatial and temporal elements of the traditional fishing grounds, the act of fishing remained a fairly stable vernacular form from the settlement form period according to the purposes of my study. While some intrinsic and extrinsic social and political nuances occurred that affected the act, there were no significant changes This seems surprising considering the discussion about technological advances. Though motorized technology caused an effect, t he basic act of using gill nets and seine nets continued in spite of the watercraft forms changing toward the end of the period. Fishing for mullet, as the

PAGE 480

480 primary pursuit, was still shared by most of the fishers, with more than half of the Cortez fishers native to North Carolina. In fact, though the number of non North Carolinian fishers settled in Cortez was increasing fisher re cruitment of friends and family, or through a camaraderie base, remained steady. The increase of fishers by nearly triple from the end of the settlement form period certainly represented an increase in the activity to be sure Toward the end of the settle ment form period, Cortez contributed most of the over 20 million pounds of mullet that were being harvested as a dependable fisher harvest in Florida This primary pursuit of mullet as the target fish, continued to build around itself as an act that was in dividualized in how each fisher managed his own operation or team. It was also a collective act in that the ultimate goal for harvesting mullet was basically the same for them as a group peculiar to this one TFV. The type of fishing then, i.e., the pursuit of the same species, whether through seine netting or gill netting, or even cast netting represented a similarity in the form. The use of nets, which did not change as a form, typically operated by hand to a large degree, still represented a vernacular me thod. In describing the commercial fishing industry along the Florida Gulf Coast in 1928, Matthews suggested that there was very little change in the equipment and methods over the 50 year period dating back to 1878. In addition, he remarked that gill nett ing had been the most popular type of fishing in Florida compared to other Gulf States. Even the salting of fish had remained a steady part of the act of fishing by the end of the contextual growth form period, since ice was rarely an absolutely dependable utility. Some latent changes to mechanical devices began to be

PAGE 481

481 applied, but the critical juncture required to represent a form change to the overall act, simply was not yet evident to a sufficient degree. The act of seine netting versus gill netting may have represented early on in the period, a difference of fishing methods between two groups of fishers. In turn, this may have resulted in the schism that developed betwee n the gillnetters and the stop netters that wo uld erupt during the contextual recovery form period after 1921. Regardless, based on historical annual statistical information by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, gill netting had never relinquished any significant ground to stop netters as far as the primary net system used. Florida typically lagged behind other states in the strength of regulating its fisheries, though the act of fishing was already being regulated by state officials as early as 1881. By 1902, popular information sources, such as from The Florida Cracker, a r egional information source, was already reporting that a crescendo of complaints against seine netting had built up, referring to a noticeable depletion of fish Tourism had also increased and was staking its claim on Cortez mostly from recreational fishe rs and those seeking medical relief. Yet, the fisher continued to maintain a self directed ethic akin to a farmer tending his field with time, care, and a nurturing of it for future use. In essence, the Cortez fisher felt strongly that he was providing a p ublic service. Even though pressures from external forces such as development and conservationists were continually placed on fishers during the period, their particular act remained on a steady, fairly level trajectory. Intangible manifestations e lapsed experiential. While the act of fishing may have represented a fairly stable dynamic, t he lost cultural flux of the contextual growth

PAGE 482

482 form per iod began its formation regarding Cortez as the new generations born into or arrived as children in the community began to age and acquire a modified vernacular. This r esulted from the evolving technolog ies in watercraft, fish preservation methods, encroachments through external land development, and the arrival of outsiders to the community who brought a mix of fishi ng methods and varying social viewpoints and perceptions To restate, t he settlement form period fishers of Cortez, who had by the end of the contextual growth form period committed over 30 years to a vernacular tradition of fishing were fading as a distinct vernacular group of artisanal fishers as newer technologies such as ice, refrigeration, and power motors allowed them to adjust their methods accordingly. A secon d generation of fishers, some of who m had North Carolina roots, and others who would be born into Cortez rather than transplanted, were already causing alterations to the residential housing construct. In some cases, the settlement form period fishers were increasing the square footage of their residences to accommodate new fishers arriving to Cortez. As the regional and national cultural flux pressed in more influential ways due to increases in technology and travel availability, the second and third gene rations of fishers growing up with Cortez as part of their own contextualize d memories, could better view Cortez and its cultural flux than their parents, even if some of the fishing tradition had been handed down from them. For example, their views of a s hrinking fishing grounds were most likely received and experienced in different ways. In some ways, they may have represented a dramatic change to their childhood views of space and expanding cultural influence, which may have presented a sense of confinem ent

PAGE 483

483 and closing in, while in others it may have presented notions of new opportunities. Only later would the newer generations better articulate how these changes and influences would affect their own experiences and the small village culture that they wer e part of. At the beginning of the contextual growth from period, additional steam and schoone r visits to the wharf at Cortez connected the fishers and residents to external communities through a waterway exchange of goods, services, and the cultural flux of external cultural systems. The development of denser and vibrantly commercial Anna Maria, gave the Cortez residents opportunit ies to visit other areas that had cu ltural dynamics happening other than fishing. The relative isolation of living in Cortez started to wane as this access increased. While the use of watercraft was still considered the most accessible mode of travel, even as early as 1900, the trail betwee n Cortez and the western reach of Manatee Avenue that ran along Palma Sola Bay, eventually leading into Bradentown, was starting to open up the opportunities for excursions into nearby towns by any resident of Cortez. Th e resultant increase in access and d ecrease in remoteness mainly due to the success of fishing, served as a prime influence based on commerce that would be able to better embrace the technological advances on the immediate horizon. While D. S. Fulford had already instituted the idea of a ho tel during the settlement form existing waterfront store s outh complex, and along the more commercial oriented south waterfront added an additional and interesting c ultural mix of Northern settler influence into the local economic and social scene. One interesting fact

PAGE 484

484 is that the retail merchandisers that participated in Corte early contextual growth form period were from the American Midwest. Census records from 1 895 reveal that A. J. Cook, owner of perhaps the first retail outlet in Cortez, was from Illinois. The Brattons, who owned the building through their purchase of the land beneath it in 189 6, were also from Illinois. Another retailer, J. Burton who would buy out A. J Cook, was from I ndiana, and his wife was from Illinois One has to wonder about the potential for sharing and blending of two distinct cultural regions of the Midwest and the relatively new settlement territory of the Florida Gulf Coast, enha nced even further by the original North Carolina influence. However, the early influence would not last for most of the contextual growth form period as Cook would be gone by 1906, and the Brattons would depart just after the end of the first decade. With the arrival of new fishers and the addition of children to Cortez, land resales and exchanges seemed to be quite fluid after the turn of the century prompting a densification of the residential character While the village was still growing with the purc hase of new parcels toward the east, s ome of the large property owners such as the Brattons, J. E. Guthrie and N Fulford were creating additional parcels right along the commercial hub of Third Street (124 th Street). This was no doubt prompted by the in credible surge of new residents and the prospering commercial fishing trade between 1900 and 1910. Another change to the cultural flow in Cortez prompted by the increased population was fostered by the agreement to incorporate the growing village in 1912 and the construction of the second public school during the same year Typically, notions to incorporate are underscored by a need to better manage the physical and

PAGE 485

485 organizational problems that were growing along with the expansion of Cortez. The needs fo r an improved public infrastructure, public safety, and coordination of a legal standing was proof that the cultural flux in the village was already well beyond fishing camp status to a place of permanence. Yet, there was still inadequate access to Cortez by land, and its continued remoteness helped to foster an unacknowledged momentum of change as the villagers grappled with their daily lives organized around the commercial fishing context. The differences represented by places accessible primarily by wate r, and other communities with land access creates in a way, two distinct landscape forms that another study beyond mine here could encompass Now, at the end of the first decade, the motorized watercraft began to appear in Cortez, creating a new paradigm for both fishing and water borne travel. The scenic gaze of a the sail as part of an incredibly long standing era that prompted many early (and later) writers to comment romantically about its impact on t he watery landscape, did not have a lengthy mulling over period as it was changed by steam power, and then quickly by fuels. While the loss of a distinct part of culture may have been a premature assessment at the time, the inroads of tradition loss was ce rtainly gaining momentum as vernacular sailing watercrafts men lamented the transition (Warner & Warner 1986). However, the newer generations were able to adapt it much more readily, as part of the wider mainstream culture acceptance, and in aging along w ith the technology. The common forms of the settlement and early contextual growth form periods were now beginning to appear out of synch with feelings of a localized tradition as they became components of the physical culture that were now within reach of the fisher, beginning with the more influential and stronger fisher/landowners.

PAGE 486

486 The rapid pace of development strengthened Cortez as a TFV moving away from the vernacular due to the burgeoning technological improvements and population increases that were beginning to change loca l methods and rural character. Yet, t he building up of the traditional fishing culture did not seem to be as a ffected though the d egree of a more pure vernacular based culture dependent on the application of handcraft was lessening The focus on fishing was stronger than ever, but toward the end of the second decade, it actually returned to more of a subsistence focus as men went off to the F irst W orld W ar and those remaining struggled with t he related economic depression and a rat her severe flu epidemic that raged from 1917 until 1918. This re gression, or more precisely, stabilization of what had been dramatic growth up describing limited change to the buildings of Key West (1988 p. 42). The waxing and waning of brief periods of stability are commonly found as episodic, reflecting the influential power of the wider culture flux on the more local. These temporal relations between the wide cultural flux and the localized built constr ucts are themselves unstable, giving way to the constraints and opportunities formulated by an unlimited number of influences beyond the control of the local culture (Rapoport, 1992) By the end of the contextual growth form period, and with dredging operations being performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers around Sarasota Bay, one such opportunity presented itself that accommodated important changes to the some of the Cortez form indicators. For example, because of the t iming of the dredging of the cut that would replace the 1895 Longbar Cut, the owner of the Albion Inn would begin to extend the property into the bay as fill as one of the first walled shorelines in Cortez.

PAGE 487

487 Though it would take more than two years to compl ete, it would set the precedent, based on the given opportunity found during lean times, for others in Cortez to follow. This, in tandem, was occurring at the same time as the new construction of the brid ge that would connect Cortez with the adjacent barri er island system, making way for one of the strongest land booms in pre World War II history. As part of the elapsed experiential in almost any contextual place, some element of culture, the setting, or the vernacular process remains in a constant state of being diminish ed as pointed out by Duprey (1959). From the beginning settlement in Cortez, we have thus far seen a minimally developed peninsula developed with a waterfront construct that was adjoined with a permanent residential complex followed by chang es in watercraft. The vernacular landscape was still mostly vernacular, though it became denser, and some nuances of technology and higher design crept in. Though many sails were stowed away and disappeared from the visible landscape, the forms of watercra ft hulls mostly remained as they were adapted to fit motors, but without highly noticeable changes to their exteriors. While the diminution of vernacular as stated resulted in some non vernacular replacement during the contextual growth period, there were also many occurrences of vernacular to vernacular renditions, whereby there was no diminution of vernacular per se only a replacement, or strengthening of it. Unlike other places such as the early Cedar Keys or Key West, where multiplicity of economic st alwarts competed with each other amid a constantly changing system of wharf uses and adaptations resulting in extreme growth followed by rapid decline, Cortez maintained its focus on commercial fishing. It is this type of non diminution that allowed Corte z to remain relatively stable

PAGE 488

488 throughout the contextual growth form period, and also through the following period of contextual recovery as part of the experiential of its intrinsic group Regardless of any technological advances that may have improved the ability to withdraw from sail, commercial fishing remained a precarious business due to an unpredictable market, sudden weather extremes, equipment failure, and the dangers of exposure and reduced agility on the open seas, which could result in f ire, explosions, blunt trauma, or drowning ( Tebeau, 1976). While the advance of motorized watercraft allowed a fisher to reach the fishing grounds and return quicker, it also required a new set of knowledge and logistics that appeared to have been embraced positively by the fishers as a collective whole. Physically, the use of sail and oar required the additional instance of strength and dexterity for operating a vessel, wherea s the motorized vessel did not, though this may be a debat able issue among some f ishers. The elapsed experiential for Cortez fishers was formulated in a strong sense of teamwork loss. The incursion of technical advances away from sail, as the most significant available change up to 1921, even though it was not immediately widespread, allowed fishers to become more independent from each other, resulting in a reduction of the fishing crew. In traditional commercial fishing, the reduction of labor in this regard reduced the physical and intangible forms as part of act of fishing, thereby creating a sense of loss and meaning of the work itself, while allowing the fisher to spend more time in the fishing grounds. It certainly began to increase the dependability ther weather elements that were not conducive to using sail.

PAGE 489

489 While the use of steam had already offered an alternative to sail much earlier, thereby representing a sort of transition to motor power, other forms in the landscape also began to adapt, or change accordingly. Docks and wharfs were constructed to a ccommod ate the change in watercraft form for both access to the port and loading at the physical infrastructure afforded by the village and the dealers who operated out of it. The slow conversion to ice as a preservation method became more prominent as deliveries of it became part of a more dependable schedule. Though the built construct in Cortez did not appear to change in any significant respect due to the permanent establishment of ice facilities in Cortez, it also served as a form of elapsed memory that red uc ed manpower. However, since its storage and prep aration was relegated to the in and the amount of time th ey spent doing it, since the in shore worker could now do it Ice preservation, as a complex construct, was organized much differently in Charlotte Harbor to the south, where a particular form was created based on a network of ice stations constructed in strategic points throughout the coastal area. In Charlotte Ha rbor, and in other coastal fishing villages, the industrialization of commercial fishing seemed to break down the village concept and character. The amount of commerce increased dramatically during the contextual growth form period, which was effected in the adjacent bay system. By the end of the period, there were still only a couple of fish dealers operating out of Cortez; n either were part of the original settler group, though there was a kinship connection that between them that even extended to other fisheries such as Charlotte Harbor. The network of built structures and the fisher to dealer relationship there was markedly unique from Cortez

PAGE 490

490 in that Cortez continued to remain close knit as a living village. It is the living village, that is, a place wh ere the fishers both worked and lived, and invested their personal and business interests that created an elapsed experiential that was much richer than that all of the other fishing villages along the Florida Gulf Coast. Whereas, many fishers in the deple ted and recovering South may have embraced heavy industrialization of the Blake (1994), other groups disdained it and recognized it as an unwelcome change to a fading traditional fishing o peration. Discussion of the contextual growth period form Significant changes occurred in Cortez during the contextual growth form period that were significantly affecting several, but not all of the vernacular landscape forms established as evaluative in dicato rs for the purposes of my study E ffects to form were significant enough to represent distinct change in all areas of the village layout, in its residential and non residential/non contextual buildings, in the extended vernacular form of its watercra ft, and in all three of the intangible extended vernacular forms. Based on the above analysis of the form indicators, Table 4 3 provides a positive or negligible change determination finding of each form indicator during the contextual growth form period as compared to the previous historic study period The village layout form changed significantly due to the successful growth of Cortez that allowed it to transition rather quickly from a temporary construct to one that was more permanent. While it took a pproximately 10 years for Cortez to build out the original platted subdivision from 1887, nearly 25 years passed from that time before the village boundary would be permanently set with the development of a publi c school at its eastern fringe. The expansio n of the village during this time from the original 13

PAGE 491

491 parcels enco mpassing approximately 20 acres resulted in nearly 100 parcels in an enlarged village of over 60 acres. With a population that tripled, the significance of the changing form set is fairly o bvious. While the effects of significant change resulting from an increase in number or scale of certain form s is debatable, b y the end of the contextual growth form period, the permanent character of the overall residen tial construct was also significantl y improved with new forms being added, and the original two story f orms that were prevalent changing to single story constructs. This is in slight contrast to the fisheries contextual form that still retained an element of impermanence, mainly due its loca tion along the vulnerable shoreline or above the water. However, the ability of the fishers to continually relocate buildings and structures throughout all of the form periods is a testament to the common perception that maritime communities incorporate an ethic of mobility, adaptation, and recyclability into their approaches to certain built forms. Perhaps the most significant changes in Cortez occurred over several of its extended vernacular form constructs since they were more directly related to fishi ng, per se While basic fishing equipment and gear such as nets net works, and the docks remained relatively stable with regard to their form imprints and use in the village, the changes to the watercraft form as a result of the combustible power motor wo uld be the most dramatic for the period, and at least until the end of the historic study period Commercially, merchant watercraft designed with sail rigging were manufactured until World War I (Souza, 1998). The slow transition was due in part from fishe rs realizing the economic benefits of continuing with sail, whether it was cost related or efficiency of use. Nevertheless, t he withdraw al from sail meant a diminution of the sail form, while

PAGE 492

492 the basic shape of the watercraft hull did not change significan tly at first. Only later, would watercraft be incorporated into the Cortez landscape as fresh design imprints resulting from mass produced watercraft versus those built by local builders. As expected, the transition from the handcrafted form was slow in it self due to either personal reluctance or personal economics One important fact is that fish hauls could be delivered for processing more efficiently and quickly, theoretically r educing the potential for wasted catches. However, the ability to increase the catch with the new technology may have also increased the potential for waste, though this has not been closely examined herein. The physicality of the form change sh ared equally with that of the intangible nature of form change, as well. The skill se t required by the fisher was much reduced through the use of motorized watercraft in a variety of ways. Some fishers would see this as a distinct loss of the true fisher model and his connection with the natural surround that worked together to formulate h is overall knowledge. The disparity between those who clung to sail and those who quickly converted to motor was noticeable not only in wat ercraft forms and certain skill sets, but also in equipment that utilized motor power. This caused yet another diminut ion in the use of manual labor and the hand as a learned craft. The obvious disparity is revealed beginning with the second and third generation fishers who were not as entrenched in the more traditional forms, and who were therefore, more open and adaptab le to the newer technology though some of the early fishers adapted quickly Both Matthews (1928) and Glassie (1968) suggested that cultures in the South in general, had resisted changes to many of its vernacular material constructs from

PAGE 493

493 mainstream influ ences. However, the need for the to fully recover from the effects of the War Between the States also meant a reluctant change from more traditional methods that had re manifested themselves after the war. To some, mechanization and technology meant a redu ction of the fishing experience, whereas t he inherent life of fishing as a n act steeped in long standing tradition a means of living from which one might have derived personal meaning, also were being diminished. Garrity Blake (1994) discu ssed such an effect as the Menhaden fishery changed along the coasts of North Carolina. In Cortez, similar changes were noticeable in the physical and intangible changes revealed from the evaluation of the form indicator sets. Obviously, the fishing groun ds could be extended for certain fishers, depending on the type of fish sought. Since Cortez fishers sought the mullet as a primary target fish, there was no pertinent need to extend the fishing grounds other than travelling to more remote areas as part of following the runs of fish. Historic records seem to reveal a consistently plentiful bounty up to the end of the contextual growth form period. The act of fishing was changed for many fishers because of the other changes, though some either did not, or co uld not change, again for reasons of personal preference or economics. The basic lay of setting the types of nets used and knowledge of when, where, and how to catch marketable quantities for Cortez fishers was still the same through 1921, though technolog y was changing these abilities. The changes represented the beginning of an elapsed experiential that began to separate the original generation from those that followed it in Cortez. Even some of the second generation fishers would cling to their handed do wn traditions, though most were able to adapt successfully. The elapsed experiential of the original fishers probably did not reveal

PAGE 494

494 itself as part of any meaningful, articulated manner before 1921. Though there is a recognizable difference from a historic al view back in time, the differences would only be articulated by the subsequent generations who would later form an elegiac framed around traditional fishing and the establishment of what would become a distinct place recognized as part of an understood and articulated vernacular landscape. Discussion of the diminution of form event of 1912 It is necessary to peer into the effects on the vernacular landscape form of Cortez from the hurricane that struck the coast al area at the end of October 1921. The characteristi cs of the storm were akin to a C ategory 3 hurricane with wind speeds reaching 140 miles per hour, and included a storm surge up to 11 feet in some areas. The likely surge in Cortez was probably at least six to eight feet The physical effects to any lands cape from a hurricane are well known and documented throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and t here is a modicum of photographic documentation prior to this time that captures the damag ing effects to buildings and waterfront cong lomerations in many communities While there is no graphic or ordered description included as part of the particular discussion here a brief foray into the quer ies it presents is warranted. The storm made landfall as a Ca tegory 3 hurricane at Clearwater Beach to the north with its southern eye wall mostly affecting Cortez resulting in the high tide surge of water that inundat ed the entire village. While no fatalities occurred in Cortez the entire waterfront form structure except for the Albion Inn buildi ng was destroyed. The waterfront conglomeration that had formerly consisted of residential and non residential buildings, the extensive dock systems leading to a network of net and fishing camps, many of the vessels that made up the watercraft form and fi shing equipment became

PAGE 495

495 an entangled heap of formless materials Only the vertical, and in some cases, diagonally askew pilings remained in place The Albion Inn narrowly escaped destruction in part due to its higher land elevation and the beginning construction of a perimeter seawall and land infill that was in progress when the storm surge came ashore This activity would later define the expanded waterfront boundary of the property, as well as, affect the boundary configuration of the village, sett ing a precedent for other infill activities that would occur during the next form period and later. Individual structures, as well as, entire communities have historically been destroyed in a matter of hours from wind and water loads produced by storm even ts. The obvious changes to the landscape from these or any type of catastrophic human made or natural event are sometimes wholesale in their affect and are certainly relevant to landscape change. For the purposes of my study, some would agree that a chang e to the vernacular landsc ape form of Cortez was effected; s ome questions about this arise, however. Debatably, one of the first questions asks whether such wholesale change constitutes a landscape change, per se especially if the landscape is ultimately restored to a similar pre event state or condition. The sudden effect then, is in need of a proper discussion i n order to address this p eculiarity of form change, which is derived by nature and not necessarily culturally generated. T his subsection departs for a moment from the strict application of the contextual form framework to include a necessary discussion of the dynamics involved. For the purposes of my study, the storm is referenced as an event rather than a historic time period This is attributabl e to a sudden destruction of existing form that occurred almost instantaneous rendering it as being out of alignment with cultural

PAGE 496

496 force s primarily discussed as part of the contextual form framework though there will always be a lingering debate about ho w th ese interactions are viewed The recovery after the storm could be considered a distinct form period as the old form was replaced, but this kind of arguing tends to extend the discussion too much for my study, which brings it up as a possible future in depth discussion, rather than as one included herein. The fact that the vernacular landscape construct was made vulnerable to destruction through a cultural agent is not relative at this point either, since it too requires a more in depth, non form analysis The destruction that occurre d is certainly a critical juncture along the landscape form continuum As a result of the event nearly every structure along the Cortez waterfront was destroye d A major effect was that t he use of lan d was significantly altered and the local culture alter ed its views of their immersion into the landscape and in living directly on or near the water. The waterfront conglomeration did change from the settlement form period with regard to its configuration. The storm encouraged some waterfront landowners to ex tend or harden their shorelines, though the overall shoreline would change to a significant degree over time, and after the end of the historic study period of 1946. Many of the subsequent buildings were placed on pilings driven to deeper depths (Green, n. d.) though this not readily apparent in the landscape form The two fisheries processing facilities that were operating out of Cortez apparently did not rebuild, causing the local fishers to build new facilities and establish their own markets and econom y some of them eliminating the middle business factor. While one newspaper report following the storm suggested total damage in Cortez at roughly $75,000, it cited $500,000 worth of damage at Sara sota. The disparity o f total

PAGE 497

497 damage seems to have suggest ed a lesser value of investment made in Cortez. This could be related to the scale of the waterfront development, and/or the quality of the overall construct that might have already begun to change in Sarasota as a less resilient TFV than Cortez The notion o f impermanence built into maritime constructs was noted earlier in my study as one having a fatalistic view; the desire to create an unadorned landscape went with the act of fishing and the cultural genetics that fostered it among fisher communities and th e lifeworlds they nurtured. In Sarasota, the commercial fishing industry did not return to any significant former construct in the waterfront landscape there The impending Florida land boom would affect land values their resulting in a redirected focus o n waterfront investment; commercial fishing in many other coastal fishing communities was affected but in varying degrees. Cortez rebuilt quickly since its overall landscape construct had impermanence that allowed them to regroup quickly as a close knit g roup, pursuing a common goal of commercial fishing. The group effort toward recovery then, must have been very strong, and of course, resilient. While the term resilient is widely used in 2013, its effect early on in Cortez is important to establish for adding to any future study of modern resiliency. Of the three form indicator sets village layout, building mosaic, and the extended vernacular, all were affected. The village layout was the least affected although some subsidence likely occurred as a result of the storm surge scouring around the numerous pilings extending from the waterfront and from the erosion of the shore areas, which is a com mon event from heavy wave action The layout of parcels especially those that were not waterfront, was also not affected though erosion may have lessened the

PAGE 498

498 extent of certain property high water lines Waterfront lots most likely experienced some erosio n, and some mangroves that were still growing along the shore may have been damaged. Upland c irculation patterns do not appear to have been a ffected much, although some water routes and inlet communications with the Gulf of Mexico were changed Trees were defoliated as evidenced by some historic photographs. The building mosaic along the waterfront was a near complete devastation, as was the entire set of extended vernacular fish camps, net works, nets, docks, and many watercraft The storm also created a virtual lumberyard out of the pre storm construct of the larger bay system much of it piled up around the village waterfront from which many fishers recycled for reuse and rebuilding Upland building s were damaged by wind effects with some of them lifted from their foundations by the rising surge. The elapsed experiential was affected as a permanent imprint on the minds of those who experienced it. In fact, many writers and residents of Cortez divide its history before and after the storm ( Hunt, 2003). Ho wever, when the fishers were asked by county officials what they needed, they politely declined any specific assistance, and pointed to a desire to be return ed to Cortez in order to begin reconstructing what had been destroyed and get back to fishing (Mana tee River Journal, October 27, 1921) There does not appear to be any evidence that those who experienced the 1921 event waterfront was destroyed mostly in its entire ty, most of its residences were spared. The importance of the intactness of the home after a catastrophic event has importance in a homes too are destroyed. Nevertheles s, the ability of the Cortez community to return to

PAGE 499

499 their homes while rebuilding probably also allowed the continuance of the built form in much the same manner as prior to the storm Cannavo (2007) wrote that certain aspects of a place have an inherent st ability that are t experiences it (p. 21). The same may have held true for th e fishers and their families living in Cortez who experienced the event, and who then connect to the storm through the ir memor ies and in ho w they account for time and space ; in this case, their own personal experiences may be compartmentalized in relation to the storm and the now destroyed waterfront, as occurring either as before or after the storm. Of course, other critical junctures may serve to do the same but there is an unusual amount of recollection and frequency in historic records that seem to draw references to storm events over others. Decades later, the event, as a critical juncture, was still reme mbered as perhaps the most significant event in the history of the village, though i t was not a human or culturally driven force or influence and instead represented a natural phenomenon that was distinct and separate from the vernacular constructs up to that time. The bay systems that they fished though natural and connected to their learned knowledge of natural patterns of tides and weather, were part of their extended vernacular, both physically manifested and intangible However, the bay systems were spatial and temporal extensio ns as part of their working vernacular and thus part of the place and setting. The storm, though it affected what was spatial and therefore, effected a spatial impact may reveal a stronger temporal aspect since what was destr oyed was a

PAGE 500

500 physical record of history that would engrave itself into the elapsed experiential mind of the Cortez community. The major academic conundrum presented form this critical juncture, as a wholesale destruction and eliminati on of the physical form then, is in how it is considered afterwards. The re is an additional question that arises from the natura l versus human effect query The ad dition of form seems to alter th e landscape; however there is a fine line between adding si milar forms and a resulting significantly changed form. It may depend on the impact generated by the reduction. Therefore, i s the diminution of form as happened from the storm event, equal in some way to the problem associated with whether f or m changes from an increase of it particularly when it is mimicked ? The inquiry is important because if form along the w a t erfront is removed, it must be changed especially from a spatial standpoint as a lesser existence of it For example, the elimination of a half of a single circle r eveals a much different form. Yet, if the culture did not directly cause the change, can it be considered under the program here as a change in the landscape form, since the cultural influence has been the primary point of focus for the purposes of my stud y? Hopefully, such questions can be clarified a bit further. For example, t he only real human built form remaining after the storm, along what I have already determined to be the most contextualized construct in the TFV as being the waterfront conglomerat ion w ere almost immediately transformed into piles of debris The same materials were present, but the ph ysical shapes an d the purposely erected configurations had changed, reflecting a new, but only temporary condition since a recovery and reconstructio n was inevitable in this case. The previously established footprints, now

PAGE 501

501 more or less, ghosts of the previous form were mostly left in place as pilings that once supported the now destroyed structures. Certainly there is a visual difference from the visu al physical construct as it appeared the day bef ore the storm. It is reasonable to suggest that future form, as part of rebuilding efforts may be influenced by the event, and therefore have represent ed an altered form or form change. But, what i f the recovered form matches or mimics the pre event form? Is there a form change then? This argument sounds a bit like whether a falling tree in a forest makes a sound if no one hears it. The same kind of logic is present that suggests shyly, if the human gener ative mind did not cause the effect contributing to the destruction and change of form then can the change of form really be considered as a significant change regardless of the obvious physical effect? Or now, does it simply just become par t of the comm periential? The primary q uestion s again must be reiterated at this point in ask ing whet h e r the vernacular landscape form, destroyed as it was, simply became a partially extinct vernacular form, and did it change because there was a diminu tion of it? It is all too easy to conclude that the human built form that was distinct in the landscape did change because it went from being a functional form to being formless as a pile of debris, instan taneously Heath (2009) suggested that the post dis aster cultural landscape construct is often very different from what it was prior to the disaster. This implies change, regardless of the circular argument presented by this portion of my study. Others, such as Savage (1952) Varney (1963), Shiver (1987), Edwards (1991), and Muir (2007) recognized the powerful destructive effect on human built forms from storms, but did not offer any detailed discussions explaining the cultural versus natural

PAGE 502

502 dynamics of the effects. There is little scholarly discussion about this type of debate on disaster and form other than issues of compatibility and design. For vernacular settings, Heath (2009) argued that newer conditions of development such as higher construction standards and more indu strialized (mass produce d perhaps) materials and methods become p art of a landscape that is then changed Yet, he also understood there to be a as recognizable nuances of i t still emerged, albeit as a synthesis betwee n the newer and the former ( p. 15). maritime coast, the experiential aspect of extreme weather will have contributed to his learned knowledg e. W standing vernacular does not in its entirety after a wholesale destruction that a disaster could effect upon it. The simple premise here is that for the vernacular to completely c hange into a new vernacular or non vernacular would also require the culture to change or to have been made extinct. In a way, this bolsters an argument that form does not change, because it was not a purposeful action that caused its diminution. Further, there is no form change to the waterfron t conglomeration, one of the ob jects of my study, since the form to come was yet to be erected but would evolve physically While I do not want to reach here for a play on words this side of the argument does rest on the fact that zero form, or form destroyed and pending its remaking (not making) really represents the same form until its subsequent reconstruction dictates from an analysis of it that form change has occurred.

PAGE 503

503 Additionally, a natural event such as a flood or windstorm precludes an epistemological program for understanding form change in the cultural landscape. Such events that have sudden impacts on form either represent a complete form change, or they must be rendered as disqualified with regard to c hange and the studied influences on it. Having said this, there is merit in understanding how subsequent form may be influenced by the critical juncture of an instantaneous and destructive event If future erected and built form changes from the pre disast er form, then there is some lesson to be learned, along with answering the question about why the form changed the way it did. It is also interesting to ponder what would have had the critical juncture not taken place, though that is for another study. So, the next form period, contextual recovery form provides some insight into the recovered landscape contextual form as it was reestablished in Cortez. While it may appear obvious that the recovered form in Cortez represented a distinct ly new form change or a replacement form, based on its physical aspects, t he tautological wrangling of these arguments around it becomes circular and complex in nature, to say the least. What to do with the storm event is equally problematic, and that is why it is discusse d only tangentially here. If storms are found to be det e rminants of vernacular landscape change, then perhaps the most obvious factor elicited from this discussion is that i t is an expected, repeatable determinant or event that requires an in depth analysi s that the limitations of my study cannot sufficiently address. Yet, it is an important discussion that is good fodder for later consideration.

PAGE 504

504 Contextual R ecovery Form P eriod Occurring 1921 to 1946 Synopsis of the period T his timeframe spans 25 years to just after the close of World War II and is referred to as the contextual recovery form period The convenience of using the 1946 date coincides with the only available aerial photogra ph captured less than a year later that clearly captures the built vernacular construct of nearly the entire historic study area No other comprehensive graphic representation of the village using such a high resolution of imagery is available until at least the 1960s. As a point of termin us for the study, the date of 1946 also reflects a date after which m any cultural and economic change s in the United States as part of the post war economic boom are widely cited as beginning to take place so the date sets an orderly and logical cut off of form examination While not surprising, all of the form indicators in the village of Cortez would eventually be affected to various degrees by th e post war influences and activities occurring en masse and as part of one the greatest technological and econo mic booms in the history of the United States. H owever, the additional analysis of this period would have extended the scope of my study too mu ch, and the complexities of the cultur e in the United States after World War II require a particular focus of det ail that warrant s a separate or follow up study to the one included herein The discussion of form indicators can be followed through the graphic tiles shown in Figure 4 21 The period of contextual growth recovery reveals another phase of dramatic growth and prosperity in the history of Cortez but as a type of renaissance after the devastating wind storm and tidal surge of 1921 The entire waterfront would be resurrected wi th new buildings and structures, and the upland areas woul d more fully develop with divid ed parcels and permanent residences. The automobile increased the

PAGE 505

505 need for upland structures such as garages though the road infrastructure still remained unimproved for most of the period While some basic a menities, such as residential electric wer e commonly available and installed throughout the village by the end of the contextual recovery form period, public water would not be available until well from the urba nized community. While the village layout remained fairly static after the initial shoreline hardening activities prompted by the owner of the Albion Inn at the time and with the excep tion of numerous individualized land splits both the building mosaic and extended vernacular experienced infusions and sustainability of both updated and contextual growth period form elements rather than adaptations to forms that may have been considered modernized for the time. The continuance of form repetition from the previous period is not too surprising given the need for a return to normalcy after the 1921 storm, and the long period of a static influence of decreased fishing harvests during the 1930s that was framed by the Great Depression and World War II. Additio nal influences on the landscape form of Cortez were brought about by the second major land boom affecting Florida during the first half of the 1920s. Development proposals of platted, small lot subdivisions on lands being dredged, filled, and clear cut beg an to bring in an influx of Northern investors to the immediate vicinity, though most of these developments would eventually come to a halt as the economy soured by the end of the decade. The modern reta il stores of the time exemplified by the scale of siz e, supply, and experiences at Woolworths and McCrorys in Bradenton

PAGE 506

506 competed with the smaller retail establishmen ts in Cortez. Though tourism already had a tenured grip of tourism sprung up as a result of the automobile mainstream which would carve out its own particular niche in the economy and form of Cortez The impact of the combustible motor began to weigh heavily on the lands cape forms of Cortez in both its upland and water landscapes as roads began to be improved under organized management districts, and sail power use on watercraft gave way to motorized vessels. A secondary impact to the formerly entrenched usage of watercra ft for fishing, delivery of goods, and general travel also began to fade. Promotions from local civic and organizational leaders for improving the waterways were now being replaced with calls for improving land based travel surfaces in the form of hardened road corridors and engineered bridges The impact of the 1922 Cortez Bridge to Anna Maria Island, which extended directly from the northwest corner of Cortez expanded the accessible land space available only by watercraft previously. T he population of C ortez grew steadily to over 320 people by 1946, with a slight rise in the number of fishers ; the number of occupat ional fishers, according the U. S. Census data, appeared to continually increase throu ghout the historic study span from 1887 to 1946 However, the number of fishers native to North Carolina became diluted from its high point of 75% at the end of the settlement period, to 60% by 1910, and subsequently 23% by 1946. By 1946, the original 13 parcels from the 1887 plat had been divided into 172 parce ls including the 1912 school site. This figure does not include the individual sites attributed to the trailer park at the western shoreline since

PAGE 507

507 they were un platted at the time Their impact and use during the period reflected a temporary occupance by visitors, similar to a hotel or campground. This is more akin to a non fisheries commercial use versus contextual usage After 1955, outside of my historic study period, it would begin to transition into a more permanent developed area. A few elements of t he settlement for m period did remain virtually unchanged, such as the basic dock and net works configurations, and individualized camps built over the water. At least one facet of the multifaceted act of fishing could be viewed as remaining stable, though nuances of change and transition did begin to reveal themselves throughout the period. The rebuilding in the wake of that disaster saw houses rebuilt with salvaged wood, property relocations, and a strong reservation about living directly on the water. In a way, one could look at this final phase as a regurgitated phase of contextual form entrenchment by infusing an already entrenched cultural entrenchment During this time, the net spreads and docks were rebuilt over the water. Lots were continually divide d to accommodate an influx of new arrivals including expanding families and new business ventures. The original street pattern was also extended to accommodate the increased density, but most of the pre storm residential architecture remained. Table 4 4 provides a positive or negligible change determination finding of each form indicator during the contextual recover y form period as compared to the previous historic study period Waterfront conglomeration and the use of space The 1921 hurricane destroye d the entire network of docks that extended into Sarasota Bay at that time, leaving behind only the vertical support pilings that the extensive system was constructed on. Based on historic pictures taken immediately after the storm the Cortez waterfront l ooked like a lumberyard stacked high with strewn

PAGE 508

508 building materials. Fortunately, these materials were recycled into new and repaired structures, buildings, docks and camps, and even watercraft. In fact, though much of the materials were pre 1921, the near ly entire waterfront conglomeration form existing during this period is traced only to 1921 or later Therefore, the landscape form represented by the construct becomes a reestablished or recovered form not previously existing nor evaluated up to that poi nt This new, or replacement form from the construct that my study construes as a rep ository of the most contextual form indicator set in the overall vernacular landscape of Cortez, continued to sustain the vernacular character of the earlier periods alb eit with variations Figure 4 2 0 suggests the available, dominant forms of the waterfront conglomeration through a sketched graphic that can be compared to the waterfront conglomerations of the earlier periods. The detail includes the insertion of a motorized truck form from the 1940s since it affected the landscape form in a variety of ways. The appearance of the motorized vehicle began during the prior period, as indicated in Figure 4 17. The early availability of combustible motors allowed them to be adapted to watercraft by the Cortez fishers. By 19 46, t he reconstructed waterfront became more individualized, extending along and beyond the shore in a much less communicative configuration. Whereas, the previous constructs were more tightly placed as an interconnecting grid of buildings, structures, and net spreads over the water that created a system of small harbors, the few newer building constructs seemed to be oriented toward the open water as if vying for the attention of those watercraft that w ere harbor bound. The net spread construct was perhaps made more distinctive as it cov ered the open water at a distance from shore, forming a distinct u shaped corral as an outer area of confluence that revealed

PAGE 509

509 an organic growth of basic wood platforms a s both the quantity of nets increased along with the rising number of fishers. The highest density of the construct remained situated between its historic width area of 125 th Street and 123 rd Street Court though it extended slightly north along the wester n waterfront Individual property owners with direct water frontage along the shorelines to the northwest and the east constructed their own extended vernacular constructs. The fact that nearly all of the built evidence attributable to the extended vernacu lar construct s of fisheries camps, net works, and dock systems could be date d to 1921 or later, strains the form evaluation for a number of reasons. First, though the basic fisheries waterfront co nstruct was nearing the quarter century mark by 1946 with re gard to age, it also created a large insertion of form that lacked the benefit of observation along the original fully spanned time continuum of Cortez as a settled commercial fishing village In one way, the replaced form created a disconnect from the or iginal form, as if two different communities were being examined regardless of the similarities of the individual form shapes and use of materials were continued as part of traditional practice Second, t he influence on the revised waterfront form result ing from the impact of the storm may have been encoded in the minds of some Cortez residents in both physical and intangible ways. While some influence of storm experience was discussed a part of the generative form prior to the settlement form period, the question arises as to the scale of any changes, or even if the previous form was changed as a result of destruction, or if it can be determined as non changed due to reconstruction of the similar shapes even though in a changed configuration Just because a form is

PAGE 510

510 replaced, regardless of the size of its footprint, does not necessarily equate to a changed landscape form. If form c an be considered to be a recovered form, then how finely grained should an analysis o f its differences be when consi der ing it under the rubric of my study ? Third, w hile the discussion of the previous subsection on the 1921 storm event steered toward form as being changed from the event, other factors such as watercraft technology using power, and the incorporation of t he automobile helped to insert new forms into the waterfront landscape throug h the reduction of delivery run boats due to the automobile, conversion of watercraft to motors, modifications of the dock systems to accommodate these changes, a less connected w aterfront, the establishment of local fisher dealer structures, and a slight increase of fishers living in Cortez. For example, the ability of the local fishers to serve as wholesale conduits for their peers allowed an additional element of stabilit y by so lidifying a commercially feasible hierarchy that was somewhat kinship based. The expansion of the waterfront with additional constructs as might have been influenced by outsiders was likely curtailed because of the local knowledge fishers shared with each other. Unlike other commercial fishing communities, the fisher dealers in Cortez also lived there, as part of a well defined area surrounded by either natural systems or committed lands. The iron y lies in the fact that the enc r oa chment likely served as an insulator to both inward and outward expansions of Cortez an d the expansion of forms from it. Another irony is found in the way the Cortez waterfront actually contracted by 1946, though there were more fishers and a larger population.

PAGE 511

511 A fourth ramificatio n of the establishment of a recovered form set is complicated by other significant events that followed, such as the land boom, the economic downturn, and the Second World War Other events that are more local, yet are significant to Cortez, such as the ap parent lack of mullet from the local waters during the 1930s confuse the trajectory of the landscape form from a temporal spatial perspective. Another complication is that r esource disappearance may have resulted from different causes, such as weather, lan d and waterway development, or even an exacerbation of motorized vessels appearing on the waterways. Village layout form indicator set The basic village layout form revealed a basic stability through 1946 in its configuration; however, significant changes to the shoreline boundary and parcel configuration did take place. As a result of shoreline alterations, the primary activity center f the village also shifted. T he recovered waterfront conglomeration occurring a s a result of the 1921 storm, also represented a significant change in how it was reconstructed in a less than communicative pattern, revealing a more individualized commercial fishing enterprise. Boundary. The perimeter boundary of the village began to be altered during the contextual rec overy form period as the shoreline was extended into the water through fill activities. Some areas were demarked differently than their platted delineations, giving the appearance, or perception, of a varied configuration of some parcel use areas. The wate rfront conglomeration area was also expanded well beyond the shoreline. This area, though recognized by that time as not owned by the fishers or adjacent landowners per se did generate certain rights that were attached to the land. The proliferation of ha bitation and commercial use s over the water was not uncommon for

PAGE 512

512 the time period. However, it is interesting to note how the physical boundary of the village actually extended beyond the upland areas to accommodate a unique maritime spatial configuration p roduced by economics and accessibility, rather than riparian ownership as fishers concentrated their actual fishing activities in specific areas. The western and southwestern shorelines were the first to extend as simultaneous activities of bridge constr uction and dredging of the I ntracoastal W aterway created fill opportunities through the use of spoil materials. A s a result of the Cortez Bridge completion by 1922, the shoreline at that point was filled to accommodate the roadbed for accessing the bri dge. The construction of a toll residence increased the amount of fill needed, creating the slight extension of boundary space where Cortez Road met the northwest corner of the village boundary at the time. The owner, D. S Fulford, was apparently not occupying the property at the time, so the fill area created was in direct relation to the road construction and not through any purposeful intent by private owners. Only after the contextual recovery form period, with the further development of the Cortez Trailer Pa rk established there in the mid 1930s, was the property extend ed further into the bay, and a designed hardening of the shoreline established. At the same time of the bridge fill activities, the owners of the Albion Inn had also begun extending and hardening their shoreline at the southwest corner of the v illage. According to Green (n.d. ), the fill used, which included large earthen boulders, was from the dredge spoil of the 1919 Longbar Cut replacement to the southwest n ear the Longboat Key Pass. The shoreline was extended up to approximately 150 feet, creating a front yard for the hotel complex, and planted with over 100 coconut palms. As th e first

PAGE 513

513 hardened shoreline, it set an extreme standard for seawall protection tha t would not be exactly copied in the village through 1946 What may be attributed to learned knowledge, and in u sing these boulders and smaller rock infill as a base, then surrounding them with extensive concrete walls with tapering bases, they appeared to be built as fortifications against inevitable storm surge, and as a prevention of loss due to coastal subsidence and erosion. As stated earlier, one of the reasons the Albion Inn was not destroyed by the 1921 storm was partly due to this fill and hardenin g activity that actually began prior to the storm event. It is also important to note that the mangrove fringe, mostly a wetland area, located at the southwest corner, was kept nearly intact until the end of the contextual recovery form period; however, i t would later be penetrated, cleared, and filled, extending the western shoreline seaward, and enlarging the village acreage. By 1946, the shoreline from 123 rd Street, then west to just beyond 121 st Street remained the least altered in the village, with no significant shoreline ext e nsions, though clearing did take place, along with construction of water dependent uses. Parcel configuration. While the village boundary reached its extent based on land purchases and dedications by 1912, it grew to approximate ly 171 parcels by the end of the contextual recovery form period. Th at amount ed to approximately 70 new parcels subdivided from the existing configuration, and then adjusted for street rights of way dedications up to the end of the period. A couple of waterfront parcel s occurring along the eastern shoreline area w ere combined into a single parcel, causing a slight reduction of total parcels; however, the significant effect to the overall landscape form

PAGE 514

514 from this contraction may be in how this particular 300 feet of shoreline would remain as the least altered in the village over its history to 1946 At least 65 new parcels were created prior to the 1921 storm through official platting from the original land purchases that represented the village extent a rea by 1897. In fact, the middle portion of the village is where the concentration of parcel subdivisions occurred through the end of the historic study span Both the extreme west and east one third sections of the village would remain with the largest pa rcel configurations, with urbanization occurring between 124 th Street Court and 123 rd Street. The east one third would retain its more rural character, though the village had pockets of undeveloped parcels that gave a false impression of rural character du ring the 1940s since the land was already subdivided into a denser configuration than the other areas. One case in point for this false appearance was represented by the appearance of only two large parcels at the northwest area, originally parcels 5 and 6 Though they remained the largest parcels in area by 1946, the northern parcel tiers were already in the process of establishing the grounds for a transition to dense residential permanence and mixed use. The irony lies in the fact that th e northwest wate rfront parcels and abutting lands were never fully interconnected with the primary commercial fishing activities occurring at the south waterfront. This is in spite of their strong pre settlement and initial settlement forms that were directed toward commer cial fishing constructs. Circulation. The basic circulation pattern in Cortez by 1946 was similar to what had appeared there by 1921; however, use patterns and legal dedications for accessing subdivided parcels created a larger street system on paper t hat was not used in full by the residents. Various maps of Cortez appear to show a variety of roadways traversing

PAGE 515

515 throughout the village, yet the basic grid developed by 1912 showing the five original north/south streets, and the east/west extension to the fi nal build out area to the east would remain intact. All of the five original north/south streets led to dock systems that extended into the bay The completion of the Cortez Bridge to Bradenton Beach dditional tourism effects, and served as a strong basis for improving local street networks. By 1940, four of these streets along with 45 th Avenue as the primary east/west street, were listed by the Florida State Road Department as all having a bituminous construction. The Bradenton Herald reported in its August 4, 1926 edition that the residents of Cortez had approved a $100,000 bond for paving 7,000 feet of its streets. So, it is likely that the first paved streets in Cortez appeared a fter this time, and perhaps delayed until some form of a bitumen mix was sp onsored as a street improvement project during the 1930s as part of the Work Progress Administration allocations for road construction. It is reasonable to suggest that a p riority f or improvement was prompted by the location of the 1912 school and 45 th Avenue and the part of 119 th Street that served it Four of the original north/south platted streets, and the more recently dedicated Bayview and 46 th Avenue streets were also paved. T he Cortez arterial along the north boundary was paved by 1926 as a two lane through street (Green & Molto, 1997). However, the other roads, including 125 th Street, which was one of the original streets from the 1887 plat, remained unimproved at the end of 1946 One interesting feature in looking at the aerial perspective of Cortez from the 1940s is the ghosting of historic travel paths, some of which traverse parcels in a diagonal direction, making them distinct from the prescribed grid. Visible examples

PAGE 516

516 a ppeared as diagonal paths on the original parcels 11 and 12. These parcels, representing the confluence of where the initial commercial fishing and retail activities were centered, were eventually extended seaward through fill and shoreline hardening after 1921. What resulted were relocations of buildings away from the water, being inserted onto interior parcels. The addition of two streets Bayview Avenue and 46 th Avenue, running parallel to the shoreline were also established as the result of use, access, and shoreline extensions. At one time, 46 th Avenue was part of the subdivided parcels of the original parcels 11 and 12, signed for purchase by J. E. Guthrie in 1890 and 1891, respectively. The one block long street that ran on the north side of the Albio n Inn was actually prescribed by the subdivision of parcels 3, 8, and 13 in 1912. The relevance of the lack of a parallel street to the shoreline system in Cortez was remarked about earlier in my study. In looking at several other TFVs in Florida and else where, a common circulation patter n typically included a street that served as an access conduit to the waterfront by running parallel with and close to it. The original 1887 plat of Cortez di d not incorporate this design. Instead, it included simple nort h/south streets, limiting direct water access to the majority of parcels internally established. This seems to have suggested that the original Cortez plat was not designed by fishers or landowners who had particular maritime experience. Th e appearance of the parallel street s later, though only three blocks long seemed to be an acknowledgement of this consideration. The end result is that the street system did not change significantly, from the contextual growth form period that ended in 1921. Parcel dedic ations of streets and area adjustments throughout both periods resulted in the recognition and use of a

PAGE 517

517 limited parallel to waterfront street system in full use during the contextual recovery form period. In a sense, the vernacular la ndscape form did chang e for the most active area through this accommodation, resulting in a different waterfront dynamic with more publicly available access. The relation of buildings from this adaptation, though mostly unchanged since they were constructed to provide the most direct access to the dock and waterfront extensions, also changed slightly. A detailed study of the confined area between 124 th Street Court and 123 rd Street may reveal a more interesting resolution of change, beneficial to such a study. Undoubtedly, the most important circulation event in Cortez overlapped between the completi on in 1922 of the Cortez Bridge and the focus on road const ruction as a mainstream infrast ructure process The two lane, wooden bridge actually extended the circulation potential of Cortez though it did not travel directly within its boundary Its the addition of fill and a lineal extension into the bay. The simultaneous construction of bridge tend sponsored design of a residence office use that was out of place in the vernacular landscape environment marked by traditional fishing and remoteness. The bridge was in the process of construction when the 1921 storm event h appened, serving as a corral of sorts for the debris piled up against it from destroyed structures along the various Sarasota Bay waterfronts, many of them from the across the bay on Anna Maria Island. The bridge connected the mainland with the adjacent ba rrier island, part of which had already been platted with 235 parcels by 1911. Located directly across the bay from Cortez, the subdivision seemed to represent another facet

PAGE 518

518 of what would become an enclosure and confinement of Cortez amidst an encroaching real estate development plan for the entire peninsula. The bridge served as a final progress and a threat to commercial fishing itself, though the schisms that would develo p socially and politically would take time to develop. The activation of several laid out development plans would also encourage additional traffic and a changing social and political dynamic around the village However, the bridge was both a boon and boom to the Cortez fisher community. The progress of road construction and improvements that surged during the 1920s caused a shift in the delivery of fish and the marketing of them by the fishers. In fact, the increasing availability of the automobile more specifically, the Model A Ford, served to reduce significantly the need for run boats serving Cortez ( Rudloe, 1992). It also would affect the form of the waterfront construct as it adapted to the changing technology after reconstruction from the 1921 storm which, in part, fostered the changed configuration of the built form but not necessarily the form itself Building mosaic indicator s et The contextual recovery form period represented varying waves of boom and bust, which were partly revealed in the add ition of most of its remaining building mosaic inventory. At least 50 residences and a few non residential structures were erected during this period, with all of the waterfront and over the water buildings and structures having been reconstructed after th e 1921 storm event. The overall form did not waver history from 1887, was captured in front and side gabled habitable constructs. Several buildings were actually purchas ed as already built residences in other communities, and

PAGE 519

519 then disassembled and relocated to Cortez. Obviously, any maritime influence of these types of off site structures would have been limited, reflecting more mainstream, vernacular building approaches. Some scholars, such as Schein (1997) suggested that the landscape reveals most of its changed form through its residential areas. In many cases, this may b e true; h owever it appears based on my study thus far, that the opposite is true. That is, the most significant changes seemed to be reflected in the non residential and extended vernacular constructs, whereas, the residential settings only increase in number, but do not necessaril y change to the degree that would support his thesis. Residential buildings and appurtenances The contextual recovery form period architectur al construct i n Cortez con tinued to reflect the vernacular frame style representing a variety of shapes defined b y rooflines and massing The relocation of buildings is often cited as an inherent practice, and ethic, attributable to maritime communities. Mellin (2003) highlighted this as part of traditional practice in Canadian Atlantic maritime communities. Some ref erences by other authors to the reuse of building materials have also been cited earlier in my study. It is known through the archival record that some fisheries camps were moved inland and incorporated into existing houses. For example, this is evident in the relocations and conversions of a camp into a rear kitchen extension, and a retail store into a permanent residence. Several other examples exist also in Cortez, perhaps contributing to the forms of individual structures, and certainly to what could be described as an architectural form ethic for reuse; however, lacking a detailed study of these structures as a group, the effect on the wider landscape is not remarkable for the purposes of my study.

PAGE 520

520 As of 1930, and perhaps the most significant feature o f the residential construct from the period was the fairly common activity of residential units that were being purchased from outsid e of Cortez and transported to parcels in the village. Now, this was no insignificant endeavor, especially since the availa ble roads between Cortez and the more developed areas where these houses were located were still fairly substandard. However, t he negative economic conditions appeared to influence the purchase of entire houses for relocation and proved a better use of ava ilable funds versus new construction. It may be that many, if not all of the relocated houses were provided at reduced prices by late 1920s bank foreclosures as a result of the failure of their previous owners to pay from them or the lots they were constru cted upon. The fact that some residences were purchased and then hauled to Cortez over miles of substandard roads suggested a substantial cost savings over other determinants such as time, material accessibility, and relevant skill. It also suggests that some of the local building prac tices were becoming obsolete as the economy and technology changed the wider landscape of availability to isolated communities. After the 1921 storm surge and by 1946, only two residences were still located directly on the waterfront both elevated on pil ings One of these was the water dependent structure of a local watercraft builder who launched vessels directly from the waterfront site; the other was a structure built over the water at the end of 121 st Street. The latter structure was not built for a f isher, however, and was actually a houseboat that was moved to the site and converted into a residence (Green, n.d.). However, several others remained as waterfront structures, but were set back enough to allow a waterfront yard. While Green suggested that many houses were moved away from their

PAGE 521

521 pre storm waterfront locations and then elevated using more sturdy pilings, the record does not seem to suggest this for a couple of reasons. First, though there were a few residences built over the water, some as fi sheries camps, the number of waterfront parcels was limited, so only a few property owners would have relocated their residences as a result of the storm. It is likely that some residences were elevated higher than normal, per haps an additional foot. Howe ver, given the inundation of the entire village in 1921, its continued vulnerability to storm surge, and the experiences of the community from the disaster, it does not appear that the early fishers and residents elevate d residential buildings to any signi ficant degree above what had been typical. Now, this seems to contradict suggestions to the contrary. Only one residential building, N. Ta a s a product of its watercraft builder occupant and who constructed it after the storm, ap peared to be elevated enough to allow the habitable area to remain above flood storm indicate standard foundations of logs and masonry from one to perhaps three feet at the highest. So, any form change because of experienced flood events did not appear to be effected by the residents, and is an apparent non juncture up to 1946 The latent elevations of some pre 1946 homes to present day regulatory standards have occur red in the village and are available for evaluation; however, the latent effect is outside of my study scope. The implication here falls back to the values of the fatalistic minds et, reminiscent of m an y TFV cultures, discussed earlier, herein. This fatalis tic attitude toward architecture, while probably present in the non residential constructs, begins to fail both before and after the 1921 storm, since the level of architectural

PAGE 522

522 design became more expressive and permanent b ased on its refinement of styling and use of alternative materials beginning in the second decade of the twentieth century The development of garages to accommodate automobiles was perhaps the most significant addition to the overall residential indicator. While it is likely that most residential buildings had already incorporated storage appurtenances to their primary houses, new definitions to accommodate vehicle widths with direct access from the Cortez street system were revealed spatially as a relationship between the house, the ga rage, and the street, which still had no pedestrian sidewalks. In some cases, existing storage facilities were simply converted to house motorized vehicles as work animals became virtually obsolete by the end of the period. However, by 1946, there were sti ll many fishers who did not own motorized vehicles, instead, choosing to invest their limited incomes on their fishing gear, and more importantly, on adapting their watercraft to power. The importance of living in the village for these fishers was paramoun t to earning a living that began with the earliest settlement transitioning from a camp setting to one that was more permanently based. The additional appurtenance s of water storage and outhouses remained ste adfast fixture s in the village, since public water would not become available until well after the period. At least two early water storage structure s and one outhouse remain extant as of the date of my study. By 1946, and according to public records, the village still h ad only three artesian wells to serve its residents. They were all in place by 1914, and anecdotal information suggests that the community shared in accessing at least one of them through a loosely coordinated sy stem of periodic money payments. Rain water w ould have been captured by nearly all of the existing structures as part of

PAGE 523

523 general vernacular design adaptation for utilitarian purposes. While my study does not detail these structures as significant in the over vernacular landscape, t hey were important and necessary structures, whose design and use could generate a relevant discussion on their contributions to a form aspect. However, such an examination is unnecessary and beyond the scope of my study. The interesting fact about residential additions in C ortez during the contextual growth form period is that there did not seem to be many resid ential units added to the Cortez landscape during the Florida land boom period leading up to the bank collapses at the end of the 1920s. Some notable residences were added during this time, usually exhibiting a distinctly vernacular high gable roof line but only a few are now represented A number of residences were added just prior to the 1921 storm, as well as, a significant number after 1930, or so. Therefore, the residential indicator of the building mosaic seem e d to be relatively stable for a lengthy period after the storm, suggesting a limited amount of land investment by loca l fishers and entrepreneurs in Co rtez, and a hesitation by outsiders for the same. One o bvious suspect may relate to developments occurring around it. Outsiders would have likely been more attracted to widely marketed, newer develops with waterfront access and asso ciated amenities, where residential buildings could be designed to suit the modern subdivision, away from what Jane Jacobs had later referred to as that troublesome working waterfront. Another highly suspect influence was likely due to the physical and in tangible effects caused by the 1921 storm. Obviously, the rebuilding of nearly the entire working waterfront took a significant amount of time. Many fishers, as well as, fish dealers left

PAGE 524

524 Cortez permanently leaving other gaps in the commercial fishing ente rprise that had to be coordinated into the future. The fishers, as part of a self sufficient community, likely reverted to a subsistence lifestyle for quite some time until the overall working infrastructure was reestablished. Therefore, the residential co nstruct would remain fairly stable leading up to and beyon d the Great Depression. The oft mullet from the fishing scene beginning in the middle of the Great Depression extended the stability factor even longer since the lowest reco rded harvests were also affecting the already limited development cycle. One of the reasons Cortez failed to change its small scale fishing trajectory like other villages, may be due in part to this continued stability. This may have become a saving grace for its vernacular form. Some of the notable residential constructs that did appear during the period wa rrant a brief discussion Perhaps the most interesting building that could be considered a maritime vernacular adaptation attributable to TFVs is t he p reviously referenced N. Taylor residence, now doubling as the Taylor Boatworks Museum and an outside maritime display feature and occurring on the south waterfront A two story vernacular building (museum space below) with a front gabled roof system it was pieced together from salvaged materials just after the 1921 hurricane. It is noticeable in several historic photographs, and at one time, revealed a large, elevated water storage system at its waterfront to accommodate the second story living unit Bui l t as a front sided ga b le vernacular, the first story area was used as a boat building shop throughout the period. This building likely represents the mo s t distinguished and representative maritime vernacular in the village, though it was built during the latest period of the historic study span

PAGE 525

525 Other notables include a small sampling of masonry structures and craftsmanship Brick and concrete were used primarily for chimneys early on, and later for elevating structures, and building entry steps and porch cheeks. One residence was designed by a Tampa architect, revealing a concrete front porch base and columns in front of a wood frame main structure. Built in 1929, it has a limited masonry application, but begins to reveal the use of alternate materia ls in Cortez, though it was not the f i rst Another residence built around 1935 was designed and crafted locally with a rock base wall enclosing the front porch area another limited application of masonry materials. The only residence built completely out of masonry, was by a non fisher who constructed a cross gabled structure during the 1940s. This building, along with one or two others in the village at the time, r epresented a dramatic departure from the wood vernacular that dominated the residential architecture in the village at the time. With the exception of a couple of newer constructs, and the adaptation of existing structures, t he prominent two story residen tial form seemed to disappear from the scene. Newer buildings reflected the gable vernacular styling that replaced higher style design renditions attempted during the earlier periods as leftover chatter from the end of the nineteenth century. At least 30 o f the residential buildings constructed up to around 1946, including several of the structures relocated from other communities, were designed with the front gable form. Throughout the period, open porches became enclosed and additions were being added to accommodate extended families. While some authors discuss an overall alteration of the basic house form due to these activities of addition and enclosure, they did not seem to affect the significance of the

PAGE 526

526 basic form in the vernacular landscape, though th ey were plentiful, and affected most of the residential building to some degree. Th e main reason for ignoring the se factors of form modification is inherent in the degree of the impact, or resolution at which my study considers form change. Since cultural landscapes or their subtypes are never really static, there is an expectation that change accompanies the continuance of time. The addition of physical enclosure of porches, for example, does not necessarily, in my opinion, change the form since it retains its shape of roofline and other measurable qualities. However, if a dominant new form is added and explained as significant somehow, it would be considered a significant change. The resolution or specific detail of porch enclosures and rear or side addit ions is often negligible regarding the effect to this particular quality, and perhaps quantity, of the landscape. The locational factors contributing to new residential constructions appeared to occur simply as parcel infill of formerly vacant lots, and a s replacements of properties damaged from fire and a tornado that struck the village in 1937. The sudden form effect from what are referred to as disaster events is an inescapable issue that can present itself at any time in the landscape setting. Based on the discussion in the previous section, and the revealed historic occurrences, the potential for the most dramatic, non purposeful form impact is a clear result from disaster events, whether human made or natural. Again, the question lies in how the form is then re established, if at all. It is obvious that the sudden change establishes itself as part of some unfolding of a sequence of events. The predictability of the event and its outcome are possible, but rarely, if ever as a precise measure, though many attempts are made at them. Another query then lies in how culture influenced the sudden erasure of form from the scene. If a

PAGE 527

527 building is destroyed by an event because of shoddy workmanship, is the resulting form affect human made due to the lackluster pro cess that went into its making? The same is to be considered in the opposite context. If a building is purposely made to withstand an event, such as the Albion Inn did in 1921, what or who, precisely determined the outcome? Kropf (2001) presented a similar discussion regarding how buildings change because of human processes as determinants of change, rather than the buildings changing themselves, for example, through age. Finally, a new form did beg i n to reveal itself in 1935 with the establishment of the C ortez Trailer Park, on the property of the former Fulford Hotel at the northwest corner of the village. While this will be discussed in more detail under the next subsection, since it actually began as a road tourist camp, indicative of a business enterpri se and not as a residential construct, the form of the travel trailer added a new construct to the Cortez vernacular landscape setting. The establishment of the trailer park as a use in the village, would eventually transition into a permanent residential enclave. T his enclave would provide the grounding for removing a large portion of historic land from the commercial fishing landscape. Non residential /n on fisheries buildings and appurtenances The continuing trend of non residential/non fisheries building s continued to inform the feasibility of local establishments in Cortez until the end of the contextu a l recovery form period, even as the retail structure in the wider cultural landscape of Manatee County was changing from small, one room stores to the lar ger department store concept. In spite of the increase of traffic potential from the new bridge to the barrier island that literally extended from the Cortez boundary, t he main commercial corridor in Cortez, the

PAGE 528

528 north/south running 124 th Str e et would continue to develop as the lead in street to This suggested that Cortez continued to have localized needs dedicated to it s unique individual group circumstances. This placement of non residential/non fisheri es buildings resulting from waterfront relocations to more inland areas and new constructs such as a second place of worship at the beginning of the contextu a l recovery form period, and even the addition of a new retail store in 1935 revealed the need for these localized services, not dissimilar to the neighborhood store concept found in most urban areas. In essence, the non fishing commercial uses of Cortez began to withdraw as a presence at the waterfront, as the commercial fishing construct began more c ompetitive and less connected as Cortez insiders began to control the processing and marketing of fish harvests. Instead of an interconnected waterfront construct that formed the working waterfront before the 1921 storm, the reconstructed waterfront, and t he emerging commercial operations by insiders created a more compartmentalized waterfront form, with fine lines between separate and distinct constructs that were less communal, less public. Access to individually owned automobiles and a new focus on land travel infrastructure, as opposed to a decline in focus on waterway navigation improvements until after World War II now allowed Cortez residents to travel more often to other areas ( Antonini et al. 2002) Though the increase in automobile would have li ttle effect on the Cortez circulation pattern, t he land development boom of the early 1920s would emphasize an encroachment on Cortez that had already begun by the first decade of the twentieth century. New, non residential buildings would also begin to do t both sides

PAGE 529

529 of its peripheral north boundary as the newly constructed bridge to Anna Maria Island expanded the numbers of people passing along the outskirts of the village The bridge construction would also create a demand for the north boundary road of Cortez for subsequent improvements and funding as the only arterial from more established towns in Manatee County to Cortez. In addition, the public use of the northern arterial would help fund improvements to at least a coup l ads, but again, without effecting a significant form change. While the withdrawal of some of the non residential/non fisheries buildings from the waterfront helped to emphasize the commercial character of 124 th Street, the non residential/non fisheries con struct be tween 1922 and 1946 would have some effect on the overall vernacular landscape form of Cortez especially with regard to the contextual character of the waterfront conglomeration, that was redefined physically and as part of a proprietary land ownership configuration With regard to the forms of the built construct, several additions were added during the period. A two story service station for automobiles was constructed along the north boundary by 1926 reflecting an early adaptation to capturi ng increased vehicular travel and usage. The use of a two story, side gable building with residential quarters above appeared as a latent, yet non purposeful addition to the vernacular two story forms of the earliest structures, suggesting a resiliency of the form, yet it would not start of renewed trend of building practices. Its location at the north boundary identifies its relationship with the road as an automobile dependent facility that begins to separate the village from being strictly, or mostly, wa ter dependent during the previous periods. As referenced earlier, gasoline was already available in Cortez at the waterfront by the early to mid 1920s. The fact that

PAGE 530

530 commercialized gasoline appeared at the waterfront to service watercraft before its instal lation at the periphery road to service automobiles is interesting, but reveals the dependence of the community to the water, and its relative isolation that continued to define it during its first three decades after settlement. The real, non fisheries v alue of the waterfront was established by the early addition s of the waterfront store the Fulford Hotel, and the Albion Inn during the 1890s. While these ea rly incarnation s likely served and related to fishers and their particular needs, it did set a prec edent for future waterfront development and the forms that would effect the vernacular landscape. What these early additions did was establish primary, non residential, non later that chan ges to the waterfront from commercial fishing to non fishing specific uses represented an incompatibility to the traditional fishing construct, a departure from its commercial fishing, small village roots. Yet, the historical record reveals these non fishi ng uses from its earliest land purchases. Therefore, the fact that a significant portion of the Cortez waterfront, especially from the Albion Inn to the n orthwest corner of the village was continually dedicated to other uses reflects an inherent form that became part of the community identity. If these lands had been converted during the early decades to traditional fishing docks and processing facilities, then certainly the intensity of the village as a TFV would have occurred. Any subsequent conversions o f those uses to non fisheries uses would have been highly suspect of changing the waterfront character, and perhaps its form as it adapted to the different uses. However, since the uses of the land have such long standing non fisheries traditions, then it is debatable whether the installation of a trailer park in 1935 at the

PAGE 531

531 historic parcels 5 and 6 at the northwest corner of the village represented a significant change in use and character of the village. Granted the forms of the trailers and their autom obile dependence w ere a distinct addition to the established physical form as the metal and steel of the automobile and mobile trailers shared space with any remaining site built structures. This conversion did create a separation of the lands from the vi llage that would hold until the present, appearing, though not officially determined as another contraction of the village boundary. The above examinations of significant form changes render the additions of other new non residential/non fisheries build ings during the period as rather insignificant since they did not appear to effect a variable difference on the landscape, which had already been expanding in the form of an extended, but compact commercial corridor. A masonry retail building was added alo ng 124 th Street that departed from the wood frame vernacular, but this building was destroyed, along with other buildings and structures by the swath of a tornado in 1937 The addition of a new place of worship and its high steeple puncturing the sky added to the form, but this particul ar form was also established on another site in the village during the previous period. The flat roofed retail building developed along 124 th Street in 1935 did serve as a departure from the localized gabled and pyramidal roof configurations, yet its impac t to the form as a singular addition, did not appear substantial enough to warrant a significant change in the wider landscape form of Cortez, though its construction did appear to be a strictly vernacular addition using some modernized materials Fisheri es c ontextual buildings and appu r tenances The post 1921 storm altered the commercial power structure of Cortez by eliminating the outsiders as fish

PAGE 532

532 dealers, and replacing them with those who were considered insiders because they lived there. It is known f rom th e historical record that John Sa varese, perhaps the first outside dealer in Cortez actually became a Cortez insider through marriage. There is evidence of other close ties involving Cortez fishers with fish dealers in other TFVs in the Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor areas; however, the truer sense of Cortez fisheries as part of an internalized structure began after the 1921 storm reconstruction as several of the fishers already living there established their operations as dealer operations. Whereas, i n many TFVs t he outsiders would come later as a village evolved and therefore, affect the power and ownership structure, in Cortez, it seemed to occur differently. In this case, the outsiders did not return after the storm, forcing the fishers to forge t heir own markets and facilities. The event became yet another determinant to form as it affected not only the physical construct, but also the intangible construct. Peacock and Sabella (1988) wrote about how the power of the fishers from Atlantic Tidewate r communities was determined by their relationships with the outsiders, and the activities that followed. Internally, the fishers, especially as landowners with direct ties to the original settlers, had an enormous amount of what the authors referred to as an aesthetically oriented power. This apparently added to an atmosphere of coope ration and manageability among the fishers. However, the influence of outsiders early on, according to Peacock and Sabella viewed as more of a materialistic oriented exchange should have created a certain amount of schism between individuals and groups. T he lay of the pre storm physical constructs did not suggest this in how its physical form was configured as more of an interconnected, orga nically grown network

PAGE 533

533 that appeared to extend from the shoreline as a patchwork of facilities, yet one that seemed to flow together in a seamless manner. In fact, stronger elements of the divisiveness that the authors mentioned sometimes resulted from the resulting reductions of power due t o external competition, seemed to emerge more convincingly reason why the post 1921 reconstructed waterfront appeared less organic, and less cohesive. As far as the waterfront conglomeration is considered, only two buildings retain any significant semblance of fisheries contextual building his toric fabric at the time of my study The lack of historic fabric remaining in the twenty first century waterfron t is surprising since most of the contextual recovery form period fabric was constructed after 1921, rendering a less aged set. Also, s the village which helped to preserve a substantial portion of the fisheri es contextual buildings after the end of my study However, up until 1946, most of the fisheries contextual f abric built from 1921 and later, combined to create an identifiable indicator set. An examination of the waterfront areas from a high resolution 19 4 7 aerial photograph suggests the presence of five fisheries contextual buildings. Two of these are completely built over the water, extending approximately 100 feet or so from the southern shoreline. Two others are attached to the shoreline and then exten d out over the water. Only one is constructed completely on an upland site. However, this lone construct would likely have extended over the water if the original shoreline had not been altered and extended seaward. While it is possible that some earlier, settlement and contextual growth periods fis heries contextual buildings were attached to the

PAGE 534

534 shoreline, archival photographs reveal that they were mostly built over the water in order to accommodate direct transference of fish hauls at the deepest water fe asible. The differences in the const ruct marked by 1921 represent a changed form, and an altered construct that responded to different technologies, a recaptured insider waterfront, and the changed process for delivering fish by water to over land. Chiara ppa (2003) discussed the addition of new forms in the fisheries landscape based on various advances in technology and adaptations to new processes. In a way, the revised fisheries contextual buildings became effects themselves, rather than simple structure s to be looked at for their shapes and placement al ong the shore ( Jameson, 1981 ). The effects of the forms created along the waterfront peculiar to its fisheries contextual form is then one expressed by the more localized culture now in better contro l of t he Cortez waterfront ( Rapoport, 1986). If forms were created from early traditional processes and limitations that were appurtenant to fisheries contextual buildings such as large expanses of fish and roe drying racks, or storage buildings for associated s upplies such as lumber for watercraft and wood for fuel, salt, lime, or even equipment, then the same would have held true for the newer storage needs of gasoline, motor parts, and now trailers that could by the 1930s haul watercraft behind automobiles. Th e change in the waterfront fisheries contextual fostered changes to the spatial configuration of other areas such as th some of the equipment such as the trailers, motors, and heavier parts were now being stored along with th e unchanged, traditional equipment. The fisheries contextual buildings did not appear to follow a pre programmed or consistent form of construction. Each of the five buildings from 1946 incorporated a

PAGE 535

535 gable roof; the difference was in how each greeted the o pen water. Three revealed gable fronts that faced the bay, while two i ncorporated side gable characteristics. No two are exactly alike, each reflecting differences in shape, size, and placement. The lack of commonality or as Heath (2009) referred to as consistency, reflected a changed, or changing vernacular that exhibited a lesser stability, or entrenched form based on a cultural tradition. The increasing dilution of kinship in Cortez after the 1921 storm could have altered this dynamic of the entrenche d form that was partly evident and in place in Cortez up to 1921. All buildings except the two story uplands building were elevated on pilings above the water. Ironically, the latter building did not seem to be elevated at all, built at ground level, sug gesting either a hardening of its frame to withstand the harsh environment, or an acceptance of it through the wide opening facing the waterfront that could have been left open to allow water to enter and recede a sort of adapted application of flood contr ol. Because it was constructed on a filled upland area, it may have been thought to have been more secure, though most all other upland buildings dating to the earliest structures were elevated somewhat. The construction practice of facing gables toward th e strongest winds in fishing villages, as suggest ed by Muir (2007) did not app ear in the mixed placement of 1946 Cortez, or the earliest constructs either. The fact that the building placement, as part of siting the entire waterfront construct as a traditi onal practice in some TFVs, was predominantly determined by the coastal topography, as suggested by Muir, was not reflected in the Cortez roofline formation. However, other placement factors could have existed that did provide this underpinning. In Cortez, it appeared to be more socially ordained.

PAGE 536

536 E xtended vernacular form indicator set Physical manifestations f ish eries camps All of the fisheries camps were destroyed by the 1921 storm surge. The reconstruction of the camps did not take the feverish activit y it did when the first camps were constructed between 1887 and 1921 resulting in a smaller indicator set of perhaps five or so that were part of the waterfront conglomeration by 1946 mostly attributed to the adjacent landowners This resulted in a depleted indicator set and a different establishment of the camp structure Up to 1921, the camps were placed above the adjacent tidal flats and above the shallow areas of the southern shoreline as the original settlers arrived and recruited familiar fishe rs hailing from their personal ranks Some c amps were also placed along the west shoreline, but were limited to the individual property owners who controlled that shoreline. Prior to the 1921 storm, there were no dealers living in Cortez as true insider d ealers though the two or so that were there appeared to have inside r connections such as through marriage Th e fish dealer cons t ructs that were there were constructed by outside dealers; it is possible that some very early fishers from outside of Cortez, with no record of land ownership in the village, such as George Hatsel, also established fish houses under a dealer scenario. This middleman structure up to 1921 may have affected an increased number of fisheries camps along the shore areas. One rising qu ery lies in why there seemed to be less of them rather than more after 1921. It may have been that after 1921, the predominance of Cortez fishers, as being kinship based, could rely on the personal connections with the insider dealers who began to control the Cortez marketing structure for harvest processing; the requirement for building individualized fisheries camps may no longer have been necessary, instead, fishers

PAGE 537

537 could focus on constructing net spreads and investing in their watercraft and equipment without considering the additional expense of an enclosed The fisher structure, as an overall relationship changed along with the reconstruction after 1921 as part of the elapsed experiential form construct. Also, t he original fisher settlers were also ag ing by now, and a changing of the guard, so to speak was reflected in the waterfront construct. Therefore, up to 1921, t he Cortez fishers who were also living in the village, were fishing and managing their fish harvest systems rather than focusing on the marketing aspects of the trade While they did establish market connections, t hey could either preserve their daily fish catches on ice when available, in salt barrels, or time their catches according to the schedules of run boats that could take the f ish directly to dealers in Braidentown, St. Petersbu rg, or Tampa for placement on the railroad for delivery to large r markets. Because of these particular dynamics of insider/outsider dealers, the number of fisheries camps swelled to accommodate the fisher s who all seemed to be working together as fishers aiming for a common goal of a successful fish harvest. While land ownership was still relegated to many of the original settlers up to 1921, the proliferation of camps, especially as part of the kinship gr owth of the village, was a normal activity by 1921. Based on historic records, it appeared that some of the waterfront property owners, such as the Fulfords and the Guthries orchestrated provisions for access amongst fishers, as part of an overall access s ystem. These two families controlled a large extent of the waterfront where the contextual fishing activity took place, especially afte r 1900, during the contextual growth form period ending 1921. The question of renumeration is not clear though.

PAGE 538

538 This all changed after the 1921 storm. All of the camps were destroyed leaving no dealers and no infrastructure and equipment for many fishers. The high losses of investment, most if not all, without any type of insurance, and the inability of many fishers to reinvest caused a default of many fishers who had constru cted camps. Many did not return. The sudden depletion of fisheries camps certainly affected the waterfront. The question again go es back to whether it was changed or the degree of change. A few were rebuilt so some of the original form existing prior to 1921 was recaptured in a sense. Since the fisheries camps were such a n important character defining indicator set of the extended v ernacular, the disappearance of the original set in its entirety suggests a change to the landscape, even though a reconstructed set using similar forms occurred. The lack of direct dealers to process the fish for delivery after the 1921 storm started a trend toward i ndividual, insider dealerships. This created a more tightly administered waterfront area regarding use by the fisher community at large. What may have resulted was a collection of fisheries camps and net systems further from shore, resul ting in the u shaped pattern visible in the 1947 aerial photograph. If this construct resulted after the storm, then a significant change to the vernacular form was changed in how it extended the vernacular fishing village by extending it seaward. The re are no photographs prior to 1921 that directly reveal the use of camps and net spreads in this extended area. Instead, historic photographs seem to indicate a dense conglomeration extending nearer to the waterfront, as part of the interconnect ed form di scussed earlier, intangible experiential. The increased privatization of the waterfront may have therefore limited new constructions in the

PAGE 539

539 histori c waterfront and tidal boundary, resulting in tandem, in a 1 946 fisheries cam ps indicator set that was a much changed form from its pre 1921 version. Physical manifestations n et works. The net works were also destroyed in their entirety by the wind and surge effects from the 1921 storm. Along with the earlier fishe ries camps, they appeared as an assortment of interconnected constructs placed closer to the shoreline. Despite their importance to the vernacular landscape for m, there is simply not much written about them. These basic structures, consisting of a primary net spread and associated wood plank platforms moving haphazardly above the waterline took on a horizontal configuration that spread out across the water plane. The post 1921 net works extended further from shore than th eir historic counterparts, and were part of the u shaped pattern referenced in the previous subsection, and also highly discernible in the 1947 aerial photograph. This appeared to be the most common net drying system used in Cortez beginning from the earli est settlement forms from 1887. The net reel, another popular net management device, was evident along the Cortez waterfront; however, it did not appear to be the primary type of structure used. The historic record suggested that its use was the predominant form of its type at or near the Cortez waterfront during presettlement. Historic photographs reveal only one net reel attached to a platform existing by 1946 taking up approximately 400 square feet of the bay area This can be compared to the complexes o f net spreads that took up several acres of surface area. The difference is quite remarkable when considering that net reels were fairly inexpensive to construct, and precisely because they took up so much less space and materials.

PAGE 540

540 The net works in place by the end of 1946 were perhaps the most characteristic forms of the extended vernacular landscape, made even more pronounced due to the competing watercraft forms that were already in full swing of changing beginning much earlier. Though the net works str uctural system w as a rather bland as a construct, consisting of horizontal lengths of wood referred to as stretchers attached to vertical studs and pilings, the vastness of their footprint on the landscape was more fixed, and more pronounced than all of th e other form indicators. It is highly likely that part of the net works form in place by the end of 1946 consisted of some materials salvaged from the 1921 storm debris, which would have increased their historic significance at that time, and certainly if any were still extant. The placement of lengthy nets on them created a significant, oscillating plane of whitish waves that mimicked the movement of the water on which the fishers worked. The application of netting on the net spreads, as a distinct mariti me form, also complemented both horizontally and vertically, the earlier shapes of the sails that were nearly diminished as forms by 1946, perhaps eliciting a certain elapsed experiential in who at one time had learned how to use them as a handed down tradition In essence, the post 1921 net works became a sort of subdivided, over the water development controlled by the fishers who used them to also store equipment and moor watercraft. Since there did not appear to be a strict re gulatory structure in place to control them, in spite of an evolving land use legal structure, they proliferated in an organic manner. However, b y 1946, the more vernacular net works did begi n to fade

PAGE 541

541 somewhat as critical and necessary constructs due to th e technological advances of netting materials from natural fibers to synthetics though it was not blatant The differences of the synthetic nets themselves, whether constructed as gill nets or seine nets, or for other purposes had varying stitching and mesh configurations, but were essentially similar in their overall appearance to the natural fiber nets in the landscape except for the materials they were made of. So, the basic and recognizable shape of the nets did not change Because the newer materials did not require the extent of drying, and were less susceptible to rot, there was no further need for spreading them out after each use Thusly, the net works reached their peak as a distinct vernacular fo rm at the end of the c ontextual recovery form period. Its subsequent decline is not part of my study, though it would nearly completely disappear during the following decades as the technological advance of synthetic materials became more prevalent in the net materials used, el iminating the time needed for maintaining nets, and also the spatial construct that was part of that maintenance The meaning of the net spreads to the fishers and those residing in Cortez during their use may have held significance since some of the hist orical record includes laments about their disappearance. The vernacular net spread constructed out of simple p ieces of wood was virtually accessible to all fishers and exemplified their daily toil and hardships as fishers. Fishers could gather about them as places of social connectivity and business. The net spread served as an extension of both the fisheries processing facility and the camps, away from the upland areas of the village. The net spreads were, in essence, virtual representations of the fisher that extended from his nets and his watercraft. Together, they all became a seamless physical construct of the life of the

PAGE 542

542 fisher nd of 1946, less part of the shore crowd from wh ich it had formed during the previous periods. and success as an artisanal or small scale fisher amidst an eroding way of life that was noticeable much earlier with the diminish ed use of sail. The handcraft of fishing, as seen in the extent of net spreads across the landscape was also diminished since the knowledge and working of the nets, though basically similar during the act of fishing, was now becoming a differently applied form with more time spent performing it. With the knowledge of using sails and maintaining vast amounts of net materials now becoming fixtures of the past, as part of other generations, the measure of the loss of the net spread was likely amplified by th e elder fishers who experienced both as a strong part of their traditional methods and as an important contributor to a recollected part of fishing that was indeed intangible Physical manifestations d ock system Based on historic photograph s of the been completely ruined. However, the photographs reveal the remains of the pilings, which could have helped the fishers in reestablishing many of the dock footpri nts, as they had existed prior to the storm. However, the resulting construct of docks did not appear to follow in a similar manner. By 1946 the dock system appeared much differently in how it ex tended outward from the shoreline. Some docks were reduced i n size and scale, while others grew individually, representing the divisions in the fishing enterprise that appeared to become established at the beginning of the contextual recovery form period. The change to individualized commercial fishing grew out of the

PAGE 543

54 3 restructuring of local insider fish houses that were established after the storm to replace the outsider systems that did not return, and thusly, were not rebuilt or reestablished. The most recognizable change was perhaps the minimization of the dock associated with the Albion Inn. Whereas, by 1921 it had become the largest, and perhaps most active dock and wharf system along the waterfront, it was obviously reduced in length and use by 1946 This may be accounted for by the change in focus of the Albi oriented. With the n eed for accommodating large run boats eliminated because of the automobile, and the addition of insider fish dealers, the overall commercial fishing enterprise along t he waterfront shifted accordingly. At least 12 dock systems extended from the waterfront by 1946, not dissimilar in number to how the waterfront had developed by 1921. However, the configuration was changed, representing a like change in the extended land scape form. The congestion of docks still gathered around the most active commercial area represented by the southern shoreline between 124 th Street Court to the west extending to just east of 123 rd Street The presence of docks running parallel to the sh oreline, providi ng connection points between those extending from the shoreline appeared to be minimized. This suggests a tandem minimization of the communal enterprise, and the increase d separation of commercial work spaces between established operations. By 1931 the right to use these waterfront areas, some of which had distinct rights of access and use distinguished by deed instruments and Florida statutes, were being challenged in court, as evidenced from a court decision between one fish house operator and the adjacent land owner es tate.

PAGE 544

544 An interesting feature noticeable of the 1946 dock configuration is the lack of extended docks from the eastern shoreline properties. While they revealed the existence of net spreads and water craft closer to the shore docks extending into the water appeared scarce dating even to when the properties were originally settled. There are a couple of possible reasons for this. One is that the presence of deeper water may have precluded the need for exten ding docks. Another reason lies in contrast, i.e., the presence of shallow water and tidal flats, or sandbars, may have limited access, and therefore limited the construction of costly docks. The location of the properties though just up shore, were still somewhat isolated from the north/south street system that led to the south waterfront and also began to merge with the ma ngrove fringe lining the eastern shore area. While the parcels there did have riparian rights, the easternmost boundaries did not hav e direct waterfront access without requiring substantial clearing of the mangrove forest, or what the fishers commonly ( Frederikson, 1995 p. 122 ). In any event, these properties remained large and undivided, with individual prop erty owners who constructed net spreads close to their shorelines. Dock construction in Cortez had not yet fully incorporated concrete components in the construct, since it was still much costlier than wood. While the few available main docks were still us ed for unloading fish hauls and fishing equipment, and in some cases, for transporting passengers, they were used much less for loading and unloading the general goods and supplies, including construction materials, watercraft, and perhaps sections of buil dings and structures that were constantly being relocated. Figure 4 2 2 provides a comparison of the 1921 and 1946 waterfronts to reveal the

PAGE 545

545 dock is clearly noticeable. Al so, the distinct u shape of the net spreads and camps extending from the main dock area is clearly delineated, as is the later, individualized system of docks that reveal a changed configuration from the pre 1921 configuration. Newer waterfront d evelopment creep along the western shoreline that was not yet evident in 1921 beg an to take place as individual fish operators in close synchronization began to expand their operations through land subdivision and the addition of commercial dock infrastruc ture albeit at the waterfront rather than a distance beyond it Some of the individualized dock infrastructure appe ared to have been replaced in situ after the destruction caused by the 1921 storm. Because of tidal currents and the addition of the 1922 br idge road bed at the northwest corner of the village, th e western shoreline of Cortez actually served as a repository for debris from that storm; the new road bed of the bridge extending into the bay, now creating an unintended jetty effect, stuttering the previous natural flow of water between the Sarasota Bay and Palma Sola Bay systems. The development of the original settlement parcels 5 and 6 into a trailer park that mode up much of the western shoreline may actually have limited its over development int o a larger dock and whar f oriented, commercial fishing site through 1946; however, it would become more intensely developed after the contextual recovery form period and of course, well after my study period ends. Physical manifestations n ets The fishing net, as an extended vernacular form, had not necessarily changed its form by the end of the contextual recovery form period. The basic construction and application of nets as devices used for ensnaring fish

PAGE 546

546 continued to be a long standing tradition in Cor tez and many other TFVs. However, the process involving their use and application in the appearance of changing fishing methods responding to motorized watercraft were already evident by the 1920s, with improvements for maximizing time and production occurring with each decade after World War I. Certain motorized methods for net retrieval dramatically changed the speed in which nets were handled, which is more of a technological change to watercraft rather than as a form change attributable to the fishing net. While gill nets and cast nets and perhaps some seine nets were still widely used during the period, t he use of stop nets as a practice that still had a long history by that time but developed along the Florida Gulf Coast quickly after 1921 created one of the Though stop netting was rather short lived in Cortez being outlawed in Florida by 1953, t he catch all method it emp loyed, as well as, the placement of the nets that were considered more fixed and less mobile than gill nets, were deemed by many as too harsh and overbearing on the ecological system in which the gill netters fished. However, various studies of the stop net presented mixed results as to their ultimate ecological effects when compared to other forms of net fishing. Nevertheless, t he use of the two different n et systems during this time had become the topic of much acrim ony and even violence during the period resulting in the bombing of one Cortez gill netter s residence in 1928. The ferociousness of this difference of opinion seem s to reveal the first indications of the breaking away of the communal fishery into one of factions and groups in spite of the ear lier kinship cultural formation Some of the historical record suggests a preponderance of the native Florida

PAGE 547

547 fisher as preferring the stop net over the gill net, though any study of this relationship is not readily available. There are certain considerations to examine though. The biggest increase in fishers to Cortez occurred between 1900 and 1910, when the number nearly tripled. Additional fishers arrived after that, steadily increasing the total number of fishers to about 90 by 1946; however, some had also left the scene after the 1921 storm and through mortality. The dilution of the North Carolina fishers in Cortez by this time was already noted, whereas, in 1910, approximately 60% were North Carolina natives, and only 32%, or so, were natives by 1930. Of course, much of the reduction can be attributed to the number of descendants of the North Carolina natives who were born in Florida. Regardless, disagreements among fishers were probably quite common during the first 30 years after settlement, but this later more pronounced trend appeared to have gotten its start as part of the restructuring and rebuilding of Cortez after the 1921 storm. Though th e fishers appeared to congeal as a community in response to the disastrous effects of the storm, ironically, they also began to separate, which was evident just by looking at this particular schism involving net type. The main difference between the two gr oups was derived from ho w fish were targeted. The gill netters used nets that were constructed to target certain fish at certain sizes. There was little by catch, or unwanted species entangled in the nets, which were typically placed a nd retrieved in a few hours In many cases, gill nets were used as schools of fish were scouted, or spotted, and then pursued and caught. The stop net assumed a catch all stance, whereby the net, often in up to 100 yard shots, was typically placed across an inlet or small bay f rom shore to shore, where the outgoing tide, and the fish travelling with it would be forced into the waiting net structure. Unlike

PAGE 548

548 the gill net, the stop net did not dis criminate in the types of fish cau ght since it caught ever y thing that swam in its path Of course, so did the gill net, but apparently to a lesser degree. The use of stop nets as fixed entities that, in essence, resulted in stopping off of a water course or water body, seemed to veer away from the traditional use of nets regarded by the tra ditional Cortez fishers though the message of which type of net is more akin to a sustainable practice has variables that question the effect of any form change simply based on which nets were used. Their increased use in tandem with motorized watercraft and motorized gear, such as the onboard donkey mechanical device separated them even further from the gill net method. Still, the effect of the net as a contributing factor to separating a long standing cultural process is part of the quickening of the la ndscape form change that ushered in the post World War II changes to the landscape. Rather than a physical effect, the form change appears more noticeable in the ethic that derives from the two uses. The obvious dilemma here suggests, or assumes one that is then framed by a traditional fishing ethic that espoused an ecological knowledge that differentiated between the two, rendering one as detrimental, and the other as less so. While my study does not attempt to get into the complex ethical dimensions betw een various fishers, for which there is already a robust literature, the evident change of form that results in a n intangible effect from the physical use of nets, though somewhat similar in basic shape, overlaps into the act of fishing, a different form i ndicator.

PAGE 549

549 The common ecological perception reference to fishers by some as being in an esoteric align ment with nature somehow also fed into this emerging fisher ethic, and was made more pronounced by the net wars, perhaps more so than the other changing forms and factors occurring in tandem. The taking of more resources than needed has been a long standing debate between fisher groups, and between fishers and non fishers. Successful hauls using nets generated debates about how many fish taken should equal enough fish per fisher. The sharing of fishing grounds meant a single resource that provided for all, so the impact of one fi was to be implied as a balancing act both beneficial to the fisher and to the environment, since he managed the resource in variou s ways that were part of the traditional knowledge. One of these was in targeting fish and fish sizes and complying with the regulatory environment at the time This was a way in which some fishers reconciled the gi ve and take of fishing, often orchestrated by the type of net used. Obviously, th e stop netter arriving on the scene and taking in a wider variety was looked at as ecologically, and perhaps, traditionally by other fishers as unsound and moving away from a certain ethics tradition that may have been shared by more fishers at one time earlier. The stop justification against the argument was that most of the by catch consisted of unwanted trash fish, nonedible, and therefore their elimination was not so bad. However, the form of taking in large, record breaking hauls of fish by either group during individual events seems to stretch any ecolog ical underpinning

PAGE 550

550 Fishers, in general, have long histories of complaints against them in that replenishmen t was rarely a major concern until the law required it. There are countless records documenting the depletion of fisheries going back to the eighteenth century. This analysis is not an indi c tment of Cortez or other fishers, and it should not be construed a s such. The record also reveals the ecological leaning of fishers, as well. In fact, the Federal Write rs Project (1930) cited a wide avoidance by fishers of certain nets such as pound nets due to the destruction of non targeted fish. However, t he mere ide a of a single fisher team hauli ng in 80,000 pounds of mullet during a single fishing trip does not even come close at first blush, to suggesting a sustainable, ecologically sound practice. Yet, most, if not all of the early and later fishers fished for thi s type of success, as dictated by the nets and gear they employed. As already referenced earlier in my study, t he thought of leaving fish for another day was not always promoted as a universal fisher concept, or ethic (Anderson, 1984). The historical facts of caustic occurrences between the two groups such as nets and gear that were purposely destroyed as acts of vandalism, active and marked fishing spots being invaded, and of course, the bombing as the ultimate threat and message, reveal the strains of bei ng a fisher in a difficult occupation that became even more di fficult during what were often lean times. In the case of the b ombing, the effects of the Great Depression were probably beginning to bear down on the fishers as fish prices dropped, and markets dissolved. Many fishers had to return to subsistence fishing in order to feed their families, as the per capita income in Florida fell from just over $500 in 1929, to only $289 by 1933. The oft made matters worse, along with a rapidly changing technology that created even more

PAGE 551

551 schisms between fisher groups as some adapted to the changes readily while others did not. The thinly apparent tradition of using gill nets as part of an ecol ogical form for harvesting fish blends into the intangible the long standing fishing tradition of North Carolina fishers, was weakened over time as the native cult ure diminished thereby reducing its strength as a culture (Johannes, 1981) In Cortez, based upon Johanne culture as certain of its younger generations, and perhaps fisher outsiders, found stop netting to b e more helpful in their pursuit to earn a living. So, while gill netting continued as the mainstay for fishing in Cortez until well after the end of the historic study period, intangible forms in the vernacular landscape. Physical manifestations w atercraft. The changes to w atercraft during the contextual recovery form period represented significant adaptations to traditional watercraft, and the slow emergence of new vessels by those few fishers able to purchase them. Many watercraft were destroyed, or at least damaged by the 1921 storm. Of course, some of the still viable watercraft were used during th at storm surge to transport people to higher ground. The fishing water craft became a life saving watercraft. The use of watercraft during the pre 1921 form periods was not restricted to functional artifact that could be used for transport, recreation, and as a symbol of the fisher. This symbolization commercial fishing way of life he nurtured through a commitment of family life, financial

PAGE 552

552 investment, social relations, and time could be seen in some of the photographs that were taken beginning with the contextual growth form period from the last decade of the nineteenth century. Watercraft, like fishing nets, reserved at least some element of basic forms in Cortez that overlapped from period to period. While distinct and significant changes occurred, the subtleties of most of the changes were not clearly noticeable without close visual scrutiny and an understanding of watercraft function and use. T he early use and dependence on sail presented a clearly distinguishable form in the shape of the cloth sail patterning with its vertical masts and diagonal rigging structure. The fishing vessel was different in appearance without the benefit of this additional form, leaving either an em pty mast and rigging with their own forms that, without the added sail, opened up the sweep of the sky. Now, the hull of the watercraft became its dominant form. It is not difficult to agree that watercraft, in general, hold to a fairly standard form of a raking bow and wide stern The nuances of these features and the subtleties of what are between them vary depending on function and purpose. Of course, the generally perceived difference in form between a schooner and spritsail skiff, though they retain a commonality of this basic form, is quite different especially to those who are experts in watercraft The differences between a sailing vessel and a steam also represented a perceivable difference of forms, though there was an overlap of commonness in ba sic shapes. These were identified as part of the earlier period graphic tiles. The physical, structural form of the fishing net itself was common for the purposes of evaluat ing landscape change. The detail or high resolution that had to be

PAGE 553

553 examined was unn ecessary. Significant form change occurred more with the nets function and the activity such as between an encircling net versus an entrapment net. Th is is where the watercraft separates from the fishing net as an artifact, since the degree of form is more noticeable in watercraft as they evolved. Granted, some watercraft changes were also too microscopic for considering landscape change for the purposes of my study, but others were very appropriate, and are included herein For example, the addition and ap plication of two different outboard motors was not a typ i cal consideration for significant change, though each device may have looked and functioned differently. However, significance could have occurred and been measured based on the effects each caused i n different ways. The use of a particular type of motor for a specific fishing method would be an example of this. Also questionable, is the significance, or not, between the inboard, or built in motor, mid section and exiting in the stern, and the outboard, generally visible, and added to the stern of the vessel. Both of these motors were being used in Cortez by the end of the earlier contextual growth form period, with broader use occurring during the c ontextual recovery form period. The significance of a form change between types of motors, as relevant to the wider landscape form and its measurable change is not easily distinguished in this type of example. There is a clearer difference between the use s of sail and steam and motor that is examined based on their physical forms and appearance, activity, function, etc. Each also draws different notions of the intangible experience regarding perception and experience. In 1985, Ben Green, a descendant of Co rtez fishers, wrote that sail had still

PAGE 554

554 been a persiste nt form of watercraft in Cortez during the 1930s. In fact, sail, as a working form of watercraft power, persisted even through the end of my study period, never really ending, and still a fully functio ning form along waterfronts as recreational watercraft, and as functional fisher uses around the world in the twenty first century. Steam power, on the other hand, has not been so persistent or pervasive. In fact, sail is regarded today as a sustainable ap proach to how fishing is accomplished, and has experienced a resurgence in its use. According to a 2012 display in the Apalachicola, Maritime Museum in Apalachicola, Florida some watercraft there retained the sail form as 24 to 30 foot auxiliary powered craft influenced by the form of the Tampa Bay sharp ie. Historic photographs from the 1940s showing waterfronts from a variety of ports loc ated along reveal the existence of the distinct mast and sail forms still functioning as part of the watercraft form. These examples suggest that motorization, though an extremely significant technological improve ment did not have an imme diate, widespread impact as the dominant use in the changing vernacular landscape. Instead, it occurred over time a s it was slowly phased out as part of fishing use but continued as part of traditional recreation uses. The importance of the motorized vessel, of course should not be understated, since it did result in the elimination of the sail form from the Cortez ve rnacular landscape involving traditional fishing as a vernacular form of watercraft power if sail is considered as being more vernacular than the motor. Though, for the purposes of my study, the motor device is non vernacular in its mass produced construc tion, here, another conundrum exists that results in a discussion of the motor as a new form of vernacular as it enters into a widespread, common use form that centers

PAGE 555

555 on the vernacular act of fishing and the adaptations that fishers employed in its use on their vernacular watercraft hulls. What appears to happen is an evolution of vernacular diminution of the watercraft in the response to an ever increasing technology, while some of the vernacular forms would continue virtually unchanged. The sail less fis hing skiff, navigated by long poles remained a constant form in Cortez by th e end of the contextual recovery form period. The pole skiff would remain a standard f or the Cortez throughout the contextual recovery form period and beyond In fact, because of e ncroaching development and the complaints generated by the new on the manually driven pole skiff for pursuing their traditional fishing under the quiet of night and wi thout mechanization. This separation between the commercial fisher and the new Florida resident a relatively new relationship that mostly began during the 1920s Florida land boom, allowed a fisher to either rekindle or retain the more traditional fishing method once manifested in the area. Locally designed skiffs for poling were still being constructed by Cortez builders using locally found materials of cypress trees and naturally curved mangroves into the 1930s alongside with vee hull launches to be equi pped with motors (Hunt, 2003) These could accommodate motorized devices for hauling in fish laden nets which in essence, chang ed the act of fishing, but not necessarily the distinct form of the watercraft. Again, the addition of the motor was a n addition of f orm on the landscape, but it did not necessarily change the watercraft form to the degree warranted for consideration of a significant vernacular landscape change.

PAGE 556

556 Now, having said this, the close scrutiny required for noticing the addition of a moto r, notwithstanding the loss of the sail form, would have been negligible to some, but the introduction of noise, smoke, and gasoline stations as a new structural element along the waterfront would have been at least new indicators that did affect the lands cape scene enough perhaps to establish a new overall perception affecting the traditionally thought of vernacular scene The experience of the w aterfront would have been different for the fisher the laborer, the business owner, and the resident in the vi llage because of this new introduction. In fact, the fishers from Cortez could have affected other landscape settings with the introduction and use of the motor, as referenced earlier when one local watercraft builder heard the new sounds of the motorized in the distance, and predicted its effect on sail watercraft. Because of these types of nuances of form and their effects, the researcher has to be careful when considering the effects of seemingly subtle additions and inclusion into the wider landscape. H ere, the thicker description is useful to the researcher and sometimes necessary where the level of resolution is more precise, and reveals significant landscape form changes The attraction of motorized watercraft certainly caught on quickly, though its effect on the vernacular landscape was slower since the conversion would happen only significant form change of the watercraft based on motor technology would eventually resu lt in their increasing sophistication and expanding use of technology to all the components of commercial fishing. However, this did not occur so rapidly by the end of the contextual recovery form period. The relative slowness for embracing technology is

PAGE 557

557 n othing new, though it is interesting. The persistence of sail as a preferred use decades after motors became available reveals the reluctance or inability of adaptation much different than changes effected from handcraft responses often do. An extreme exam ple would be the use of aerial fish spotting. Though not known to be used as a method for fish finding in Cortez by 1946, it was first experimented for use in 1919 by the U.S. Navy. The crafting of the spritsail watercraft and North Carolina sharpie to loc alized conditions reflected slow changes, as well, but allowed fishers to use their own handcraft abilities to modify their vessels, as needed. Certain technological advances did not afford such opportunities all of the time. In these cases, some fishers w ould have no choice but to wait to catch up to what would become mainstream, while others were simply reluctant based on attitude and a choice leaning toward a learned tradition. In Cortez, the most successful fishers and landown ers were able to adapt quic ker, and according to the historic record, led the way for others to eventually follow. However, in some cases, the meaning of success also varied between fishers. The first applications of motors into sail watercraft included clumsy, noisy motors placed i nside of the vessel. Some of these were removed from automobiles and rigged into watercraft, suggesting a homegrown vernacular adaptation to the watercraft. Early on, the only real form change on the landscape would have been the elimination of the sail fo rm, rather than the appearance of a highly distinguishable vis i ble form in the motor. The watercraft shape form remained basically unchanged, though variations did occur with the addition of enclosures and relocations of platforms for net storage, etc. The regional expression of the watercraft on the landscape, i.e., the familiarized white sails in large numbers rising vertically from the horizontal nature of the open water

PAGE 558

558 horizon was in the process of a steady diminution. The romanticism of the sail on t h e horizon, would, perhaps become even stronger as part of the elapsed experiential, but not only to fishers. The effect of the sail though subtle as part of its change process, also affected the intangible forms of many non fishers. Though its effect on l andscape form for the purposes of my study is important, it also held an importance to wider such as my reference to the net spread as most important The following early quote by Robie (1921) provides just one example Here, Robie suggested that Cortez with its many sailboats, piers and interminable nets might be a fishing village in Spain. It belongs t o old Florida, fast disappearing under the march of civilization which even in the sunny South moves swiftly. (p. 20) landscape, held its o wn meaning of significance ( Glassie, 1988). The persistence of the sail in use today, is a testament to t his meaning, its resilience and versatility through the ages. By the end of the contextual growth form period, or somewhere around 1920, Webb and Carrick (1967) documented that at least 45 companies were offering, or had offered outboard motors. By the end of the first decade of the contextual recovery form period, in spite of the economic downturn, the authors documented 13 more companies that came into o peration. By 1934, the outboard motor was being produced and marketed more efficiently allowing its mass entrance into the mainstream culture of the United States by 1939. Though productio n of the outboard was temporarily ha lted by law during World War II, it quickly regained its ground by 1946 with supplies unable to keep up with heavy demands perpetuated by the war reductions even with the addition of yet more companies manufacturing the product

PAGE 559

559 A different form of watercraft did appear in Cortez by th e late 1920s and lasting to the end of the contextual recovery form period and beyond. Sailing w atercraft were being retrofitted with enclosures that covered motors for powerboat conversions into launches, storing ice and the fish hauls, and amenities for sleeping and cooking. This modification of former sailing vessels was obviously the first priority over newly constructed launches that could cost $350 by the early 1930s (Hunt, 2003), an virtual fortune for most fishers at the time. The modified appearanc e of the outline of vessels and the superstructures on them resulted in a new addition to the watercraft form as an indicator. By this time, local builders willing to accommodate the newer technologies were already converting their shops to the changing fo rms. By the end of World War II, cheaply available large motors, n ow being adapted to watercraft use from automobiles, along with relative cheap fuel costs, caused a widening and flattening of watercraft form. The use of highly technical devices using rada r and sonar, were not yet perfected for use in Cortez. However, the improvement of the motorized watercraft did impact the fisher, who now became less dependent on weather and tides for determining fishing patterns spent more time fishing, and was able t o return to port quicker (Whittier, 1957). The appearance of the cabin superstructure also appeared as a distinct form that earlier held its place on watercraft rigged with sails. The revised superstructure began to house adapted motor components. By 1946, as watercraft were fully converted and new motorized designs were being crafted commercially, the superstructure was used for icing and storing fish, sleeping, cooking, and general storage. A strange similarity exi s ted between the icing of fish as preserv ation manifested in the physical construct of

PAGE 560

560 the watercraft, and how the much earlier fishing smacks were also retrofitted with live wells for a similar purpose. Th ough two different methods of preservation, they were separated by decades of time In Cort ez, the modern fishing trawler, as a distinct watercraft form did not yet show up in full by 1946, though it first appeared as a fishing method adapted to watercraft in the Gulf Coast by 1912 (Cato & McCullough, 1976) Some trawling devices were apparent on Cortez watercraft by the 1920s, and can be seen in historic photographs from that time. The obvious addition of this particular form that punctured the horizon, seemed to represent a modernized form of the sailing mas t in their similarity, yet each reserved completely different functions. Cato and McCullough also suggested that the trawling operation did effectively cause a reduction in beach seining as a fishing activity by the 1940s. The final effect on form pursuant to watercraft, was that b y 1940, fish were no longer delivered by water transport in Cortez, now being sent over land by all fisheries dealers, representing the completion of the port to port run boat by this time as a form on its landscape, as fish were packed in ice and delivered by trucks to the railroad stations or to Southern markets. Perhaps some water transport was still part of the fishing trade as the older generation commercial fisher ebbed out of the localized landscape scene. The growth of the tourism and fishing guide industry as a backdrop to the still viable vernacular TFV would begin its creation at commercial working waterfront, sharing space and attracting a different kind of fisher, with the hand line as gear, and the powerboat as the wat ercraft.

PAGE 561

561 Intangible manifestations f ishing grounds. In a way, the fishing grounds that were attached to Cortez as an extension of its vernacular landscape, expanded and contracted in physical and intangible ways. Cortez remained mostly an in shore fishery for most of its tenure after settlement, and for the entire timeframe of the historic study span Therefore, the fishing grounds were not a continuously or extensively changing form during this time. Now, t he use of technological advances could have allowe d fishers to extend their reach further out in the Gulf if they needed to. Certainly, some did choose to fish commercially for longer range species. Simultaneously, and in contrast, the encroachment of land development and the increased populations that oc curred and bro ught to bear down on the fishing grounds serve d to shrink it physically but also in ways that were not