Finally Home: The University of Florida Campus as a Microcosm of American Post World War II Residential Design

Material Information

Finally Home: The University of Florida Campus as a Microcosm of American Post World War II Residential Design
Copyright Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Architectural design ( jstor )
Buildings ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Dormitories ( jstor )
Halls ( jstor )
Homes ( jstor )
Housing ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
World wars ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Jennifer Lane Scott Garrett. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
Resource Identifier:
436098766 ( OCLC )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




Copyright 2005 by Jennifer L. Garrett


To Tim


iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee member s for their great insight and guidance through this process. Professor Susan Tate, my committee chairperson, has been an extraordinary mentor to me through this proce ss. Working as her as sistant has been the most meaningful and enlighten ing experience of my educati onal career, and I will call on her wisdom for years to come. Professor Tate introduced me to some of the most important people in preservation today, in cluding Roy Graham, whose recommendations to me as a committee member were invaluable. My research would not have been possibl e without the assistance of Dr. Julian Pleasants and the office of the Samuel Proctor Oral History Program at the University of Florida. Roberta Peacock and Ben Houst on were especially helpful in guiding me through the oral history process and keeping my research orga nized. I would also like to thank the participants of the Flavet Oral History Program and their willingness to share their university experiences. As part of my research, I had the plea sure of working with Harold Barrand of University Physical Plant Division and Linda Dixon in the Facilities Planning Division of University of Florida. Their assistance wa s crucial in obtaining accurate campus maps and building plans and specifications. In addi tion, the University of Florida Archives staff was helpful in providing pictures and documents relating to campus history. I would also like to thank the organi zations that have provided funding for preservation research on the University of Florida campus including the State of Florida,


v the Getty Foundation, and Florida Educational Fa cilities Planners. The financial support of these organizations ensures that the Univer sity of Florida will continue to protect its rich architectural past. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Timothy Garrett, for his encouragement and support, my family for their high expect ations, and my friends for making it fun. I thank God for blessing me with all these individu als that have brought me to this point.


vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH.........................................................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................2 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 UF and Modernism.......................................................................................................6 Collegetown..................................................................................................................7 4 RESEARCH METHODS...........................................................................................13 5 HOUSING IN POST WAR AMERICA.....................................................................18 Architectural Context..................................................................................................18 The National Building Crisis......................................................................................20 Acute Shortage of Residential Housing..............................................................20 The GI Bill and Housing.....................................................................................22 Modernism in Residential Design..............................................................................22 Modern Ideals and References to the Past...........................................................23 Suburbia......................................................................................................................2 5 The Residents......................................................................................................26 Levittown.............................................................................................................26 Prefabricated Housing Design....................................................................................27 Designing for the Environmental Setting...................................................................29 National Trends In Residence Hall Design................................................................30 Summary.....................................................................................................................33


vii 6 THE POST-WAR UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS: UNPRECEDENTED DEMAND FOR HOUSING FAMILIES AND WOMEN......34 The Campus Context..................................................................................................34 Enrollment..................................................................................................................35 UF Housing Shortage 1946........................................................................................36 Student Demographics................................................................................................37 Campus Plan 1946-1950.............................................................................................38 Flavets........................................................................................................................ .42 Veterans’ Issues...................................................................................................45 Flavet as a City....................................................................................................47 Social Differences in Flavet................................................................................51 Design Differences in Flavet...............................................................................53 Comparison of Collegetown and Flavets............................................................54 Flavet and Suburbia.............................................................................................56 The Colonial Revival Influence...........................................................................58 The President’s House................................................................................................60 The Modern Residence Halls......................................................................................64 Location on Campus: Reflection of Site and Climate.........................................65 Interpretation of Traditional Features..................................................................69 Roof Design and Compatibility...........................................................................71 Windows..............................................................................................................72 Fulton’s State of the Art Designs........................................................................75 Summary.....................................................................................................................76 7 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................77 APPENDIX A MASTER SITE FILE FORM FO R MALLORY/YULEE/REID HALLS.................82 B MASTER SITE FILE FORM FO R MEN’S RESIDENCE HALLS..........................87 C FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTER VIEW QUESTIONSFEMALE......................91 D FLAVET ORAL HISTORY IN TERVIEW QUESTIONS-MALE............................96 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................105


viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5.1 Baker House at Massachuse tts Institute of Technology........................................32 6.1 University of Florida Campus Map, Fall 1945......................................................38 6.2 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1947...............................................39 6.3 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1950...............................................41 6.4 Family Living in Flavet I ......................................................................................42 6.5 Flavet I, south of the stadium.................................................................................43 6.6 Single Story Unit Construction ............................................................................43 6.7 Two Story Unit Construction ................................................................................44 6.8 Flavet III Fire Department ....................................................................................47 6.9 Flavet III Community Garden ...............................................................................48 6.10 The Three Press .....................................................................................................49 6.11 Flavet III Playground ............................................................................................49 6.12 Campus Map in 1947, Flavet Villages highlighted...............................................53 6.13 Flavet Interior with Picture Window on Right .....................................................56 6.14 Flavet Kitchen .......................................................................................................56 6.15 Flavet I Unit ..........................................................................................................58 6.16 Flavet II Unit .........................................................................................................59 6.17 Typical Flavet III Housing Unit ............................................................................59 6.18 PresidentÂ’s House...................................................................................................60 6.19 PresidentÂ’s HomeEntry........................................................................................61


ix 6.20 Campus Map Summer 1950 Highlig hting Fulton Residence Hall........................65 6.21 Tolbert/Riker/Weaver/North..................................................................................65 6.22 Mallory/Yulee/Reid...............................................................................................66 6.23 North Hall Concrete Overhangs.............................................................................67 6.24 Yulee Hall Covered Walkway...............................................................................68 6.25 Tolbert Concrete Spiral Stair.................................................................................68 6.26 Mallory/Yulee/Reid Railing...................................................................................68 6.27 Fulton Residence Hall Entryways..........................................................................69 6.28 Entry Details..........................................................................................................70 6.29 Mallory Hall Hip Roof...........................................................................................71 6.30 Casement Windows of Residence Halls................................................................72 6.31 Mallory Hall...........................................................................................................72 6.32 Stairwell Between Riker Hall and North Hall.......................................................73 6.33 Stairwell Between Mallory/Yulee/Reid.................................................................74


x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Interior Design FINALLY HOME: THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS AS A MICROCOSM OF AMERICAN POST WORLD WAR II RESIDENTIAL DESIGN By Jennifer Lane Scott Garrett May 2005 Chair: Susan Tate Major Department: Interior Design In his book Campus: An American Planning Tradition , Paul Venable Turner supports the Jeffersonian ideal of the Ameri can campus. Colleges and universities are, “communities in themselves-in effect, as cities in microcosm”. Turner goes on to say that American universities and colleges in part icular have developed in distinctively American ways. If a microcosm is, “a small place, society or s ituation which has the same characteristics as something much larger”, and American universities have developed in American ways, as Turner states, then perhaps it is possible that an American university could be a microcos m of American architecture and social conditions at a particular time in history. This study will analyze significant deve lopments in campus housing at the University of Florida during the architectur e in the post World War II period, from 1945 to 1956 within the national and gl obal context of the period. The University of Florida’s status as a land grant instituti on along with its large inventor y of buildings from this era


xi make the university an excellent research subj ect for this investiga tion. In addition, like the country as a whole, the University of Florida went through many social changes during this time period and these changes were reflected in the archite cture on campus. For the first time, the aver age university student was something other than a young, unmarried and male. This thesis seeks to demonstrate the relation of the physical and social environment of the University of Flor ida post-war campus as a microcosm of that era.


1 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH Modernist buildings, suburbs, roadside st ructures, and old mi ssile silos do not easily fit the popular concept of “old”, let alone “historic”. They also defy the general understanding of “aesthetically appealing”, which consciously and unconsciously drive many people’s decisions about the worth of elements of the built environment. [1] -Rebecca A. Shiffer. “The Recent Past”, CRM [bulletin] 1995 Shiffer’s statement was a call to action for preservationists during the last few years of the twentieth century. Ye t, ten years later, preservationists still find themselves defending the ideals of modernis m and the structures that represent that ideal to those who misunderstand it. This study will analy ze significant features of post-World War II housing from 1945 to 1956 at the University of Florida within the national and global context of the period. This analysis will also investigate the significance of the temporary structures that were essentia l to students and families who came to the university after the end of World War II. A lthough these structures were temporary, they formed a new kind of student housing commun ity on the university campus. This study will document that community and the significant role it played in the post-war campus. The character defining features of both the era and the structures on campus will be identified in an effort to demonstrate thei r local and national signi ficance and contribute to the commitment of the University to preser ve the physical evidence of each era of its growth.


2 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION At the close of the Second World War, th e United States was entering a time of unprecedented growth in both population and de mand for the consumer goods rationed or restricted during the war. The architecture reflected that consum er culture. After a decade of very little civili an construction, the American demand for new buildings was higher than ever [2]. Americans needed more buildings in which to live, to learn, to work and to sell their consumer goods. These build ings needed to be produced quickly and efficiently in order to meet the consum er needs of the rapidly growing peacetime economy. The architecture of this era reflected the ideals of America at the time internationalism, practicality, and efficien cy. The post-World War II political setting sparked an increase in the international exch ange of architectural ideas, which led to a worldwide increase in the acceptance of modern architecture [3]. During the 1930s, Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe were just two of the many European modernists who escaped Europe to reside perm anently in the United States [2]. By the 1940s, these architects were influencing th e gradual acceptance of modernism in the United States [2]. World War II had an enormous impact on American higher education as well. The GI Bill, also known as the ServicemanÂ’s Readjustment Act, provided tuition and a small stipend for those who wished to pursue higher education upon their retu rn from service. This bill sparked an extreme increase in the enrollment of colleges and universities from


3 1945-1946 and a steady increase through the mi d-1950s. The bill allowed unprecedented numbers of single and married veterans, many of whom would not have been able to attend college otherwise, to attend American universities. In addition, there was a marked increase in the number of women seek ing higher education. University campuses across the country scrambled to build structures to accommodate the huge influx of students. In 1946, the University of Florida, like many universities, needed to provide additional academic space, housing, support fac ilities, recreation and dining facilities for its rapidly growing student body [4]. Yet, in 1946, there was very l ittle extra funding for massive building projects and, even if the fundi ng had been available, there simply were not enough building materials available to fill the needs [5]. During the war, most industries had shifted into producing military goods to support the war effort. After the close of the war, it took time for the econom y to make the transition from war production to consumer goods production. The University of Florida could not wait for the economy to adjust, so they turned to the only entity in the United States that had a surplus after the war, the military. The military provided temporary structures to universities across the nation. These structures not only helped to relieve the de sperate need for housing on campus, but also were used for classrooms across campus. At th e University of Florida, Flavet Village, named for the Florida Veterans, was created in 1946 out of military barracks trucked in from around the state [4]. The creation of Fl avet Village marked the first family housing area on the university campus. The housing need s of student families were very different


4 than those of single students and Flavet Vill age was the universityÂ’s first attempt to meet these needs. By 1950, the university had completed some of the first perman ent post World War II building projects on campus. These struct ures not only reflected the pressure for practicality and efficiency of the temporar y structures, but also established the link between the collegiate gothic tr adition of the campus and the m odernist influences of that time period. During the decade following the war, the number of buildings added to the campus far exceeded the total from its first fifty years. The new University of Florida campus ha d opened in Gainesville in 1906. From 1905 to 1925, William Augustus Edwards served as the architect to the State Board of Control and the stateÂ’s first four institutions of higher learning. Edwa rdsÂ’ first structures on campus, Buckman and Thomas Halls, esta blished the architectural connection between the University of Florida campus and well established universities in the northeastern United States and Europe [4]. The collegiate gothic tradition continued through the works of architect Rudolph Weaver , who served the Board of Control from 1925 through 1944. The Board of Control officially appoin ted Guy Fulton, who had worked as Chief Draftsman for Weaver, as architect in 1946 [6 ]. FultonÂ’s work dur ing the post-war era reflected the social changes occurring both at the university and at the national level. During his term from 1944-1956, Fulton establis hed policies that reinforced the campus tradition of continuity. The foundation was established for the cohesiveness and harmony that would characteri ze the campus for the future.


5 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The decade following the close of World Wa r II was a time of dramatic change in the United States. Although there has b een much written about the social and architectural climate, there has been little investigation into the university’s role in reflecting national social and ar chitectural trends of that er a. Paul Venable Turner’s book, Campus: an American Planning Tradition , was an excellent resource in understanding the planning history of th e American campus. The book included some information about the time period being studied in this investigation [7]. However, due to the wide scope of the book, Turner gave onl y a general evaluation of the era, focusing mainly on the planning issues on campus. Th is study will expand on that evaluation and will include more specific information a bout the campus architecture of the era. In the process of comparing campus trends to national trends, this study emphasizes historical information about the University of Florida. The widely recognized history of the University of Florida, Gator History by Samuel Proctor, provided an insight into the development of the university. Guide to the University of Florida and Gainesville by Kevin McCarthy and Murray Laurie provided an overview of the buildings of the campus and the surrounding community. [4, 8]. Sharon C. Blansett’s book, A History of University of Florida Residence Facilities, provided information about the history of all residence halls on campus, includ ing some architectural descrip tions of the buildings [9]. Blansett’s book described each dormitory in the order it was built on campus, including buildings that no longer exist, such as Flavet Village. These history books provided the


6 background necessary to begin a more in-depth investigation into both the history and national importance of campus architecture. UF and Modernism Anne Catinna’s 1993 thesis “Years of Trans ition: Architecture on the University of Florida Campus, 1944-1956” gave an overvie w of the architectural changes on the University of Florida campus that took pl ace during the post World War II era. Catinna stated that the architecture reflected interna tional modern influences that were prevalent during that time, while the buildings mainta ined specific design elements that ensured compatibility with the older gothic structur es on campus. Catinna’s study focused on two historically significant archit ectural examples from this time period, Tigert Hall and Mallory/Yulee/Reid . Tigert Hall is the University Administration Building and the Mallory/Yulee/Reid complex was the first women’s dormitory unit on campus. Both buildings were completed by 1950 by architect Guy Fulton for the State Board of Control. According to Catinna, Tigert Hall was the primary example of architectural transition on campus. In order to maintain compatibility, Fulton chose red brick, terra cotta roof tiles, and stone deta ils used in existing campus buildings. However, the stone details were more restrained, focusing mo re on the functional aspects of design and conserving materials. Gothic design elements , such as the entry tower and parapet, were modified to reflect the modern style. Fulton eliminated gothic elaborations, such as quoins and gargoyles. The windows also refl ected the new technology of the time, using extruded aluminum alloy casement and mullions . Catinna argued that this building was transitional due to its clear association w ith both collegiate gothic and international modern.


7 While Tigert Hall was transitional, Mallory/Yulee/Reid was more clearly influenced by international modern concep ts. The construction methods and features reflected the utilitarian and f unctional nature of internati onal modern design. However, Fulton used red brick, roof tiles, and continuity of scale to maintain compatibility with the existing architectural context. Catinna questioned why the drastic change fr om strictly collegiate gothic design to international modern design occurred. Thr ough evaluation of Board of Control minutes, personal interviews, and newspaper accounts, Catinna concluded that the Board of Control, Guy Fulton and national architectural trends contributed to the environment for change. However, it was University archit ect Guy Fulton alone who was responsible for maintaining the compatible nature of the new structures. In doing so he established longstanding university standards for compatibility in campus construction [6]. This study will expand on this analysis of Fulton and w ill analyze the interrelationships of post-war housing needs, university demographics, and na tional and international developments of the era. Collegetown As early as 1948, post-World War II housing was the subject of Bernard HornÂ’s Master of Political Science thesis at Columbia University [10]. It is important to note that Horn actually lived in the veteransÂ’ vi llage that he studied, at a time when the complex was less than a year old. While this may have caused some biases within his study, for the purposes of this paper, HornÂ’s thesis can be used both as a sociological study and first hand account of life within a post-World War II veteransÂ’ collegiate residence facility.


8 Collegetown, the focus of Horn’s study, wa s located at the former Army Post of Embarkation and had the capac ity to house approximately 25,000 soldiers [10]. As a housing community, Collegetown’s capacity was approximately 1200 units for student veteran families and 300 units for non-student veteran families [10]. Collegetown was grouped into three “towns,” and it took an hour to walk from one side of the complex to the other. In order to justif y his study of the veterans’ housing situation, Horn needed to establish that the veterans’ housing was, in f act, substantially different in comparison to typical housing situations. Horn descri bed the characterist ics of most housing communities as being planned, permanent in structure, designed for permanent residents, and fostering community common interests [10]. Horn argued that the veterans’ complex he studied, Collegetown, failed to meet th e “permanent” and “permanent residence” criteria for a typical housing community. Ther efore, Collegetown could be considered to be an atypical housing community. Horn used this fact along with personal observations to hypothesize that the veterans lived differe ntly than other people because they were housed differently. Horn began his study with direct observati on of Collegetown residents followed by intensive interviews with a small sample of residents [10]. Horn first interviewed residents in a leadership role within the community, described as a “pioneer” group, who entered the community in fall of 1946. For the purpose of comparison, Horn then interviewed other “pioneer” group members w ho did not take activ e roles within the community. In an effort to expand his study beyond its limited sample group, Horn disseminated a written questionnaire to the remaining residents via the Collegetown bi-


9 weekly newsletter [10]. Two hundred and forty-seven of the seven hundred questionnaires were returned and analyzed by Horn. The questionnaires revealed that student families, rather than non-student families, dominated Collegetown activities, evident in the number of questionnaires that they returned. Although the non-student families represented 23 percent of the tenants living in Collegetown, their pa rticipation levels were not propor tionate [10]. Horn also found that long-term residents were mo re likely to return the survey. The surveys, then, did not represent a random sample of residents in Collegetown, but an analysis of 247 student veteran families in a temporar y residence facility [10]. The results of the survey revealed that the median age of men in Collegetown was 27.6 years old, wives 25.8 years old, and childre n 1.96 years old [10]. Couples had been married an average of 3.3 years, and moved about 1.6 times a year [10]. 15 percent of husbands worked full-time, 22 percent worked part-time, while 19 percent of wives worked full-time and 11 percent worked part-t ime [10]. Not surpri singly, Horn found that couples who had been ma rried longer were less likely to move often, more likely to have children and less likely for the wife to work [10]. These wives also expected to be living in Collegetown for a longer duration than their counterparts who had been married for a shorter time [10]. Horn commented on the striking homogeneity of Collegetown residents [10]. Most residents were from a middle-class b ackground and were pursuing graduate and professional degrees in preparation for a middl e-class future. Horn asserted that this homogeneity in background, interests, and situation created high tenant morale and community resident satisfaction [10]. In or der to measure tenant satisfaction, one might


10 usually look to the tenant move-out numbers. This was not, however, an accurate measure in the case of Collegetown. In New York City, like many American cities, there was an acute housing shortage after World Wa r II and dissatisfied tenants may have had no other alternative for housing. As a result, Horn used the questionnaire as a tool for tenant satisfaction self-repor ting [10]. Horn used four factors in determining the “rootedness” and resulting satisfaction of resi dents: the high number of residents who intended to stay in Collegetown for the duration of the husband’s schooling, the small number of residents who con tinued to look for housing alternatives in New York City, the high percentage of residents who reported preferring to live in Collegetown to New York City, and the high number of reside nts who preferred nighttime recreation in Collegetown rather than New York City [10]. After determining that the residents were, in fact, “rooted” in the Collegetown community and some preferred it to New York City, Horn questioned why. Horn reported that the resident satisfaction of te nants at Collegetown was due mainly to the homogenous makeup of the tenants [10]. Horn determined this by evaluating the favorable responses to questions about “commun ity spirit” and “simila r interests” of the residents. Horn’s conclusions were valid ated through the indivi dual interviews he conducted with residents [10]. Many residents did not respond favorably to a question that asked about the presence of “minority racial and ethnic groups”. Only 7 of the 247 people who responded liked “the presence of minority raci al and ethnic groups, th e racial tolerance” (Horn, p.47). The individual inte rviews also revealed a disl ike of non-student neighbors, one resident saying that, “there is a real difference in intell ectual interest,” [10]. Horn


11 repeatedly cited quotations from interviews that reflected satisfaction with the similar background, interests, and situ ations of student Collegeto wn residents [10]. Horn concluded that the positive res ponse to living with “one’s ow n kind” is a cause of tenant “rootedness” and results in high tenant morale [10]. A second factor in the cause of resident “rootedness” was the physical location of Collegetown. As opposed to New York City, Collegetown was in a suburban, semi-rural setting [10]. Horn stated that residents pr eferred the proximity to nature, the fresh air, and open green spaces [10]. In addition, reside nts felt that their ch ildren were safe and they enjoyed the ability to have pets of every shape and size [10]. It is important to note the Horn found no evidence that the physical structure of the temporary housing units themselves provided any support for resident sa tisfaction [10]. In fact, Horn determined the resident satisfaction rate was high in sp ite of the less than ideal physical structures. Although Horn found high levels of resident satisfaction and high tenant morale, there were, of course, some aspects of Collegetown with which residents were dissatisfied. Even though resi dents expressed satisfaction w ith the suburban setting in some respects, fifty percent of residents comp lained of the high cost of commuting to the city [10]. Horn clarified this finding in hi s interviews by questioning whether it was the monetary cost or time cost of the commute that they disliked. One resident responded that it was in fact the monetary cost, saying th at, due to traffic, liv ing within the boroughs outside of Manhattan may not have actually taken time off their commute [10]. Other sources of moderate dissatisfaction included a lack of shopping fac ilities, the distance from city, the high cost of suburban living, and the lack of service fa cilities [10]. This


12 study will compare Collegetown as a case study of national developments with the Flavet Villages at the University of Florida.


13 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODS There were three methods of research impl emented for this study; archival, on-site investigations, and oral hist ory. First, a search was conducted in the University of Florida Archives Library, which holds an exte nsive collection of unive rsity records. The Archives Library not only holds the written records for the university, such as the presidential papers, but also the photography collection of the university. The archives provided maps and aerial photographs of the cam pus from the post-World War II era. In addition, they provided photographs from the post-war period that showed residents and the structures. Perhaps the most important documents for the Flavet study were the minutes from the Board of Commissioners meetings from 1948-1953. The Board of Commissioners was a group of Flavet reside nts elected to serve as a governing body of the village. These minutes described aspect s of living in Flavet such as childcare, parking and traffic, the laundr y facility, heating fuel costs, and self-government issues such as voting. The minutes, however, spar ked more questions that were not fully addressed in the minutes. The minutes were not always complete, and many meetings were simply not recorded at all. In order to find accurate information about how the permanent residence halls were designed, it was necessary to locate the orig inal plans and specifications for each building. Currently, University of Florida building records ar e kept in several different locations. Most buildings fall under the care of the Physical Plant Division, and therefore, those building plans and specifications are held at their office on Radio Road..


14 However, the University of Florida Housi ng Division maintains the residence halls and building records for those buildings are kept at the Housing office on Museum Road. After reviewing the original plans and specification, it was necessary to compare the documents to the buildings themselves th rough an on-site investigation. The on-site investigations were conducted in accordance to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation [11]. The checklist for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings was also used as a guide how to document, evaluate , and assess the residence halls, [12]. The checklist recommends that the first step is checking available documentation, which was included as part of the archiv al research for this study. Ne xt, it is recommended that the historic character of the bu ilding be evaluated through an on-site investigation. This investigation should identify the character de fining features of the building, which may include both the interior and exterior form and details of the building, as well as the materials. Any additions or alterations made to the building should be noted and evaluated as well. In this study, the residence halls were ev aluated based on their standing as physical evidence of the universityÂ’s past. The charac ter defining features of the residence halls were compared with both campus buildings and national housing build ings of the same era. Finally, the architectural integrity of the buildings and thei r physical condition was evaluated. This step was esp ecially important in this st udy, due to the many alterations and maintenance issues concerning these buildings. In an effort to document the buildings fo r future preservation projects, Florida Master Site File Forms were completed for all significant university structures built between 1948 and 1956. Master Site File forms are the first step in documenting historic


15 structures with the state of Florida (Appendi x A,B). The form includes information on the structural components, design, architect, contra ctor, ownership and hist ory of alterations. Accurately completing the forms required multiple on-site investigations supplemented with the archival research at Physical Pl ant, Division of Housing and the University Archives. Since none of the Flavet structures were still standing, making an on-site investigation impossible, it was necessary to conduct oral hist ory interviews to obtain the missing information. A project was initiated to locate and intervie w residents of the original Flavet community. With the assist ance of the Samuel Proctor Oral History Program and the guidance of the program’s di rector, Dr. Julian Pl easants, oral history interviews were conducted with 10 residents who lived in Flavet Village. In addition to Dr. Pleasants’s guidance, Donald A. Ritchie’s Doing Oral History was used as a resource for understanding the history, process, ethics , and legal issues involved in conducting interviews [13]. The Oral History Process An oral history project typi cally begins with research into the written record, as was the case in this study. From this bac kground research, a series of questions were developed that addressed the pertinent i ssues raised in the background research (Appendix C,D). Since the archival evidence indicated that males and females living in Flavet had dramatically different daily r outines, it was necessary to formulate two different sets of questions, one for the female residents and one for the males. These questions were designed to engage the interv iewee, avoiding questions that prompted a one-word answer. Ethical issues were consid ered, such as avoiding questions that may have violated the privacy of the interview ee or be deemed inappropriate by university


16 standards. The questions covered in the interview were grouped into the following categories; personal background, university e xperience, housing issu es, social issues, village politics, and economics. Every effort was made to ensure that the questions did not persuade the interv iewee into giving a particular response. During this question formulation phase, a search for interviewees was conducted. The search involved locating i ndividuals who lived in the village during the study time period and obtaining consent for these individuals to sit for a recorded interview. Before interviews were conducted, oral history techniques were re viewed by assisting in the transcription, audit-editing, ed iting, and summarizing of other oral history interviews for the Oral History Program. Interviews were conducted dur ing the fall of 2004 with individuals who lived in the village between 1946 and 1953. The Sam Proctor Oral History Program staff assisted in the transcribing and editing the Flavet interv iews. The Flavet interviews have been edited and are awaiting final review in order to be sent out for interv iewee review. It is important for the interviewee to review the tran script in order to cat ch any errors or to clarify names of places that may onl y be known to the interviewee. It was important to pursue oral history inte rviews for this study in order to gain a first hand account of life in the village. It wa s also crucial to do the interviews at this time because it has been over fifty years si nce the residents lived in the village. Throughout the study, evidence found thr ough one method, such as archival research, was confirmed through other methods, su ch as oral history. The result is a body of knowledge that is more accurate than simp ly using one method. Since this study links social issues and architectural issues on campus, it was necessary to use a multi-method


17 approach. Generally, information on social issu es was gathered through archival and oral history research, while architect ural issues were investigated mainly through archival and on-site investigations. In both instances, archives pr ovided the initial information, and that information was either confirmed or deni ed through oral history and on-site methods.


18 CHAPTER 5 HOUSING IN POST WAR AMERICA Architectural Context The beginning of the year 1945 was met w ith optimism tempered with rational thinking by American arch itects. According to Architectural Record editor Kenneth K. Stowell, architects were far from idle duri ng the war years [14]. Stowell states that architects were designing, "at a breakneck speed, new munitions plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, hosp itals, housing, for a truly allout two-front war," [14]. Architects and engineers were developing new technologies to improve efficiency and to conserve limited materials, time, and manpow er. In addition, most designs occurred under some level of secrecy, allowing for little to no public acknow ledgement of their achievements at that time. Perhaps Stowell recognized the need fo r some kind of public acknowledgement of their achieve ments. Stowell encouraged architects to continue to meet the military needs of the country, while clinging to the hope of being able to proceed with peacetime civilia n designs at some unknown date in the future [14]. When the war was finally over, American architects were certainly ready and eager to embrace their civilian design responsibili ties. Edwin Bateman Morris, during an address to architectural alumni at the University of Pennsylvania on V-E Day, recognized the fight to promote modernism afte r World War I, but claimed that the fight itself hindered the free expression of the styl e [15]. Morris called for new freedom in architecture, based on modernism and following its syntax [15]. Morris gave as an example of the prophesized freedom that an architect could use a column with entasis


19 rather that a cast-iron pipe, emphasizing th at the post World War II era would be a transitional time for architecture in the United States [15]. Morris ci ted a statistic that there would be a 25 percent in crease in volume from architect's previous best year, and that this increase would be not only an increase in quantity, bu t in architectural quality. Morris reiterated that, "any architect living in the era to come will have lived in a great epoch of his profession," [15]. MorrisÂ’s pred ictions proved to be correct in that the decade following the end of World War II did b ecome an era of arch itectural transition for the United States. The transition not only allowed for the expression of new architectural elements, but also for the de velopment of technological advances in the building profession. At the close of World War II, the United States had stepped forth as the world leader in politics and industry, yet according to Gelernter, pr ofessor of Architecture at the University of Colorado and author of A Hist ory of American Architecture: Buildings in Their Cultural and Technological Context, its modern architecture was rooted in Europe. In France, Le Corbusier influenced the crea tion of high-rise housi ng with his Marseille block. The housing tower took advantage of ne w technologies in conc rete design to form "vertical neighborhoods" that would encourag e inhabitants from va rying social and economic backgrounds to live in the same comm unity. Towers could be connected at the third floor to allow occupants the fr eedom to move from "neighborhood" to "neighborhood". He believed that Modernism c ould change society for the better, to his idea of what was better. Le Corbusier believ ed that his Marseille block symbolized the best of modernism and what was best for post war living.


20 The National Building Crisis The crisis of America’s cities was clearl y evident at the clos e of the war in 1945. In a 1945 address to the Confer ence of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions in the postWar World in New York, Henry Churchill re viewed the “physical decay and economic constipation” of America’s ci ties [16]. The events of the great depression and then World War II had taken their toll. Chur chill described the business centers as deteriorating, surrounded by old residential area turned slums [16]. The upper class homes were located further out of town, with the soon to be booming middle-class residences even further out [16]. In an effort by President Truman to remedy these issues, the United States legislated the Housing Act of 1949 [17]. One result was public housing towers, influenced by Le Corbusier, yet lacking in diversity of residents. The towers were symbols of the American government's allegian ce to the ideals put forth in Roosevelt's New Deal, that everyone deserved a place to liv e [17]. Unfortunately, Urban Renewal, as it is now known, was not the urban utopia of which Le Corbusier dreamed. Urban Renewal along with the Inters tate Highway Act of 1956, actually created a whole new set of ailments for city centers, such as po llution, overcrowding, and the loss of middle and upper class resident tax base. These problems still persist today in many American cities [17]. These developments would be factors in the movement to legislate the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Acute Shortage of Residential Housing Housing expediter Wilson W. Wyatt, Jr., head of the National Housing Agency, was charged with the mission of finding ways of providing the materials for the new homes to be built [18]. As housing expedite r, Wyatt proposed the Veteran’s Emergency


21 Housing act, which called for a cutback in nonresidential housing construction in order to devote all construction efforts to meeting the acute housing needs of returning veterans [18]. He also made four constr uction recommendations, as cited by Architectural Record editor Kenneth K. Stowell [19]. The first wa s that small simple houses with very basic equipment should be built, in an effort to c onserve materials. The second was that new technology for the standardization of parts shou ld be implemented in order to increase the productivity per man hour [19]. This r ecommendation, which was to be implemented over a ten year span, may have led to the cr eation of the “Time –Saver Standards” for engineers guide that later appeared in Architectural Record by 1950. Also recommended was an increase in the efficient distribution of building materials, a direction which may have been related to the vast improvements of the national highway system that occurred in the 1950s. Third, Wyatt called for the revi ew of restrictive pract ices, such as codes and construction labor laws that hindered th e speed at which the housing could be built. Finally, Wyatt recommended the constructi on of large scale communities that took advantage of low cost land [19]. This list of recommendations had long lasting effects on the way Americans lived for years to come. Th e list incorporated nearly all aspects of American life, from industry to transpor tation, to community de sign, to the luxuries available to individual families. This lis t laid the framework for the way American communities would develop for the next ten years and beyond. Wyatt’s recommendations were certainly no t created in isolation. On October 8, 1945, Antonin Raymond made some very sim ilar recommendations to the New York Institute of Finance [20]. Just a few m onths after the close of the war, Raymond recognized some of the same key factors in providing fast and efficient affordable


22 housing to Americans that would later be recommended by Wyatt [20]. Raymond emphasized the need to reform the way houses were built. He explained the need for standardization in manufacturing of the 30,000 parts of houses, just as Henry Ford revolutionized the auto mobile industry with the asse mbly line [20]. Raymond also acknowledged the need for neighborhoods to be thoughtfully planned in order to, “secure the investment and to insure economy in its use” [20]. These planned neighborhoods seem not unlike the large-scale efficien t neighborhoods recommended by Wyatt. The GI Bill and Housing The government also recognized the need to provide funding for veterans to purchase new homes for their families. As a part of the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provided special VA loans that required no down payment for veterans purchasing their homes [21]. This same bill offered to pay for the tuition for GI’s to attend universities when they retu rned home, as well as providing loans to purchase farms and businesses. Of the ten million veterans who returned from the war in 1945 and 1946, one million opted to attend some kind of higher education [22]. The majority of the other nine million veterans sought jobs and housing in which to raise their growing families. The FHA provided a means for these veterans to purchase homes without a large down payment. Modernism in Residential Design In his 1945 article in Journal of the American Institute of Architects , Antonin Raymond explained the challenge of adapting the modernist philosophy and aesthetic to residential design in the United States.


23 It is no excuse for an architect to say a building is hideous because it could not afford to be beautiful. In fact, it is often just because of the economy of means required to achieve an end, that a building has at tained a memorable quality. Thus I have often found greater b eauty in the simple marginal house, whether it be in the Penns ylvania countryside or in faroff Japan, than in the expensive monstrosity on Long Island that has everything the architect could pile on it and into it.[20] Due to extremely limited budgets, Raymond challenged residential architects to rethink their ideas of what constituted beau ty [20]. In short, Raymond supported the modernist philosophy that brilliant efficiency of function is beau tiful in itself [20]. There is intellectual value because if its functionality, therefore it is beautiful. The luxuries of past residential design for wealthy clients s hould no longer be a prior ity for architects. Instead, designing for the problem at handthat of providing functional shelter for millions of Americansshould be the architect ’s priority [20]. In the years to come, however, architects began a balancing act of traditional aesthetics and modern principles within the confines of residential design. Modern Ideals and References to the Past Parallel with the spread of internatio nal modernist influences, the popularity of traditional building forms persisted. This was especially prevalent in housing, because of the association with a desire for stability a nd establishing roots after the deprivations of war. The term “colonial” was widely applied to buildings with classical references such as columns and decorative shutters. These were freely integrated with more modern features such as the “Chicago” or “Picture Window”. Architectural critics like Vernon de Ma rs criticized the reluctance to abandon traditional home designs just after the wa r [23]. In a 1946 ar ticle entitled “Look Homeward, Housing”, Mars asks, “why is th e average speculative development such a


24 naïve and miserable example of modern achie vement as compared with our motor cars, bathrooms, and kitchens,” [23]. Mars also contrasted the state of government housing projects versus these specul ative developments [23]. Ma rs insisted that government sponsored apartment buildings provided plenty of communal space, but not enough individual space, while the suburban neighbor hoods provided plenty of personal space, but were lacking in true community spaces [ 23]. Mars criticized both types of housing for falling victim to dangers of mass pr oduction [23]. Mass production, according to Mars, had led to the creation of “an average unit and type solution for a limited social or income group” [23]. The idea of streamlini ng production and increasi ng efficiency, some of the key principles of modernism, had le d to homogenized desi gns for both types of housing [23]. Furthermore, there was a growing str uggle between architects and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) over the appr opriateness of modern designs in a residential setting. The FHA, which provi ded loans to many of the new home buyers, promoted “neighborhood stability,” which resu lted in strict regulation of residential properties in order to protect the financial investment of th e FHA [22]. FHA approval of homes was extremely important to a resident ial builder and developer because without that, a buyer would have almost no chance of getting bank approval for a loan. The FHA, through its emphasis on “neighborhood stability” , lowered the ratings scores for homes that were particularly modern in design. The FHA suspected that modernism was a design fad, and endorsed more tr aditionally designed homes as safer investments [22]. The result was a new kind of residential design, the ranch home.


25 The development of the ranch home was a hybrid of Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Prairie style” mixed with traditional housing elemen ts. The homes recalled the strong horizontal lines and low-pitched ro ofs of the Wright Prairie style, but also relied on traditional exterior features such as deco rative shutters [24], [22]. “Most people appeared to want to combine the latest in technology, planning, bu ilding materials, and labor-saving devices with the outer shell of the older Cape C od cottage,” [21]. Perhaps, the traditional elements were used as a crutch, in an effort to appease the critical FHA appraisers and improve the rating scores of the modernist influenced home. Despite the design incongruities, the ranc h style home was a very popular solution to the housing crisis of the mid to late 1940s. During the war years, American manufacturers helped to keep the American dream of owni ng a home alive even through the dismal rationing and shortages of materi als. The Anderson corporation even gave away “new dream home planning scrapbooks” to families so that when the war ended, they could start construction as soon as possi ble [21]. American families were eager to move in to the new ranch homes and looked fo rward to using all the modern advances in home designs. The ranch homes’ horizonta l design eliminated the second story and the stairs, a factor that many hous ewives appreciated [22]. The plan had fewer interior walls than houses before the war and most ranch homes included large windows that overlooked private backyards [22]. Suburbia The study also found a shift in the design of these new suburbs. Instead of small, isolated groups of homes, new neigh borhoods were being designed with schools, churches, and recreation as ap art of the development [25]. In support of these suburbs “high-speed limited access trafficways and improved automobiles” allowed for the


26 expected forty minute commute to place of employment [25]. By 1946, architectural critics were beginning to cr iticize the new neighborhood deve lopments, claiming that the new neighborhood designs, “turn [their] back on everything around it,” [23]. The Residents The homes of suburbia were built for a sp ecific market and set of buyers. These buyers were typically young, white, first-time bu yers and their families. Of course, many of these buyers were the veterans. Special practices and policies were set forth by the builders and the FHA to ensure that only th e target buyers could purchase homes in the suburban developments [22]. Through tec hnical bulletins and loan policies, the FHA ensured that neighborhoods designed for white buyers would only be sold to white buyers [22]. Under the guise of protecting neighborhood characte r and investment, the loan policies of the FHA at that time discriminate d against any buyer who was not white in the new suburban neighborhoods. Due to these polic ies and the practices of the developers themselves, the new suburban neighborhood residents were homogeneous in race, income, and background. Levittown Arthur Levitt and the Levitt Organizati on built some of the most recognized examples of the post-war suburban buildi ng trend. In 1946, the Levitt Organization began building the first of three Levittow ns, a planned community of approximately 17,000 homes of similar modern design located in Long Island, New York [26]. The vast community included everything from public sc hools to public pools within its 5,000 plus acres [26] [22]. Levittown designs also boasted the use of th e latest technological advances, such as the use of wide expanses of glass across the back of a house and the amenity of a Wright


27 inspired three-way fireplace [22]. Levitt Corpor ation relied on research to inform their home designs, a practice favor ed by modernist giants Richard Neutra and Eero Saarinen [22]. This research included more than just determining design preferences in home buyers. Research in the fields of child development, sociology, and psychology were affecting the design of the typical home in th e late 1940s [22]. The large glass expanses overlooking the backyard were a result of changes in the dynamics of the American family [22]. Mothers allowed their children mo re freedom within the safe confines of a family room that overlooked a child-safe backyard in which to play [22]. In addition to relying on social rese arch, Levitt took advantage of mass production techniques to lower the construction costs and produce more units faster [22]. The research proved valuable and the homes in the first, second and third Levittowns were wildly popular. The communities met the ne eds of young families in search of the ultimate technological home in the id eal community within their budget. Just as architects recoiled at some of the results of modernism in the hands of the nonmodern, researchers were concer ned that these uni form, mass-produced environments might actually be detrimental to families. Critics of the mega neighborhoods emerged throughout the 1950s an d 1960s, citing that the homogenization, of both the built and social environment, was hindering the social experience of American families [22]. Prefabricated Housing Design The houses in Levittown incorporated some pre-assembly features to bring costs down and speed construction. By 1950, prefabri cated buildings were viewed not as a low cost alternative to traditional buildings, but as a development of new technology in building [27]. The benefits of these buildings were their ability to be moved and their


28 efficient design of space, yet their cost wa s not necessarily cheaper than permanent structures due to the lack of banking support. However, Architectural Record , in May of 1950, highlighted the technologica l advances in materials an d flexibility used by the Acorn house, a prototype for prefabricated hous ing [27]. The importa nce today of these prefabricated structures is not the structures themselves, but the architectural ideas that made them possibleefficiency, new technology and materials, modularity, and flexibility of the space itself. The Lustron Corporation attempted one of the most famous of the prefabricated solutions to the housing crisis. Lustron began designing the steel and porcelain clad structures in 1946 and with the aid of 34 m illion dollars from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation [28]. A Lustron house incorporated the technolo gy and design advances of the war to create a house kit that could theore tically be assembled by an unskilled adult. However, due to union pressure and widely varying building codes, the Lustron home was usually assembled by skilled constructi on workers and crafts men, which inevitably raised the total cost of the built structure [28]. In 1949, an inexpensive frame construction house cost approximately $6,500, but the final built cost of a Lustron home of the same living area c ould be around $10,000 [28]. There were some innovative technologies th at Lustron incorporated into their homes that might have enticed buyers to spe nd more for the prefabricated home. Lustron homes were advertised as nearly maintenanc e-free, termite-proof, fire-resistant and long lasting [28]. The early Westch ester models boasted a unique radiant heating system to efficiently heat the interior. The houses came equipped with a clothes dryer and, oddly, a combination dish washer and clothes washer known as a "Thor" [28]. Since efficiency


29 was key in manufacturing the homes, designs were very simple, with little or no adornment beyond a choice of four paint colo rs. Lustron embraced the simplicity of modernism, marketing it as an extremely clean home. Despite the technological innovations, Lustr on Corporation was in major financial trouble by 1950. The company fell victim to a combination of major business problems, from poor financial planning to bad press [28] . Despite its brief existence, the company had served the purpose of providing limited reli ef to the desperate housing shortage just after the war. Designing for the Environmental Setting After the end of World War II, architects took a different approach to design to solve the new problems of that generation. The Lustron approach used technological advances to maximize housing output, using the limited building resources efficiently. Another result of the new design approach was the study of global setting and its relationship to architectural forms. Through a series of articles in Architectural Record , each climate zone was described alongside new architecture that responded to that zone in a way that improved the comfort of the o ccupants [29]. John Rannels, author of the section that covered the tropic zone, explai ned that design in th e tropics should blend both the traditional architecture of the area and modern architectural design. Rannels insisted that the traditional, or vernacular, housing of the area most likely addressed the climate issues through its design elements, such as deep porches in the southern United States to shade the home from the sun. Architect Thomas J. Biggs, A.I.A. of Biggs, Weir, and Chandler in Jackson, Mississippi said, “Present bu ildings do not solve, for our time, this condition nearly as well as pre-1860 buildings did,” [29]. Biggs explained that the traditional southern “dog-trot” created a br eezeway for relief from the intense heat of


30 the sun. Biggs explained that “Southern Ma nsions” were designed so that upper levels were cooled by cross ventilation while lower levels were cooled through shading. Biggs acknowledged the emphasis on functionality in post-World War II architecture, but insisted that the traditional designs of the south had already addressed the climate issues through architectural elements; therefore, Biggs stated, “I expect to see a considerable revival of the old sout hern forms,” [29]. Rannels, however, insisted that the trad itional forms should be combined with modern technological advances. Rannels explai ned that it was important to consider the traditional construction materials of an area, su ch as thatching for roofs in tropical island areas, but also to evaluate the possibility of using a more modern approach, such as coast concrete. In addition, Rannels made recommen dations for building in the topics, such as orienting the buildings to pr evailing winds for maximum ve ntilation, studying sun paths to inform the placement of windows, and drawin g from the traditional design elements to inspire shading devices and floor plans [29]. National Trends In Residence Hall Design The September of 1945, Architectural Forum published this description of the architectural climate on American University campuses after the close of World War II, “the national conflict between th e eclectic and modern approach to architecture is coming into its sharpest focus on the university campus,” [30]. Architectural Forum , a strong proponent of modernism, had a long history of reporting on campus ar chitecture as a way of promoting the modernist movement, [7 ]. After the clos e of World War II, Architectural Forum reported that many university campus es at that time were struggling with the question of what de sign language to use in the new campus buildings to be constructed after the close of the war, and many were turning to modernism [30].


31 Architectural critics of that time were calling for the immediate shift to modern designs on campuses for the benefit on the st udents. Hugh Stubbins, Jr. in the April 1946 issue of Architectural Record stated that campus housi ng had long followed national housing trends [31]. According to Stubbins, th e result was architectur e that was not only backward, but also not appropriate for the academic setting. In one example, Stubbins referred to a 1944 Army study that determined a significant loss of sight of students attending West Point [31]. Stubbins insist ed that the loss of sight was due to poor lighting, especially lack of natural light, in the Tudor got hic structures [31]. The modern designs, taking advantage of innovations in glass production, allowed much more natural light to penetrate into buildings . Stubbins stated that coll ege campuses should be using this research, along with new so cial research, to develop new architectural approaches for the college campus [31]. According to Architectural Forum , the University of Oklahoma abandoned their collegiate gothic architectural tradition on campus in order to embrace the modern aesthetic. “The proposal was breath-taking in its refusal to deal further with the University’s tattered Gothic program, in its espousal of completely modern planning and construction,” [30]. Oklahoma University s upported its departure from the collegiate gothic by studying the architectur al trends of east coast un iversities, in particular Wheaton, and Yale [30]. Henry L. Kamphoefner , university professor of architecture and head of the Campus Planning Group, cited that the success of modern residence halls at both Wheaton and Yale, therefore Oklahoma Un iversity proceeded with the modern approach to solving their postwar campus housing shortage [30]. In an effort to protect the architectural “harmony” of the campus , Kamphoefner stressed the importance of


32 using, “matching color, in the same materials and textures as the ad joining buildings, and in a similar scale,” [30]. Ye t, the architecture of the Okla homa campus is not simply a story of transition from gothic to modern. Al so patterned by the architecture of Yale, Oklahoma University used colonial design la nguage as a transition from the gothic to modern [30]. The 1943 men’s dormitories were built, “not in the Gothic manner, but in the Colonial” [30]. The reliance on colonial elements is evident once again in the housing structures, this time in the residen ce halls of a public unive rsity campus [30]. Oklahoma University was making the making the move from gothic to modernism in their residence halls with a colonial transition period. Figure 5.1 Baker House at Massachuse tts Institute of Technology [32]


33 One of the most significant landmarks of modernism from this time is a campus residence hall. Alvar Aalto built Baker House residence hall on the banks of the Charles River at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus in 1949. Baker House represented the modern concept of research ba sed design, with social spaces designed to signify MITÂ’s evolution from co mmuter school to residential university [33]. Aalto also responded to the environmental se tting of the site, curving th e structure to respond to the river and creating captivating vi ews in the interior social sp aces, such as the dining hall, [33]. AaltoÂ’s design addressed the changing social community of the rapidly expanding MIT campus, providing central social spaces in which students could form a community [33]. AaltoÂ’s consideration of environmenta l and social settings became hallmarks of successful residence hall desi gn during the post war era. Summary The decade following the end of World War II was a time of significant changes in society, education and housing in the United States. The larg e-scale return of veterans resulted in the housing crisis th at defined residential architect ure of that time. In some ways, Americans appreciated the modernist a pproach, such as the functionalism and the flexibility of modern design. On the other hand, Americans were not ready to completely break with the architecture of th e past, particularly in the ar ea of housing. The social and architectural changes of the post-war era we re reflected on the campuses to which large numbers of veterans returned. This was especi ally true of the University of Florida. .


34 CHAPTER 6 THE POST-WAR UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS: UNPRECEDENTED DEMAND FOR HOUSING FAMILIES AND WOMEN The Campus Context The University of Florida, like other Amer ican universities, was challenged during World War II to address the problems of decreased student popul ations and national shortages in materials and equipment. The 1946 Biennial Report of the President of the University of Florida to the state Board of Control praised the policies put forth by the university to solve those probl ems. The university gave many professors a leave of absence to serve in the war, while steeri ng the remaining faculty to pursue research geared toward helping the war effort [5]. This allowed the university to reduce the number of faculty on payroll while student enrollment was low, yet these faculty members were available to teach upon the stud ents’ return to campus. The faculty that remained on campus conducted government funded research. In fact , President John J. Tigert stated that, “the cost of operation of the University was largely shifted to the Federal Government,” [5]. Some of this research included aidi ng in the training of military personnel in 3-5 month programs, such as the Army Specialized Training Program, from March of 1943 to December of 1944 [5]. Through these creative policies, the university was able to sustain itself th rough the financially difficult war years. During the war, Americans responded by giving their best skills to the war effort. In the case of many architects, that was desi gning military and engineering structures to be used at home and abroad. In the same manner, the university responded to World War


35 II by donating their biggest assets, minds and dol lars to conduct research. Research was particularly important in the World War II effort because many American believed that technology would win the war. Enrollment According to the University of Florida registrar, the total enrollment for the 19441945 school year was 1,961 students [5]. The following year, enrollment at the University jumped to 6,771, which was 750 students more than in the 1939-1940 school year. These figures indicate that not only did the University recover the student numbers that it held before the war, it also grew by 750 students. This return to pre-World War II enrollment numbers was expected, but the un iversity was not wholly prepared for the rapid growth that would continue well into the 1950s. This drastic increase in university popul ation had many causes, such as the wide scale acceptance of women to the university, but much of the increase was due to the increased numbers of returning servicemen. By 1946, approximately two-thirds of the students attending the un iversity were veterans. The framework for this change in student population was set up while the war was still in progress through the establishment of the ServicemanÂ’s Readju stment Act in 1944 [34]. This act was established by the wartime Congress as a way of both showing appreciation to those who served and also to aid in the adjustment fr om wartime to peacetime mentality [34]. As the war came to an end, the act evolved in to the GI Bill of Rights, which included financial support for servicemen attending inst itutions of higher e ducation [34]. The result was approximately 1 million veterans attending US colleges and universities in 1946. When Flavet residents were asked about what role the GI Bill played in their education, most said that they would not have been able to attend school without it.


36 Clearly, the creation of and popularity of the bill encourag ed the sharp increase in enrollment at the University of Florida. The country as a whole was also being inunda ted with returning servicemen at this time. Six million GIs returned from servic e to the United States in 1945 and four million the next year [22]. The return of the servic emen is credited with causing the significant increase in population after the close of World War II, commonly known as the baby boom. At the same time, universities were experiencing a boom of their populations as well. Of the ten million veterans who retu rned by 1946, approximately one million chose to attend universities under the GI Bill nati onwide. The number of schools in the United States at that time doubled, and the number of two-year colleges tripled [34]. As the total population rose in the United States, so di d enrollment at the University of Florida. UF Housing Shortage 1946 Although the University of Florida was not completely prepared for the post-war changes that took place in 1946-1947, university officials worked quickly to make the most of the situation. University President Tigert offered some excuse for the lack of preparedness, stating that the “war e nded sooner than generally expected, and demobilization was much more rapid than had be en planned,” [5]. In reference to the GI Bill, Tigert stated that it was not possible to, “foresee all the benefits which would be provided for veterans” [5]. Furthermore, the pr esident went on to say that even the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt underestimate d the impact of the bill, forecasting that only 6 percent of veterans would even want to go to school. University officials, however, were not co mpletely without foresight. In 1945, the Florida Legislature establishe d a contingent fund in the event that veteran enrollment exceeded the expected numbers [5]. Presiden t Tigert implied that many veterans seeking


37 enrollment would have been turned away by th e state if this fund ha d not been in place [5]. The university also benefited from the wartime policies set up to retain the staff and the faculty through leave of absence, rather than simply letting them go [5]. These faculty and staff were promptly called back to the university on 1946 to ease the burden of the increasing student population. Student Demographics The University of Florida student bo dy before World War II consisted of approximately 99 percent single males, 1 percen t married males, with rare occasions of acceptance of females if the coursework were not offered at other state institutions. After the war, Veteran enrollment at the university made up nearly two-thirds of the student body and many of these veterans were married w ith children [5]. Single veterans were able to live in the dormitories already on campus, although they were quickly becoming very crowded. The university could not house ma rried families in the existing dormitories on campus, even if there had been room. These new families had very different needs than a single veteran who arrived on campus with only a duffle bag and his GI check. Married veterans brought their spouses a nd children, and all kinds of furniture and supplies that come with a family. The federal government, which provided the same amount of tuition money for single veterans as for married veterans, w ould not be providing any funding for this housing crisis [5]. The university was left with the question of how to provide housing options that these new families could afford, while already struggling to provide enough classrooms and housing for the single males. Th e funds allotted to the university for the crisis would not be enough to build all new structures, a nd there was no time to build them. The housing needed to be extremely ine xpensive in order for the veterans to afford


38 it, and it needed to be available almost im mediately. In addition, the housing needed to be appropriate for families, something the university had never provided for in the past. The dilemma university officials faced at that time was similar to the housing shortage that plagued the nation as a whole. Campus Plan 1946-1950 Figure 6.1 University of Flor ida Campus Map, Fall 1945 [35] At the close of World War II in 1945, the University of Florida consisted of approximately twenty-five buildings that provided classrooms, offices, housing, recreation and administration space on campus [35]. All buildings on campus conveyed collegiate gothic influences a nd were constructed of red brick in a variety of bonds with clay tile roofing material. Due to the war, there had been little construction on campus since the completion of Fletcher residence hall in 1939. University Avenue defined the edges of campus to the north with agriculture fields surr ounding the campus to the south and west. Southwest Ninth Stre et enclosed the campus to the east, with the exception of P.K. Young Laboratory School ( now the College of Education), which was just across


39 Ninth Street. There were no buildings locate d south of the univer sity Auditorium and none west of Florida Field. Figure 6.2 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1947 [36] By the summer of 1947, the university ha d acquired a considerable number of temporary structures from military surplus, including Flavet I, II, and III [36]. Many of these temporary structures were housing facili ties, which were placed to the south of the established campus. A few temporary buildings were placed within the limits of the established campus, such as a reading room to the west of the Library (now SmatherÂ’s Library East) an administration annex to the east of Language Hall (now Anderson Hall), classrooms to the west of Science Hall (now Keene-Flint Hall), and a recreation hall south of the Florida Union (now Dauer Hall). Facilities for the School of Architecture were housed in temporary structures south of the University Audito rium; these included


40 Grove Hall on the site of the 1979 Archit ecture Building. Approximately twenty temporary housing structures were placed to the south of Stadium Road to accommodate single veterans and returning students. All three Flavet villages were located south of Stadium Road as well. Flavet I was south east of the stadium and cons isted of twenty-three structur es at that time. The units were placed in a circle so that the fr ont façade faced a round common area in which mothers and children often socialized. The ci rcle also allowed fo r close monitoring of those who entered and left the village. Flavet II was located south of P.K. Young Laboratory School to the east of southwest Nint h Street. Composed of twenty two-story structures, Flavet II had a grid la yout instead of the circular plan of Flavet I. Rather than common areas to the front of the residence, Fl avet II common areas were in the rear of the structures. Flavet III was the largest of the villages w ith fifty-four two-story structures located southwest of the stadium. Like the resident s of Flavet II, Flavet III residents enjoyed common space to the back of the structures, forming a typical block plan. Unlike the residents of Flavet I, Flavet III residents were not able to directly access the common area from their unit due to the fact that there was no back door. Residents had to walk around the side of the building to get to the common area. In total, there were approximately one hundred thirty-one temporary structures on the campus by the summer of 1947 and thir ty-five permanent structures, including laboratories and facilities build ings [36]. The vast numbers of temporary structures were evidence of the rapid growth of the univers ity and its acute need for construction of permanent structures.


41 Figure 6.3 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1950 [37] By 1950, permanent building construction on campus resumed, more than a decade after Fletcher Hall was completed. The fi rst permanent women’s residence halls, Mallory/Yulee/Reid Halls, were located in the southeast corner of campus, west of P.K. Young and southwest Ninth Street [37]. Th e 1950 University of Florida yearbook, The Seminole commented on the distant location of th e halls by calling them, “12 acres in the cow pasture” [37]. The new men’s residence halls, Tolber t, Riker, Weaver, and North Halls, were located at the extreme west side of campus, southwest of the stadium. Both the men and women’s residence halls replaced some of the temporary structures used for housing in 1947, reducing the total number of temporary structures on campus.


42 Flavets Figure 6.4 Family Living in Flavet I [38]


43 Figure 6.5 Flavet I, sout h of the stadium [36] Figure 6.6 Single Story Unit Construction [38]


44 Figure 6.7 Two Story Unit Construction [38] In the fall of 1945, university officials were able to benefit from the surplus of government housing units that had been built across Florida for the war effort [39]. President Tigert, along with his Assistan t Business Manager George F. Baughman, searched across the southeast for existing build ings that could meet the universityÂ’s new housing needs. In Panama City, Florida they found a shipyard workersÂ’ housing project built to support the wartime naval needs. Fo r the price of $1, the University of Florida purchased 26 units that would provide about 100 apartments for incoming veterans [39]. University of Florida Alumnus Charles H. Overman, as director of the Florida Improvements Commission, provided the $220,000 necessary to move the structures from Panama City to Gainesville [5]. As pa rt of this group effort to provide housing, the state road department built the necessary roads for the complex and Gainesville Gas Company provided the gas mains to the facility [39]. Flavet Village I was dedicated on Februa ry 11, 1946 with speeches by E. Meade Wilson of the Florida American Legion, Un iversity President John J. Tigert, and Secretary of State Robert A. Gray [40]. The village consisted of a collection of 26 worn


45 buildings with few amenities and dirt road s. Wilson referred to the village as, “A Veteran’s City”, but at this point it was not hing more than a colle ction of old barracks quite a distance away from campus. The construction of Flavet village foll owed national housing expediter Wyatt’s recommendations for veterans’ housing at this time. Housing expediter Wyatt made four suggestions in providing housing for the vetera ns. Wyatt stated that the homes should be very basic in an effort to conserve material s and that the homes should be standardized to aid in speed of construction. Wyatt also recommended that restrictive and confusing building codes should be lifted nationwide. Finally, Wyatt insisted the communities should be large scale and built on inexpensive land. The Flavet buildings were basic in desi gn, conserved materials through reuse, and were located on inexpensive land. The first Flavet was placed in a wooded area that had not been previously developed, just as ma ny of the suburbs were built on previously undeveloped land. The isolation of the villag e from the main campus was an inexpensive solution for the university, and in another effort to save money, the road in Flavet I was not paved. The Flavet units were dismantle d, loaded on a truck and delivered to the campus to be reassembled into the h ousing units. This method created the standardization of construction that Wyatt recommended. The univers ity had created, in microcosm, the same type of housing community that Wyatt had recommended for the nation at that time. Veterans’ Issues The influx of veterans as students to the university had greater implications than just a housing shortage. The veterans, as st udents, changed the social fabric of the university, just as veterans changed the social fabric of the nation as a whole. These


46 veterans were not motivated by the same fact ors as their single, ci vilian counterparts. These students had both the academic commitment s of typical students plus the financial and social obligations to their family. According to the Flavet interviews, many of the veterans were motivated by time. After serving overseas for years, the veterans were ready to get on w ith their lives [41]. Joe Busby described that his service, although important, was an interruption in his life. There was a sense of urgency in completing th eir education as soon as possible, so they could get a job and take care of their families. The sense of urgency, along with family responsibilities, resulted in a high ly motivated caliber of student. The strong motivations and hardships of wa r experience prepared the veterans and their families for some less than ideal living situations. Jane Emerson commented that her previous life experience of hard time s, including living through the Depression and the war, gave her the life skills she needed to deal with living under the tight budget of university life [42]. There seems to be a sense of gratitude toward both the government for recognizing their service and the Universi ty of Florida for providing an inexpensive place for them to stay. This may explain w hy the interviewees reported that there were no disputes between neighbors. One of the 1946 residents commented that you were just so grateful to have a reas onable place to live that you were very careful not to do anything to cause a problem [42]. A 1946 article in the St. Petersburg Times reflected this mentality in an article entitled, “Veter ans At U. of F. Are Broke But Happy,” [43]. The article discussed the negative issues w ithin the veterans’ housing area, such as overcrowding, shortages, and delayed governme nt payments. Although the conditions of


47 Flavet village might seem harsh today, the re sidents of that time were happy to have anywhere to stay. The hardships of living in Flavet were also made easier by that fact that there were few housing alternatives. The housing situa tion outside the university was just as desperate as that on campus. For instance, in 1946 the number of families living in chicken coops was so high that the FHA actua lly offered modernization loans to those families [22]. Under those conditions, it is understandable that the residents of Flavet were not only content, but also than kful for their modest accommodations. Flavet as a City Figure 6.8 Flavet III Fire Department [38]


48 Figure 6.9 Flavet III Community Garden [38] Perhaps in response to some of the str uggles of early Flavet I residents, the residents of Flavet II drafted a constituti on and established a Bo ard of Commissioners sometime before August of 1947 [44]. This governing body established an elected mayor and five elected commissioners, e ach representing a different wa rd within Flavet II. This document also established taxe s in the amount of 25 cents per month per living unit in order to provide funding for, “improvement s and recreation for the residents of the Village,” [44]. Apparently Flavet III late r adopted a similar constitution and the minutes for many of the bi-weekly Fl avet III Board of Commissioners meetings can be found in the university archives. These minutes reveal a more detailed acc ount of the issues c oncerning the citizens of the Flavets. The issues included th e resolution of childcare, traffic problems, sanitation issues, lack of laundry facilities, and the need for recr eational activities for both adults and families. Commissioners responded by building a laundry house with coin-operated machines and by establishing speed limit signs. For childcare, an issue that arose since many mothers needed to work, a full-time day nursery was established. The nursery also accepted children on a half-day basis for mothers who only worked part-time [45]. For recreation, the boa rd used funds donated by the American Legion to build a


49 playground for children with two separate area s for younger and older children [46]. For adult recreation, the nu rsery was available at night for “big weekends” [45]. Figure 6.10 The Three Press [38] Figure 6.11 Flavet III Playground [38] As the Flavet villages grew in size, the issues discussed at the meetings reflected that the Flavets were becoming more of a sm all town than a university residence area. By 1948, the Board of Commissioners was disc ussing the need for a fire department,


50 educational opportunities for child ren, affordable heating, need for a co-op garden, crime issues such as residents trespassing on the Agricultural Experiment Station, and creating a Flavet publicity board [47]. The commission also esta blished a construction board for projects such as building an area that could provide space for showing movies and holding church services [47]. Residents livi ng in Flavet II were ma de aware of village issues and Board of Commissioners meetings via The Three Press , the village’s newsletter [48]. The news paper covered hot topics in the village, such as Board of Commissioners elections, speeding, contribu tions to the villag e fund, and resident editorials [48]. At this time, the village also reflected some of the racial issues that surfaced in larger towns of that era. For example, in the spring of 1948 the board discussed whether to allow colored maids to wash clothes for their employer in the village laundry [47]. The board decided to issue a general ballo t to decide the cont roversial issue. Unfortunately, no records exist as to the outcome of this vote or even if the vote actually took place. The idea, however, that the comm ission had the authority to decide such an issue proved that the board had extraord inary control over th eir own village. The board also exercised its power in refe rence to traffic issues. On the March 4, 1948 meeting, there was a discussion of form ing, “a semi-judicial body for the purpose of enforcing village rules” [49]. At some point after this da te, there was a traffic accident involving a tricycle and anothe r resident, presumably driving a car. The individuals involved appeared before the committee a nd a motion was passed to appeal to the Director of Residences for a firm policy rega rding the punishments for violation of Flavet By-Laws. During the April 29, 1948 meeting, the board issued a recommendation to the


51 housing office that any dispute th at could not be resolved th rough an appeal to the board would then be passed on to the housing office for further action” [50]. This incident revealed the board’s power to act as both a legislative and judicial body for the village. In fact, the villages confr onted the same issues and concerns as the suburbs that were being created across the nation. Childcare, traffic problems, sanitation issues, and the need for recreational activities for both a dults and families were issues addressed by suburban developers nationwide. In his Levi ttown development, Bill Levitt provided the roads and some recreation such as ne ighborhood swimming pools, but the Levittown residents determined neighborhood policies. [51]. Although Flavet village was temporary, the Flavet residents created a sense of community not unlike their Levittown contemporaries. Social Differences in Flavet Although all the couples moved in within ju st five years of each other, there are some significant social differences in the re sidents who lived in Flavet I in 1946 and the residents who lived in Flavet III in 1951. The communities differed in life experience, women’s roles in the family, and community design. The life experience of the 1946 group seemed to be deeply tied to World War II. For instance, Bill Emerson and Joe Busby from the 1946 group both give detailed accounts of their military experiences in the war [52, 53]. The husbands from the 1951 group commented less on their war experiences and more on their memories of Flavet life. Another significant difference was the role of women in the family. Each of the 1946 residents already had at least one child wh en they moved into Flavet; therefore, the women did not work outside the home. By 1951, there was enough space for couples without children to live in the community and many of these wives did work outside the


52 home. The source of income may have ma de their experiences less financially challenging than the 1946 group, while the latt er may have been enabled by the war experience to deal with difficult times. The result was that each group struggled financially, whether the wife wo rked or not. Flavet wives go ing to work also impacted the social nature of the village. Both Elta Busby and Jane Emerson from the 1946 group commented on caring for their small children alongside the other mothers in the village [42, 54]. The residents who lived in Flavet after 1950 did not repor t caring for children with their neighbors. In fact, many of th e post 1950 residents did not have children, while the original Flavet I resi dents reported that every couple in the village had at least one child. The post 1950 women were more likely be working and even attending the university alongside their husba nds. Although the number of residents interviewed was not large enough to make a final conclusion, th e interviewee comments indicated that the role of married women on the University of Florida campus changed significantly between 1945 and 1950.


53 Design Differences in Flavet Figure 6.12 Campus Map in 1947, Flavet Villages highlighted [36] There was also a distinct difference in co mmunity design that impacted the lives of the residents. The 1946 Flavet I consisted of several one-story rectangular buildings, each of which housed three apartm ent units, arranged in a larg e circle just southwest of campus. The later Flavet III, on the other ha nd, consisted of larger, two-story units that housed at least six apartments, aligned with st reets rather than in a cul-de-sac formation. The circular design of Flavet I allowed for each unit to face all th e other units in the circle, allowing residents to know whenever someone entered or le ft the village. In addition, both Elta Busby and Jane Emerson re marked that they appreciated the large picture window in their Flavet I apartments [42, 54]. This window framed a view of all the other units in the village, their window into the commun ity. Flavet III, on the other hand had much smaller windows, which did no t necessarily face the other apartments. The larger scale of Flavet III and the desi gn of the units resulted in a less close knit


54 community than in Flavet I. In Flavet II I residents could not ha ve known what went on with all their neighbors. The creation of the village was an innovativ e solution for the University of Florida. The motivation for providing the housing was not solely to give the students a place to stay, but also repay the servicemen for their sa crifices during the war. At the same time, they created a whole new university community that exists in the form of family housing on campus today. Comparison of Collegetown and Flavets. There are several strong similarities between University of FloridaÂ’s Flavet Village and Collegetown. Obviously, both housed veterans and their families after World War II [10]. Each housing facility was closely linke d to an educational facility and housed veterans who were attending school with he lp from the GI Bill. Both Flavets and Collegetown can be viewed as three smaller villages that made up the whole residence entity. The structures in each facility were similar, all a collection of barrack type structures. Both residence facilities were te mporary in nature, with the temporary barrack structures and a transient st udent population that varied from year to year. Yet there are some notable differences be tween Flavets and Collegetown. FloridaÂ’s Flavets housed only veterans attending the Univ ersity of Florida, while Collegetown was composed of student families and non-student fa milies. FloridaÂ’s Flavets were located adjacent to the UF campus, although it was a long walk. Collegetown residents, on the other hand, were twenty miles from Manhatt an where Collegetown students attended a variety of New York City colleges and univers ities [10]. Collegetown students had to either take a bus or train into the city for classes, shopping and recreation. In Collegetown, student veteran families, nonstudent veteran families, and families of First


55 Army Officers all lived together on the Collegtown campus [10]. Flavet was only available to veterans attending the Univer sity of Florida and their families until 1953 [55]. From this information, one can gather that the Flavets were strictly a studenthousing complex for veterans, while Collegeto wn also accommodated veterans who were not attending a university. Most important to note is that the re sidents of Collegetown at one time had no political incorporation [10]. Collegetown re sidents did, however, join forces to support their right to vote in a 1947 local election and the following presidential el ection of 1948 [10]. The State Supreme Court of New York did give the Collegetown residents the right to vote, overruling the judgment made by New York State Attorney General Nathaniel L. Goldstein that the Collegetown residents were simply transient “dormitory” students [10]. The residents of Collegetown were obviously active in their co mmunity, involved and unified enough to fight for their right to vote in local elections. Th is is not unlike the unity in Flavets that resulted in a form of self-governance thr ough their constitution and local elections. The residents of Collegetown also established a Resident’s Association, which may have served a similar purpose to the city council of Flavet, although it appeared that the Collegetown Residents A ssociation may have been more limited in power [10]. Another benefit of the community unity shared by Flavets and Collegetown was that each had their own coop grocery store. There were independent food markets in close proximity to each residence facility, yet the students unified to provide cheaper food options for their community [10]. Also, both Collegetown and Flavets had a community nursery to provide childcare for families [10]. The social similarities


56 between Flavet and Collegetown indicate larger trends that were o ccurring at a national level in the new suburbs. Flavet and Suburbia Figure 6.13 Flavet Interior with Pi cture Window on Right [38] Figure 6.14 Flavet Kitchen [38] Across the nation, veterans were living on limited incomes, looking forward to their civilian lives. Bo th suburban and Flavet residents st ruggled with the issues of daily living, such as traffic and child rearing. Changes in womenÂ’s roles were also emerging in


57 both environments. However, the strongest si milarity between the two environments was the striking homogeneity of its residents. The Flavets and Levittown were all comprised mainly of young, white veterans and their families. For example in Levittown, African Americans were not welcome to purchase homes , [51]. Bill Levitt, although sympathetic to African Americans, claimed that 95% of his white clients would move if he sold a home to an African American family, [51]. These social similarities demonstrate that the Flavets are representative of nationa l social trends at that time. Flavet, Levittown, and other suburbs, were communities built outside the established city area. For the Flavets, th e established city was the campus core of permanent buildings. In contrast, men in the suburbs would take a train into the city to work, while men in Flavet took a fifteen -minute walk to campus for class. Both the Flavets and the suburbs offe red veterans affordable, mass-produced housing. The “standardization” of home s recommended by housing expediter Wyatt, was realized through the mass produced Levi ttown homes and was essential for the financial success of Levittown [51]. Th e Flavet units, designed by the military, were also mass-produced for the same economic reason. The result was conformity in design of both living environments. Aside from conformity and mass producti on, there were other design similarities between the design of the Flavets and Levittown. The design of the Levittown homes included a large picture window that overl ooked the backyard where their children played. According to the residents of Flav et I, the picture wi ndow in their homes influenced their lives as well, providing a way for them to look after their children playing outside, while doing chores inside the house. The picture window, a design


58 element associated with international modern designs, was a symbol of modern amenities in both Flavet I and Levittown homes – in f act, in post-war suburbs across the nation. Although the Flavets were not prefabricated, as the Lust ron home, both the Lustron and the Flavets foreshadowed c onservation and sustainability i ssues that were confronted in the following decades. Both Flavet and Lustron were conscious efforts to conserve materials and energy. Flavet conserved materi als through the reuse of existing structures, while Lustron conserved thr ough the use of innovative str eamlined designs. Both provided a flexible efficient means of providing housing to veterans. The Colonial Revival Influence Figure 6.15 Flavet I Unit [38]


59 Figure 6.16 Flavet II Unit [38] Figure 6.17 Typical Flavet III Housing Unit [38] Since the Flavet Villages were composed of reused military barracks, they were quite simple in design, devoid of much detail. Even though the structures were simple in construction and design, the proportions, fenestrati on, and roof of the structures in Flavet


60 III were designed with some influence from tr aditional residential homes in the United States at that time. The windows of these structures we re small, double hung operable windows that pierced the building envelope in a regular pattern. A small, raised front porch with gabled roof denoted the entry. Many examples of traditional features, colonial revival forms in particular, may be found in military housing units similar to Flavet III across the nation. The use of traditional design elements to convey a sense of home was widely used in post-war construction. Even though the tenets of modernism called for a complete architectural break from past architectu ral design language and thinking, Americans continued to associate traditional forms w ith security and the sense of home. The colonial revival experienced widespread popular ity in residential construction during this time, despite the increase of modernist thinking. The PresidentÂ’s House Figure 6.18 PresidentÂ’s House


61 Figure 6.19 PresidentÂ’s HomeEntry The PresidentÂ’s Home is a noteworthy case-in -point that the University of Florida, like the nation as a whole, embraced the colonial image. Surprisingly, the early residents of the Flavet Village unknowingly provided th e funds to build the PresidentÂ’s House. Through some miscalculation, the residents of the villages were overcharged for their accommodations, creating a $125,000 surplus 1951 [56]. By the time the error was discovered, the residents who had been overcha rged no longer lived in Flavet and it was not possible to refund their money. The Board of Control dictated that this surplus would be used to build the PresidentÂ’s Home, which would provide accommodations for both


62 the president and distinguished guests and serve as an activity center for university events. Thus the new home was named the Official Residence a nd Reception Center. The initial sketches for the design of the building were done by Jefferson Hamilton, consulting architect to the Bo ard of Control [56]. Hamilt on created the design under the direction of a an advisory committee com posed of the president of the Alumni Association, the wife of the chairman of th e Board of Control, the state senator of the district, and “several responsible members of the faculty and f aculty wives,” [57]. According to Edith Patti Pitts, administrative as sistant to the president of the university in 1954, “both modernist and traditionalists were on the committee,” [57]. Pitts describes a disagreement between the two groups as to what design in terpretation would be most suitable for the home. Pitts stated that the “modernists” favored the functional architecture emerging along Flor ida’s costal areas, possibl y referring to the Sarasota School of architecture. It was ultimately dete rmined by President J. Hillis Miller that, “a modernistic structure, however attractive, would not fit into the general pattern” of the university campus, so a compromise was made [57]. The Presiden t’s home would be built in a “semi-traditional” manner, but would be “functional” and include porches and terraces to embrace the lush surroundings. In ad dition, all the latest “gadgets featured in modern Florida homes” would be in corporated in the design [57]. The President’s home was completed in 1953 at 2151 West University Avenue, west of the main part of campus. The home is constructed of red Florida brick, similar to the brick found on the collegiate gothic structures on the campus. The President’s Home, however, relies on classical design elements rath er than the collegiate gothic tradition of the University of Florida. The classically inspired colonial elements of the home were


63 unusual for the university as a whole at that time, although the use of classical elements in housing had been implemented by Fulton to achieve a more welcoming entry to the residence halls. The persistence of committee me mbers to incorporate this concept in the President’s Home reflects a nati onal attitude about the percep tion of a welcoming home. Pitts stated that the exterior design was, “conceived along the lines of the gracious homes found in the South during the early ni neteenth century and often referred to as Colonial,” [57]. Pitts also argues that the co lonial structure is really an expression of Greek Revival designs, noting that the cross ax is floor plan was modeled after that of a Greek temple [57]. In addition, the entry was a work of both colonial and classic design. The two story gabled portico supported by co lumns reflected the cl assic tradition of American colonialism as well. Pitts su mmarized the public opinion of the design by saying, “in its completed form the building successfully maintain ed the traditional friendly and gracious appearance which char acterizes the so-called ‘Colonial’ home,” [57]. According to Pi tts’s statement, the colonial elements of the President’s Home created a design that would seem “friendly and gracious” to visitors of the home. The public perception that traditional colonial design conveyed a sense of friendliness explains the reluctance of Amer icans to completely abandon colonial design elements in their new homes. Apparently, if a building needed to seem friendly and welcoming at that time, coloni al elements were an absolute necessity. The design of suburban homes during that era also supported this idea. The suburban homes included modern innovations such as picture wi ndows low sloping roofs, yet nonfunctioning, colonial shutters were applied to the exterior of most post-war homes. Americans at that time were simply not able to completely depart from the image that colonial design


64 elements conveyed friendliness. In the same manner, the military used colonial elements to make stark, utilitarian ba rracks seem like home. The structures of Flavet III are examples of the practice of a pplying colonial elements to bu ildings for the sole purpose of conveying the idea that they were home s. During that era, colonial designs symbolized the home to the American public. The Modern Residence Halls The use of classical design elements as a transition for campus housing design was not limited to the temporary Flavets or the monumental PresidentÂ’s Home. Board of Control Architect Guy Fulton we nt to great lengths to de velop a unique design solution that unified the historic campus and mode rn concepts through transitional classical elements [6]. For the residence halls, Fult on developed a very particular design language that carried through all the halls he designed on the University of Fl orida campus. As a group, the buildings maintained a uniformity of design elements; all possessing certain character defining features that unify them. The following will identify and show examples of those features.


65 Location on Campus: Reflecti on of Site and Climate Figure 6.20 Campus Map Summ er 1950 Highlighting Fult on Residence Hall [37] Figure 6.21 Tolbert/Riker/Weaver/North [37]


66 Figure 6.22 Mallory/Y ulee/Reid [37] As with the temporary housing provide d by Flavets I, II, and III, the new permanent housing would be located to the sout h of the early campus. This choice of site reflected the tendency to expand outward to provide housing, as seen nationally in the rise of suburban housing developments. As w ith Flavet III, the angular position of the buildings on the site reflected considerations other than the tr aditional grid of the campus. Each of the residence halls designed by Fult on was essentially a simple rectangle. However, Fulton grouped the buildings together , linking them at the e nds with stairwells and covered walkways. These passages allo wed residents to move freely from one building to another without having to go down to the ground floor, a concept that was not applied in earlier gothic campus residence halls. Fulton did c ontinue the university design tradition of creating courtyards between the residence halls. Instead of linking the halls in a straight line, Fulton made a Y shap e for Mallory/Yulee/Reid so that the three buildings share the common space at the top (n orth) of the Y. The menÂ’s dormitories also created courtyards through their staggered configuration. The menÂ’s residence halls are connected by an arced pathway, from whic h the individual buildings projected. The courtyards are defined by the long elevations of each building and the pathway that


67 connects them. The angular placement reflects the form of the site and consideration of sun and breezes. In each case, at least one side of the courtyard peri meter is left open, embracing the campus. The creation of courtyards was not limite d to FultonÂ’s residence halls on campus. In fact, all permanent resident halls on campus since the Buckman and Thomas Halls created courtyards in which students could so cialize. Fulton continued this practice, but in a larger scale. The new dormitory courty ards were much larger than the pre-World War II courtyards, due to the fact that the ne w residence halls were larger than the preWorld War II residence halls. The new courty ards served the same purpose of providing social spaces in which students could interact, but in the new resident halls this idea was much more crucial to the succe ss of the buildings. At a time when university enrollment was increasing at a rapid pace, the social cour tyards became critical in creating a sense of community. In AaltoÂ’s Baker House, the critic al social space was the dining hall, but for the more temperate climate of University of Florida, that space was the courtyard. Figure 6.23 North Hall Concrete Overhangs


68 Figure 6.24 Yulee Hall Covered Walkway Figure 6.25 Tolbert Concrete Spir al Stair Figure 6.26 Mallory/Yulee/Reid Railing Like the collegiate gothic buildings that came before them, these residence halls have a detail language expressed in conc rete. However, FultonÂ’s halls embodied a


69 restrained and highly simplified approach to detail in keeping with the modernist way of thinking. All of these buildings made use of modern concrete overhangs that are both a practical and aesthetic device. Functionally, the overhangs protect the building from the intense Florida sun. From an aesthetic standpoint, the overhangs emphasize a modern horizontality. All of these residen ce halls have covered porches and walkways of some kind. These generally consist of a concrete slab overhang supported by simple cast concrete columns. Where railings were needed, stee l railing was installed, the most ornate of which can be found in Mallory, Yulee, Reid, an d Tolbert Halls. Tolbert hall also has an unusual concrete spiral stair with steel handr ail. FultonÂ’s choice of using concrete covered walkways between buildings shaded residents from the sun, but also allowed open views of the courtyards without restricting cooling crosswinds. Interpretation of Traditional Features A B C Figure 6.27 Fulton Residence Hall Entryways (A) Weaver Hall (B )Yulee Hall (C)Reid Hall


70 A B Figure 6.28 Entry Details (A) No rth Hall (B) Riker Hall Entry Simplified wood pilasters with a smooth lintel on which the building name is marked, created a portico at each entrance. Th e sides of the portico were glazed, as well as the door itself. The portico extended from a glass storefront composed of rectangular lights (panes). All wood and mullions were painted a dull blue. The entire entry sequence, including the portico was suppre ssed into the buildi ng and was generally accented by a concrete surround. In the most cas es, the concrete detail extended to the floors above the entrance as well, creating a vertical rectangle around the entry point. The concrete surround also encircled a series of porches on floors above the entry. The porches were open in Mallory, Yule, and Re id, and glazed in Weaver, North and Riker and Tolbert. The classical detail of the entry to each residence halls was not merely a design whim by Fulton. The language signifies the security of a home environment, reflective of the popularity of colonial revi val in post-war housing across the nation.


71 Fulton limited the use of these details to the entry, perhaps in an effort to supply only the minimal amount of traditional references to the mostly modern structures. Roof Design and Compatibility Figure 6.29 Mallory Hall Hip Roof In the dormitory roof form and material s, Fulton made a conscious connection to the historic center of the University of Flor ida campus. The hipped roof had been used on significant buildings of the quadrangle Plaza of the Americas – 1910 Science Hall (Keene-Flint), 1912 College of Agriculture (Griffin-Floyd), 1913 Peabody College for Teachers, and 1913 Language Hall (Anders on), and 1927 Chemistry and Pharmacy (Leigh Hall). The hipped roof was also a ve rnacular form, appropriate to the region. While this form was found on some of Wright’s Prairie School buildi ngs, the flat roof is more commonly associated with the modern movement. Ludowici clay tiles were specified for the first two buildings of the campus, Buckman and Thomas Halls, and remained the single campus roofing material. Fulton specified that the clay tiles for the new dor mitories be composed of a precise mix of colors, similar to those found on the collegiate gothic structures [6]. As in his choice of clay tile, Fulton specified red brick as a st atement of harmony with the historic campus.


72 Although Fulton used these features to create continuity, he worked with a concept that was modern as well as compatible. Windows A B Figure 6.30 Casement Windows of Residence Halls (A) North Hall (B)Yulee Hall Figure 6.31 Mallory Hall


73 Figure 6.32 Stairwell Between Riker Hall and North Hall


74 Figure 6.33 Stairwell Between Mallory/Yulee/Reid FultonÂ’s original specifications called fo r single pane, steel casement windows for all of these buildings. The fe nestration pattern is regular, composed of square window units made of square lights (panes). All of the long sides of the bu ildings are perforated with windows. The large number and regular fenestration pattern of the windows make them a particularly important part of the design language. The large numbers of windows allow for natural light to penetrate the build ing, as well as the vent ilation essential in Florida prior to the advent of air-conditioning. The strict uniformity of fenestration is in keeping with the standardization and streamline qualities of modern design. In an effort to make use of new tec hnology in materials and design for maximum natural light penetration, gla ss block was incorporated in to the design of all Fulton residence halls. Fulton articulate d stairwells at the ends and in between the sets of dorms


75 with glass block. The block accentuated th e vertical shaft at the endpoints of the buildings and created a rhythm between ve rtical and horizontal elements. Fulton specified an unusual kind of glass block in which the glass block is curved in one direction. The result is a waved or ridged surface after installation. New innovations in glass design, such as the curved glass block, were also elements of modern design. The large number and design of the windows sugge st FultonÂ’s strategy of providing generous amounts of natural light. Fulton was well awar e of the criticism th at gothic buildings have too little natural light and, as a result, his residence halls were designed to provide ample natural light for its residents. FultonÂ’s State of the Art Designs In an effort to provide the best and most efficient in housing designs, the Board of Control instructed Assistant Business Mana ger George Baughman to tour the nationÂ’s leading schools where the cons truction of womenÂ’s residence halls had been completed in 1947 [6]. Baughman returned with a list of recommendations for the construction of Mallory/Yulee/Reid. Thee recommendations repr esented a summary of what was state of the art in womenÂ’s residence hall design at the time, such as the grouping of housing units to provide amenities efficiently. Fulton followed this recommendation through his Y shape design of Mallory/Yulee/Reid, with cen trally located amenities such as a soda fountain and grill. Other amenities included sewing rooms, shampoo rooms, and kitchenettes. Mallory/Yulee/Reid also provide d plenty of recreational space within the structure and surrounding courtyards. The im portance of on-site recreational activities may have been the result of two factors. The national trend in residence hall design was to provide ample social and study spaces within the residence hall, like the social spaces in AaltoÂ’s Baker House. The University of Florida, however, had an additional motive


76 for providing on-site recreation for the women liv ing in Mallory/Yulee/Reid. In an effort to better “monitor and control fraternizati on”, the all female resident population of Mallory/Yulee/Reid was isolated form the me n’s side of campus, both in location and in social activities [9]. This, however, did not prevent the perpetration of a panty raid that received national publicity. By providing pl enty of recreational activities within Mallory/Yulee/Reid, it was assumed to be less likely that females might venture to the male side of campus [9]. Fulton’s designs re flected issues that uni versities were facing across the nation. The introduction of wo men on campus was a nationwide phenomenon that sparked widespread resi dence hall design changes both at the University of Florida and other universities nationwide. Summary National and campus social i ssues, such as the changing role of women and the influx of veterans in society, had architect ural implications in both the national and campus realms. The Flavet structures and the President’s Home reflected such changes, as well as the national perception of tradi tional home designs. The residence halls represented the most progressive of the archite ctural endeavors of architect Guy Fulton at the University of Florida. The residence halls evoke international modern hallmarks, such as strong horizontal elem ents, attention to environm ental setting, and a typical international modern fenestration. Yet, Fult on successfully integrated the halls into the historic campus and even reflected the colonial trends of residential housing of that time. Each of these structures expressed a signifi cant facet of the architectural climate of housing in post-World War II America.


77 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS The decade following the close of the Second World War was a time of significant change worldwide. Both Europe and the United States underwent tremendous social changes in the transition from wartime to peacetime. The booming post-war built environment reflected changes in world-view s, government programs, and womenÂ’s roles in society. World War II also sparked the creation of the far-reaching government program known as the GI Bill. The GI Bill had l ong lasting effects on both residential housing and education in the United States, making bot h more achievable for more Americans. The nationwide housing and building materials sh ortage gave rise to new suburbs. These suburban homes incorporated the use of econo mical new materials and modern features, yet sought the visual comfort of the traditio nal colonial home. The new neighborhoods housed a homogeneous population in homogeneous homes, isolated from the woes of city living. At the same time, the flood of returning veterans funded by the GI Bill influenced the University of Florida to create a subur bia of its own. Like the suburbia cropping up outside of every major city nationwide, Flavet village was created on the outskirts of the established core of the campus. The use of th e pre-built structures re sulted from similar economic motivations that influenced both the Levittown and the Lustron home. Just like suburban homes of that time, the Flavet s reflected both traditional details and international modern influences. As far as interior design is concerned, the Flavets


78 lacked some of the technological advances of the Lustron homes, but both the Lustron and Flavet homes made use of open floor plans with flexible family and dining spaces. Kitchens and bathrooms were compact and design ed for efficiency of space. The Lustron homes and the Flavets both incorporated th e design feature of a large picture window, made possible by advances in glass produc tion. All Flavet villages, in some way, reflected the trend toward designing backya rds in which children could play. Like Levittown and Collegetown, the Flavet Villages housed a homogeneous community in a benign setting. As a result of the war, architects such as Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, migrated to the United States and expresse d the international wo rld-view through the design language of their structur es. Their international design language was a symbol of worldwide technological progress and hope for the future. Recognizing the importance of the emergi ng international culture, Guy Fulton and the Board of Control sought to reflect th e international influence through the post war residence hall building projects. The use of modern materials, simplified detail, and attention to environmental setting echoed national and international values. Both Mallory/Yulee/Reid and the other residence halls desi gned by Fulton remained in harmony with the context of the campus and, at the same time, reflected the modern ideals that defined that era nation wide. Yet, these residence halls were also re presentative of a nationwide trend in residential housing. Just as the homes of suburbia incorporated classical elements to convey a traditional sense of home, the new resi dence halls reflected those values in the simplified classical design elements at the entries. Students walking into their new


79 college residence halls were welcomed with familiar elements. Like the suburban home, the new residence halls both symbolized Amer ican progress and tec hnological advances, but also echoed the comforts of the past. Recommendations World War II caused great advances in th e standardization and efficiency of construction. At the close of the war, build ing materials were scarce, and the need for housing was great. The result was an intense dedication to efficiency of construction and practicality in design.. Attention to envi ronmental setting, the reuse of building materials, and efficiency in design and construction that were common in post-war construction suggest a common theme with sust ainable design priorities of the early 21st century. Further study into the similarities between post war constr uction and sustainable construction could reveal insights into the correlations and successful and unsuccessful attempts of the past. Sustainability and sensitivity to climate are hallmarks of the early post-war era. Ongoing study is needed to iden tify characteristics of the si gnificant buildi ngs of this period. Through such analysis and disse mination of information, the gap in understanding the buildings of this era may be lessened. Specific to the University of Florida cam pus, further study should be concentrated on significant buildings of th e post-war era and their preser vation. Before reaching the benchmark of 50 years, these buildings had not been recognized for their historic significance and their rela tive youth contributed to their deterioration. This study has recognized the need to pres erve the dormitories of the early post-war era. Further study is needed to identify pr oper rehabilitation methods that will preserve character, improve the efficiency and k eep maintenance costs low. Windows are a


80 particular problem because the steel casements th at perforate the buildings are inefficient. Where replacement is necessary, new windows s hould not be dramatical ly different from the design of the original casement windows, wh ich were a hallmark of this architectural period. The new windows alongside the old wi ndows can disrupt the rhythm established by FultonÂ’s fenestration pattern. The residence halls also suffer from mold and growth on the exterior surfaces of the building, such as the ti le roof and the concrete window overhangs. The white concrete overhangs are also covered in debris, adding to the look of neglect. Appropriate cleaning methods should be applied to these elements in order to sustain the original clean line design of Fulton. When these residence halls op ened they were viewed as state of the art facilities, a symbol of progress and hope for th e future. In their current state, they stand as symbols of neglect and inefficiency. E fforts need to be made now to bring back FultonÂ’s original vision for these buildings and to recognize their importance as symbols of design transition and harmony with the campus. In conclusion, this study has analyzed si gnificant developments in campus housing at the University of Florid a during the post-World War II period from 1945 to 1956. This was a period of significance to the university; its enormous growth and significant social change were reflected in the housing for the new university population. In its temporary housing and in its transitional new architect ure, the university campus expressed in microcosm a period of national and globa l new directions after World War II.

















PAGE 100


PAGE 101


PAGE 102

91 APPENDIX C FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONSFEMALE Intro/Background Where are you from? Describe how your life changed af ter the onset of World War II. What was your daily life like during the war? When were you married? How did your husband’s service impact your life? When did he return? Were you involved in the decision for your husband to go to school? What were the factors that influe nced your move to Gainesville? The University A university cheerleader of this era c oncluded, “They [the veterans] have no school spirit. All these people are interest ed in is getting an education,” (Cawthon, Stanmore. St. Petersburg Times , November 13, 1946). Why was an education so important to you? What did your husband study at UF? What did you expect that unive rsity life would be like? Did you know how long it would take your husband to graduate? Did you have any concerns about coming to UF? Did you take any classes at the university?

PAGE 103

92 Can you describe a typical day for you? What time did you wake up? What were your daily responsibilities? How did you handle the transition between military life and college life? Was the transition to university life difficult? Housing Where did you live just before moving to Flavet? How did you go about finding a place to live? Which Flavet did you live in? What were your expectations as far as housing goes? Describe the interior and exterior of you apartment. Number of bedrooms/bathsFurnishings (your own or came with the unit) FlooringCeilingWere all apartments the same on the interior? What did the kitchen come equipped with? Were there any optional amenities? I have read over a copy of one of the lease agreements that states that electricity was provided in the rent, but that if you had certa in appliances, such as an electric ice box, a washing machine, waffle iron, coffee percolator , or an electric fan, you would be charged an extra amount in your rent. Whic h, if any, of these did you have? Did you have a telephone? Did most families have a telephone? What did you do to make your apartment more livable? Were there any issues wi th sound within the unit? Did residents aid in the maintenance of these structures? Were you allowed to have any pets?

PAGE 104

93 Social Describe the social life at Flavet Village? Did you know anyone in the village before you moved in? Did most residents ha ve similar backgrounds? How did residents celebrate holidays? I have read in the Flavet archives that movi es were shown at the Flavets. Do you recall this? Were you close to your neighbors? Do you keep up with any of your fr iends that you met in Flavet? Were there any groups of people that tended to socialize toge thersuch as couples with children vs. couples without ch ildren, or older couples? Was there a church within the Flavets? What denomination? What did you do for recreation while living in Flavet? What clubs or groups were you active in? What were the age ranges of resident in the village? Was there much diversity of re sidents within the Flavets? Were there any minorities living in the Flavets? There was an incident noted in the Flav et Board of Commissione rs meeting minutes about whether one of the reside ntsÂ’ maid would be able to use the laundry facilities for cleaning their employerÂ’s clothes. Do you recall this incident? Did you or any of your friends at Flavet have a maid? Were there any single vetera ns within the Flavets? What happened when you or someone in you family got sick? Could you go to the infirmary? What do you know about a volunteer fi re department in Flavet III? Was there a Flavet newsletter or a more ex tensive newspaper run through the Flavets?

PAGE 105

94 Did you ever notice the UF radio stati on being broadcast from the Flavets? Did you feel safe living in Flavet? Was there any crime in the Flavets? Was there a neighborhood watch? Did you feel there was a sense of community within the Flavets? Why or why not? Dean of Students R. C. Beatty was quoted as saying that there was a low divorce rate in the Flavets. Beatty’s explanation for this was that the veterans of this era have, “something in the way of character”. What was this character? What kept these families together? Circumstance? Ambition? Politics What kinds of rules were in place for living in Flavet? Were the rules generally adhered to? What kind of disciplinary action was taken against those who broke the Flavet rules? Where would someone lodge a complaint about another resident? Did many residents own a vehicle? Were there any traffic problems? Were there any “unwritten rules” or codes that residents abided by? I’ve read about the Mayor and commissioners of Flavet Village. Did the 3 villages all have separate mayors? What kind of impact and power did the mayor have? Who was allowed to vote? Could women serve? What were the most controversial local i ssues among the residents of the Flavets? Economic How much of a concern was money to you when you lived in the Flavets?

PAGE 106

95 How much did it cost to live in Flavet and how did most people afford it? Can you give me an idea of what expenses made up your budget? Did you work? Did your spouse work? Did many of the wives in Flavet work? The ones that workedwhere did they go to find employment? (if had children) What did you do for childcare? (if have children) What were concerns about raising children in Flavet? Did you expect that your financial situ ation would change after graduation? How did your experience living in Flavet influence you life? Would you assess your experience living in Flavet as a positive experience? What were the negative aspects of living there that we have not already covered? Can you suggest other individuals that might be helpful to this research? Is there anything else that I havenÂ’t as ked that you would like to talk about?

PAGE 107

96 APPENDIX D FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS-MALE Intro/Background Where are you from? Discuss your military experience in World War II. What division and theater did you serve in during the war? Describe the changes in your life from before the war to during the war. When and where were you released from the service? How did your military experiences change your values and your outlook on life? Your work ethic? Your focus? Your commitment? How did your life change after you were released from service? Why did you choose to go to college? Did your parents go to college? Did future financial security infl uence your decision to go to school? Were there any other factors that influenced your decision? Why did you choose to come to the University of Florida? The University A university cheerleader of this era c oncluded, “They [the veterans] have no school spirit. All these people are interest ed in is getting an education,” (Cawthon, Stanmore. St. Petersburg Times , November 13, 1946). Why was an education so important to you? Why were you more motivated than entering freshmen?

PAGE 108

97 What did you study at UF? What did you expect that unive rsity life would be like? Did you know how long it would take to graduate? Did you have any concerns about coming to UF? Can you describe a typical school day for you? What time did you wake up? How many classes did you attend? How did you handle the transition between military life and college life? Was it difficult to make the change from givi ng and receiving orders to taking direction from a professor? How did you balance your school responsibilit ies with your family responsibilities? Housing Where did you live just before moving to Flavet? How did you go about finding a place to live? Which Flavet did you live in? What were your expectations as far as housing goes? Describe the interior and exterior of you apartment. # of bedrooms/bathsFurnishings (your own or came with the unit) FlooringCeilingWere all apartments the same on the interior? What did the kitchen come equipped with? Were there any optional amenities? I have read over a copy of one of the lease agreements that states that electricity was provided in the rent, but that if you had certa in appliances, such as an electric ice box, a washing machine, waffle iron, coffee percolator , or an electric fan, you would be charged an extra amount in your rent. Whic h, if any, of these did you have? Did you have a telephone?

PAGE 109

98 Did most families have a telephone? What did you do to make your apartment more livable? Were there any issues wi th sound within the unit? Did residents aid in the maintenance of these structures? Were you allowed to have any pets? Social Describe the social life at Flavet Village? Did you know anyone in the village before you moved in? Did most residents ha ve similar backgrounds? How did residents celebrate holidays? I have read in the Flavet archives that movi es were shown at the Flavets. Do you recall this? Were you close to your neighbors? Do you keep up with any of your fr iends that you met in Flavet? Were there any groups of people that tended to socialize toge thersuch as couples with children vs. couples without ch ildren, or older couples? Was there a church within the Flavets? What denomination? What did you do for recreation while living in Flavet? What were the age ranges of resident in the village? Was there much diversity of re sidents within the Flavets? Were there any minorities living in the Flavets? There was an incident noted in the Flav et Board of Commissione rs meeting minutes about whether one of the reside ntsÂ’ maid would be able to use the laundry facilities for cleaning their employerÂ’s clothes. Do you recall this incident? Did you or any of your friends at Flavet have a maid?

PAGE 110

99 Were there any single vetera ns within the Flavets? What happened when you or someone in you family got sick? Could you go to the infirmary? What do you know about a volunteer fi re department in Flavet III? Was there a Flavet newsletter or a more ex tensive newspaper run through the Flavets? Did you ever notice the UF radio stati on being broadcast from the Flavets? Did you feel safe living in Flavet? Was there any crime in the Flavets? Was there a neighborhood watch? Did you feel there was a sense of community within the Flavets? Why or why not? Dean of Students R. C. Beatty was quoted as saying that there was a low divorce rate in the Flavets. Beatty’s explanation for this was that the veterans of this era have, “something in the way of character”. What was this character? What kept these families together? Circumstance? Ambition? Politics What kinds of rules were in place for living in Flavet? Were the rules generally adhered to? What kind of disciplinary action was taken against those who broke the Flavet rules? Where would someone lodge a complaint about another resident? Did many residents own a vehicle? Were there any traffic problems? Were there any “unwritten rules” or codes that residents abided by? I’ve read about the Mayor and commissioners of Flavet Village. Did the 3 villages all have separate mayors? What kind of impact and power did the mayor have? Who was allowed to vote?

PAGE 111

100 Could women serve? What were the most controversial local i ssues among the residents of the Flavets? Economic How much of a concern was money to you when you lived in the Flavets? How much did it cost to live in Flavet and how did most people afford it? Can you give me an idea of what expenses made up your budget? Did you work? Did your spouse work? (if had children) What did you do for childcare? Did you expect that your financial situ ation would change after graduation? How did your experience living in Flavet influence you life? Would you assess your experience living in Flavet as a positive experience? What were the negative aspects of living there that we have not already covered? Can you suggest other individuals that might be helpful to this research? Is there anything else that I havenÂ’t as ked that you would like to talk about?

PAGE 112

101 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Shiffer, Rebecca A., The Recent Past. Cultural Resources Management Bulletin, 1995. 18 (8). 2. Roth, Leland M., American Architecture . 2001, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 3. Musgrove, John, A History of Architecture . 1987, London: Butterworths. 4. Proctor, Samuel, Gator History . 1987, Gainesville, FL: South Star. 5. Tigert, John J., "Biennial Report of th e President to the Board of Control", The University Record of the University of Florida . 1946, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. 6. Catinna, Anne, Years of Transition: Architecture on the University of Florida Campus, 1944-1956 , Master's Thesis in Architectu re. 1993, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. 7. Turner, Paul V., Campus: An American Planning Tradition . 1984, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 8. McCarthy, Kevin M., Guide to the University of Florida and Gainesville . 1997, Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press. 9. Blansett, Sharon C., A History of University of Florida Residence Facilities . revised, 2nd ed. 2003, Gainesville, FL: Un iversity of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Education. 10. Horn, Bernard., Collegetown, a Study of Transient Student Veteran Families In A Temporary Housing Community , Master's Thesis in Political Science. 1948, Columbia University: New York. 11. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties , National Park Service, retr ieved February 1, 2005 from, ParkNet. 12. A Checklist for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings , National Park Service, retrieved February 1, 2005, from .gov/hps/tps/cheklist.htm, ParkNet. 13. Ritchie, Donald A., Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide . 2nd ed. 2003, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 113

102 14. Stowell, Kenneth K., "Dem ands of War Come First," Architectural Record . 1945. 15. Morris, Edwin Batemen. "What Next for Architecture," Journal of the American Institute of Architects , Vol. 4, No.1, July 1945. 16. Churchill, Henry. "What Shall We Do With Our Cities?" Journal of the American Institute of Architects , Vol. IV, No.2, August 1945. 17. Gelernter, M., A History of American Architecture: Buildings in Their Cultural and Technological Context . 1999, Hanover and London: University Press of New England. 18. Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980 , Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1982. 19. Stowell, Kenneth K. "Houses, Faster and Cheaper," Architectural Record , Vol. 99, No. 2, February 1946. 20. Raymond, Antonin. "Housing, a Post-War Responsibility and Opportunity," Journal of the American Institute of Architects , Vol. 4, No. 6, December 1945. 21. Clark, Clifford E., The American Family Home, 1800-1960 . 1986, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 22. Wright, Gwendolyn., Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America . 1981, New York: Pantheon Books. 329. 23. Mars, Vernon D. "Look Homeward, Housing!" Architectural Record , Vol. 99, No. 4, April 1946. 24. "Robie House". Frank Lloyd Wright Pr eservation Trust retrieved February 5, 2005 from http://www.wrightplus.or g/robiehouse/robiehouse.html 25. Mott, Steward H. "Trends in Post-War Housing," Journal of the American Institute of Architects , Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1945. 26. Nalkaya, Saim, The Personalization of a Housin g Environment: A Study of Levittown, Pennsylvania. 1980: University Microfilms International. 27. Hauf, Harold D. "Prefabrication: The Acorn House," Architectural Record , Vol. 107, No. 5, May 1950. 28. Fetters, Thomas T. The Lustron Home: The History of a Postwar Prefabricated Housing Experiment , Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2002. 29. Rannells, John. "Building in the Tropics," Architectural Record , Vol. 112, No. 2, August 1952.

PAGE 114

103 30. Wright, Henry. "Oklahoma University Goes Modern," Architectural Forum , Vol. 83, No. 3, September 1945. 31. Stubbins, Hugh, Jr. "College Dormitorie s: What Do the Colleges Really Want?" Architectural Record , Vol. 99, No. 3, April 1946. 32. "Baker House" in Baker House Picture Book , Residential Computing Massachusetts Institute of Technology retrieved February 20, 2005 from 33. Rebuilding Baker House , in PLAN The Newsletter of the School of Architecture and Planning #51 . 1999, Massachusetts Institut e of Technology School of Architecture and Planning: Boston, MA. 34. Gregory, Ross, Cold War America, 1946-1990 . 2003, New York, NY: Facts on File. 670. 35. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1945," The University Record of the University of Florida, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, 1945. 36. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1947," The University Record of the University of Florida , University of Florid a: Gainesville, FL, 1947. 37. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1950," The University Record of the University of Florida , University of Florid a: Gainesville, FL, 1950. 38. "Flavet Photographs" Manuscript Collecti on 97 ,University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collec tions: Gainesville, Florida. 39. Trumbull, Sephen., Flavet Village Gives Ve ts Homes as University , in Miami Herald . 1946: Miami, FL. 40. Wilson, E. Meade. "The Dedication of Flavet Village," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Depa rtment of Special Collections. 1946, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. 41. Busby, J., Flavet Oral History Study , J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Sam Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL. 42. Emerson, J., Interview with Jane Emerson , J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: St. Petersburg, FL. 43. Cawthon, Stanmore. "Veterans At U. Of F. Are Broke But Happy," St. Petersburg Times. 1946: St . Petersburg, Florida. 44. "Constitution and By Laws of Flavet Village II," in Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Depa rtment of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 115

104 45. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, August 7,1947," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Fl orida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL. 46. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissi oners Minutes, June 26, 1947," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Arch ives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL. 47. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissi oners Minutes, Spring 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Arch ives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL. 48. "The Three Press" in Manuscript Collec tion 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collec tions. 1947: Gainesville, FL. 49. "Flavet Village III Board of Co mmissioners Minutes, March 4, 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Fl orida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL. 50. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, April 29, 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Fl orida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL. 51. Halberstam, David, The Fifties . 1993, New York: Villard Books. 52. Busby, Joe, "Interview with Joe Busby," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL. 53. Emerson, Bill, "Interview with Bill Em erson," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: St. Petersburg, Fl. 54. Busby, Elta, "Interview with Elta Busby," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL. 55. Edson, Jim, "Interview with Jim Edson," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL. 56. Aaronson, Lisa, The President's Home , Gainesville, FL: The Office of the President of The University of Florida. 57. Pitts, Edith P., The Home of a University President . 1954, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. 58. Reeves, F. Blair. "Housing for Marri ed Students: Problems and Solutions," AIA Journal . Vol. 40 No. 3, September 1963

PAGE 116

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH After graduating from Girls Preparat ory School in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Jennifer L. Garrett studied at the Lamar Dodd School of Art at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. During her undergraduate career, Jennifer also studied sculpture and painting in Cortona, Italy, where she fell in live with the Italian cultu re. After graduating with a Bachelor of Fine Arts in sculpture she moved to Atlanta to work for a French and Italian antique importer. In the summer of 2001, Jennifer married Timothy Garrett and moved to Gainesville, FL, where she began working for a local homebuilder. This experience led her to apply to the Master of Interior Design program in the College of Design, Construction and Planning and began working as a graduate assistant to Professor Susan Tate. During her graduate career she had the opportunity to serve as a member of several local and state preservation or ganizations including the University of Florida Committee for the Preservation of Historic Buildings a nd Sites as well as being a member of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation. In her spare time Jennifer enjoys carving, drawing, playing the violin, gardening, r unning and being active in her church community.