750

The Region 4 Mid-Century Building Program under William Roylance Turner, USFS Regional Architect, 1956-1981 USFS Report No. UWC-20-1811 Kirk Huffaker Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies September 2020 Table of Contents Biographical _________________________________________________________________ 3 Early Years and Family ____________________________________________________________ 3 Post-Retirement Years _____________________________________________________________ 4 The Region 4 Mid-century Building Program under William R. Turner _________________ 5 Historical Background of the Region 4 Design Team ____________________________________ 9 Preliminary Analysis of the Region 4 Midcentury Building Program Resources and Turner’s Historic Architecture _____________________________________________________________ 11 Additions and Remodels __________________________________________________________ 13 Landscape Elements ______________________________________________________________ 13 Office __________________________________________________________________________ 14 Residential/Domestic _____________________________________________________________ 18 Specialty________________________________________________________________________ 22 Utilitarian ______________________________________________________________________ 24 Considerations for Evaluation of Historic Significance _____________________________ 28 Bibliography ________________________________________________________________ 30 WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 2 Biographical Early Years and Family William (Bill) Roylance Turner was born July 25, 1918 in Provo, Utah, to Abram (Abe) W. Turner and Merline Roylance. Abe Turner attended the University of Utah and Georgetown University, graduating in 1916 with a law degree. He became a prominent attorney in Provo, while also farming and raising stock, and was active in the community including the Provo Commercial Club. (Warrum 1919) William Turner attended Provo High School and loved the mountains and outdoors so much he thought about entering forestry as a career, but eventually decided on engineering because of a great love of math and science. He attended BYU and lived in Provo through 1939 with his parents and younger sister, Dorothy. He registered through selective service for the draft in 1940 and stated on his draft card that he was a student at the University of Utah, where he had transferred to in fall 1939 and graduated from in 1941 with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering (Photo above courtesy ancestry.com). (Ancestry.com) Turner was employed during at least one summer for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), surveying and mapping in the Absaroka Mountains of Montana. He described working this job as a highlight of his life. (Deseret News 2006) William Turner married Clara Duke of Heber, Utah, on December 6, 1943 in the Salt Lake Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They made their home in Utah County and over the next several years, had three sons: James, Robert, and W. Richard. A fourth son, John Bryan, died one day after birth. (Find a Grave) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 3 Turner’s first job out of school was for Columbia Steel, and he was sent to Torrance, CA, and later transferred to Ironton, a production site on Utah Lake three miles south of Provo (Photo right; Courtesy Library of Congress). Given the effort needed for production during World War II, it was a very busy time at Ironton where engineers played critical roles. (Strack 2019) Turner moved over to the Geneva Steel Works when it opened in 1944 through 1945 when they closed the plant at the end of the war. 1 (Grosvenor 1999) Turner then went to work at the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in Grand Junction, CO, where he enjoyed Colorado’s fishing and mountains. After eleven months, he was transferred to Spanish Fork. Turner helped build a large addition to the city power plant after leaving the BOR, then worked at a multi-faceted housing construction company in Pleasant Grove. (Grosvenor 1999) In 1950, Turner was listed in the city directory as an engineer living in Provo. (Polk City Directories) Turner’s early career turned then to working for the Deseret Chemical Depot west of Tooele for three years, and then at Hill Air Force Base in Clearfield for two years. This is when he learned that the United States Forest Service (USFS) employed engineers. At his first inquiry, no positions were available. A year later, he went to the headquarters of the USFS Intermountain Region (Region 4) to inquire and brought a set of house plans he designed. He was told that the regional architect (George L. Nichols) was retiring and asked if he was interested in the job. Of that opportunity, he said, “I readily accepted it even though it meant a reduction in grade and pay.” This seemed to be a perfect match of employer and employee as the job combined Turner’s two major interests of forestry and engineering. (Grosvenor 1999) By 1959, the Turner family had moved to Clearfield, Utah, which is south of Ogden. Eventually they would relocate to Kaysville, Utah. (Polk City Directories) Post-Retirement Years Turner expressed strong and positive feelings about working for the USFS in calling it “the career he loved.” (Deseret News 2006) In his 1998 interview, he stated, “I just thoroughly 1 This 1998 interview is an excerpt and the full interview was not located. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 4 enjoyed my work. The Forest Service is a good outfit; there is such a good feeling among the employees, almost like a family – as it was often called.” But Turner reached a key milestone of twenty-five years of employment and retired in 1981. (Grosvenor 1999) Upon reflection he stated, “We planned and built quite a few diversified buildings: warehouses, a nursery building complex near Utah State University in Logan, and a tree nursery complex at the Lucky Peak site in Boise, Idaho. I would like to be remembered as a good friend and a helper of the Forest Service. I came to do a job and enjoyed the work and the people. It’s good to see the results of my efforts. I think this is a great outfit – one of the best!” (Grosvenor 1999) In his retirement, he served two missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with his wife at the Salt Lake Temple Visitor Center and at Member Location. They continued making their home in Kaysville and had ten grandchildren. Bill passed at age 88, on August 3, 2006 at Life Care Center in Bountiful. He is buried in the Heber City Cemetery with his wife Clara. (Photo above courtesy ancestry.com) (Find a Grave) The Region 4 Mid-century Building Program under William R. Turner William Turner joined the USFS in 1956, succeeding the long-serving and successful architect George L. Nichols at his retirement. Nichols started as a draftsman in 1924 and eventually went on to emphasize well-designed sites and distinctive architecture in the Intermountain Region through policy and design. Turner had big shoes to fill as he followed the region’s first architect who successfully redeveloped hundreds of sites and buildings, created scores of standard plans, and moved the agency away from its decentralized decisionmaking for construction. (Wilson 2017) Turner came into the USFS at a time of high demand where his talents would be utilized fully. We were constructing mostly dwellings when I started,” he stated. (Grosvenor 1999) As Richa Wilson states in “Building the Forest Service in Utah,” “Turner witnessed the introduction of Operation Outdoors, a Forest Service initiative to address burgeoning recreational growth. After World War II, public lands increasingly became a refuge for city dwellers who had higher incomes and more WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 5 leisure time than earlier generations. In one decade, recreation visits to national forests increased 213 percent, from 26 million in 1949 to 81.5 million in 1959. The Forest Service struggled to meet accelerating public demand for amenities and services. The National Park Service sought to address similar challenges by implementing Mission 66 in 1956. The ten-year program came with congressional appropriations to sustain and expand the nation’s parks by managing circulation, repairing and constructing infrastructure, providing appropriate facilities, and educating the public about resources. In 1957, the Forest Service inaugurated Operation Outdoors, a five-year program to improve recreation services for increasing numbers of visitors, as well as to address growing public opposition to the visual impacts of clearcutting. Less officially, the initiative was the agency’s competitive response to the Park Service’s Mission 66 enterprise. Officials in Ogden, anticipating a 98 percent increase in recreational visits by 1962, heartily supported Operation Outdoors. They created positions for recreation staff officers, hired more landscape architects, and began funding recreation construction projects. The Regional Office also issued a revised Recreation Handbook in 1957 to provide landscaping plans, extensive lists of plants, and standard designs for camp stoves, picnic tables, toilets, and other recreation features. While Operation Outdoors focused on recreation sites, neither it nor the Recreation Handbook discussed visitor information services beyond displays and amphitheaters. They certainly made no mention of visitor centers, a new building type introduced by the National Park Service and adopted with some tailoring by the Forest Service.” (Wilson 2017) In his new employment, it was among Turner’s tasks to engage in the enormous effort to ‘build’ Operation Outdoors across the Intermountain Region, which encompasses Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho, southwest Wyoming, and small areas in California and Colorado. Though, Turner and his staff continued to focus mainly on administrative facilities such as garages, houses, offices, and utilitarian structures, while recreational planners and landscape architects concentrated on campgrounds and other recreation improvements. Policies guiding Operation Outdoors, were clear on what the USFS was responsible to build, preserve, and maintain versus what they were not. (USDA Forest Service 1957) Build and Preserve • • • • Forest-type recreation access including roads, trails, and backcountry areas; Facilities for forest-type recreation that includes camping, picnicking, skiing, swimming, hiking and riding; Roadside zones, trailside zones, and waterfront zones in natural condition; and, Wilderness, wild, and primitive areas. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 6 Not to Build • • • • • • • Facilities for non-forest-type recreation such as spectator sports, golf and tennis; Special services such as utility connections for trailers, hot showers, electric lights, stove-length firewood, and clothes checking at bathhouses, unless practicable; Special service facilities such as large shelters, amphitheaters, and ski warming shelters, unless practicable; Large, popular, public recreation areas (to be operated by concessionaire); Organization and youth camps (to be operated by public and nonprofit groups); Public service facilities such as filling stations, restaurants, motels, ski lifts and tows, and boat docks (to be operated by concessionaire under special use permit); and, Private recreation uses such as summer homes. By extension, though not explicitly stated in the policies, facilities for the support and maintenance of all that was to be built and preserved in Operation Outdoors would also need to be included in the list. This included housing, maintenance and storage facilities, garages, and ranger stations. (USDA Forest Service 1957) While Operation Outdoors launched, Congress was striving to balance budget concerns. In 1958, the USFS came under scrutiny for increasing construction costs in their housing units. Going forward, the House Appropriations Committee required the USFS to avoid all specialty products in construction and to utilize only standard stock local products. (Hendee 1958) This requirement extended to “avoid special plumbing and light fixtures, hardware, finishes, construction materials, or other non-stock items that may not be available in local markets.” This presented different challenges for the USFS in construction as ‘local’ markets for remote locations could still be a two hour’s drive, and then remote lumber and hardware stores may still stock a more limited range of products. Another severe restriction for the building department and Turner was the limitation on architectural drawings that was put in place to limit USFS expenditure on design. It was noted in the mid-1950s, prior to Operation Outdoors, that a “significant item of cost in our construction program has been the adaptation, alteration, and revision of standard plans and specifications.” In order to curb those expenditures, several policies were enacted over the years of Operation Outdoors: 1. Each region will be limited to two architectural plans for each size dwelling for each climatic zone where differences in temperature, precipitation, and wind justify significant variations in architectural design. (January 1956, O. No. 56-5) 2. Changes in building plans, whether proposed prior to or after the contracting phase of the construction job, should be held to a minimum and be based upon soundly WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 7 conceived plans rather than personal preference. (June 1957, O. No. 57-16, R-4, Supplement No. 3) 3. In recommending…additional funds, the committee expects the Forest Service to construct the greatest number of facilities at the lowest possible cost. (Senate Committee on Appropriations Report, FY 1959) 4. The conferees also expect that appropriate administrative action will be taken by all agencies concerned to adopt standard employee houses and to establish necessary regulations to assure that unit costs of planning and construction are held to the minimum commensurate with the provision of adequate housing. (Conferee’ report, FY 1960 Appropriation Act) 5. The inspector points out that modifications and revisions of standard building plans necessitate preparation of new plans and defeats the purpose of standardization. A recommendation is made that forests should not be permitted to request changes in plan or elevation of building plans that have been adopted as standard for the region. 6. Efforts are directed at holding engineering and design costs to a minimum all along the line…the following are some of the measures that have been and are being taken to hold engineering and design costs to a minimum: (b) the standardization, to the extent practicable, of plans for residences, etc. (House of Representatives Department of the Interior Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, FY 1961) (USDA Forest Service 1957) Turner’s job, as newly employed regional architect in 1956, was take the high aiming goals of Operations Outdoors, and the limitations of policies, budget, and built environment design guidelines, and build worthwhile, sustainable architecture in remote and urban locations throughout the Intermountain Region. While Operation Outdoors officially ended in 1962, the goals and offspring of the plan continued to provide direction on management and development of facilities through the agency’s recreation program into the late 20th century. The Forest Service’s recreation program significantly matured under Richard Costly, National Recreation Director from 1964 to 1971. A former ranger on Utah’s Cache National Forest, Costly shifted attention to managing broad landscapes and large areas for recreation purposes. The agency gave more attention to scenery or “visual resources,” began hiring additional landscape architects, expanded its recreation offerings, and rehabilitated or constructed visitor facilities. This new approach to resources likely helped Turner in his desire to improve the quality of the agency’s buildings, even with small but impactful variations. (Kline 2018) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 8 Historical Background of the Region 4 Design Team Turner acknowledged the talent of people around him. Though his prolific predecessor, George L. Nichols, retired before he started, Turner consulted him often on the plans he produced and the many different types of buildings. In addition, Cal Spaun was a “splendid and talented architectural draftsman” that had previously worked for prominent Ogden architect Lloyd McClenahan. Two others he noted as great helpers were Al Saunders, whose experience include drawing Forest Service maps, and Wilden Moffett, a graduate architect, who worked with the USFS between 1966-1971 and in 1981 became Turner’s successor as Regional Architect. (Wilson 2017) The new building plans that were created by Turner, Spaun, and Saunders were often evolutions of Nichols’ post-war designs, keeping simple forms and massing but utilizing characteristic features of midcentury design. Given the USFS edict to design buildings ‘of the forest,’ these midcentury features were not grand or experimental with a wide range of new materials, which were usually hallmarks of midcentury design across the country. During the 1950s, these designers drew from the popular Ranch style, with simple rectangular massing and floorplans, small entry porches, and larger picture windows. Due to their rise in popularity and prominence of use, all of these features also had the benefit to the USFS of being widely available and cost-conscious. (Wilson 2016) Of this cost-conscious approach, Turner said, “One of the struggles I had earlier in my career was dealing with the Division of Operations. They were very strict with the building budget and did not want any “frills” on the buildings. For example, we could not put trim around porch posts, adjustable shelves in utility closets, wood shakes on roofs, or stone on the exterior of buildings. It took me a while to get them to understand that these would improve the buildings and last longer.” (Grosvenor 1999) Wilden Moffett shared his impression in his oral interview: “We’ve had an attitude in Region 4 of being conservative. Talking about the Sawtooth NRA [National Recreation Area] building – Region 5 California architects – had an attitude of building monuments. So we’ve not had a lot of designs that were really glamorous, we’re really practical with the designs. I have encouraged that through my career, because I think it’s the right thing to do. We’re spending Government money, taxpayer money, we don’t want something that’s just out there for show.” (Moffett 2002) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 9 Given that by the early 1960s, the Forest Service had moved into a development of modest mid-century and Ranch style buildings, they increasingly relied on new materials for construction such as plywood (T1-11), gypsum board, and particle board. Experimental planning with open floor plans and architectural forms were made possible by technological advances in materials and structural engineering. As Wilson states in “The Enchantment of Ranger Life”: “In Region 4, Turner used membrane roofing on flat roofs over glue-laminated beams that allowed larger spans in warehouses. Examples of this construction include the warehouses built at the Pleasant Grove (Photo at upper left) and Nephi (Photo at lower left) ranger stations in the early 1960s. At the same time, Turner worked within budget constraints by utilizing functional and relatively inexpensive materials such as concrete block, which marked a shift away from forest products.” (Wilson 2016) “During the 1960s, we received quite a bit of money with fiscal year deadlines from Congress for Accelerated Public Works (APW) Program, 2 and we had so much work that we let some of our architectural work out to private firms,” Turner stated in an interview after 2 An inventory of the Accelerated Public Works Program archive, found at Forest History Society Library and Archives, can be accessed here. Language for APW legislation passed by Congress in 1963 can be found here. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 10 retirement. (Grosvenor 1999) Turner and his staff, anticipating these APW funds, produced several office plans that drew from a richer architectural palette than previous plans. His ranger district offices of 1962 (R4 Plans A-94, A-95, A-97) varied in size but each had a rectangular footprint with a projecting entrance. In contrast to his more vernacular designs of the 1950s, these had upscale features such as exterior walls with stone or brick on the lower halves with cedar lap siding above and hand-split cedar shakes. A prominent distinctive feature of each design was a “flying gable” or “speeding gable” roof, which was explained by architectural historian John Ferguson as: “…the ridge at the gable end projects substantially further out, away from the wall, than do the other two edges of the roof rake at the eave line; during the late 1950s and early 1960s this detail was common on residences, apparently considered to be very ‘modern’ and even evocative of speed and flight.” (Kline 2018) Turner recalled his new-found ability to add more character fondly, “The Pleasant Grove District Office on the Uinta National Forest was one example of an office designed after convincing the building committee that adding a little to the offices was wise.” Turner was also steadfastly vigilant to his duty as engineer and regional architect, as evidenced by the following recollection: “I remember making an inspection on the Bear River Office, up in the mountains, when it was under construction. The building was almost completely framed; I got to looking at it and realized something was wrong. The roof structure was not strong enough for the local conditions. The designers had not taken this into account, and we had not caught it during our brief review of the plans. We had to get busy and make changes in order to strengthen the roof.” (Grosvenor 1999) Preliminary Analysis of the Region 4 Midcentury Building Program Resources and Turner’s Historic Architecture USFS Region 4 has conducted historic architectural surveys of some of its administrative facilities from the mid-century period (1956-1970) but the work is not complete. Current survey records show that during this intensive fourteen-year span that included the Operation Outdoors and APW programs, William Turner was involved in the design and construction of at least ninety-seven individual structures across Idaho (48), Nevada (1), Utah (44), and Wyoming (3), 3 and thirty-three standard plan designs. Many more are likely to exist throughout the region that have not been surveyed, so the information provided within this report should be considered a preliminary analysis. 3 This number includes one property of unknown location. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 11 The mid-century building program is associated with rising environmental legislation and the Forest Service’s expanding emphasis on multiple uses, which diversified the agency’s programs and considerably grew its professional workforce. This resulted in a parallel growth in the built environment to accommodate the growth in both the agency and public use. Properties developed or used by the USFS for administering and managing National Forest System lands include a wide variety of resource types. The following groupings of resource types are typically associated with USFS administration and its themes of natural resource conservation, development, and public land management: • Additions and Remodels • Landscape Elements • Office • Residential/Domestic • Specialty • Utilitarian The breakdown of Turner’s 130 known designs, both standard plan designs and individual structures that may or may not follow standard plans, across these resource types are as follows: Given the totality of Turner’s work during the Region 4 mid-century building program, it is recommended to utilize the identify/survey/evaluate process to determine the remaining examples with high integrity, and seek to preserve representative examples. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 12 Additions and Remodels There are at least thirty plans from the 1956-1970 era of Turner’s leadership that are for additions, remodels, and moved buildings. Additional factors in evaluation of these buildings must be taken into account beyond using the standard plan and original construction date to identify the significance of the building and account for its integrity. Given the limited scope of this project, additions and remodels were not considered here but should be considered in future system-wide evaluations. Alterations affecting integrity include heavy alteration of original forms of the building, moved or removed doors or windows thus altering original fenestration patterns, or envelopment of the original structure or primary façade in a new addition. Alterations that may not necessarily affect integrity include maintenance type items such as repainting, new and changed roofing materials, moderate changes to materials, and additions that do not alter the original building form. Landscape Elements Landscape elements were not considered in this project but should be considered in future evaluations. These should include access roads, designed landscapes, driveways, flagpoles, footbridges, gardens, outdoor barbecues, parking areas, retaining walls, walkways/sidewalks, and yards. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 13 Office The office resource type includes guard stations, offices, and ranger stations. Known office structures built between 1956-1970 and designed by Turner’s team include (listed by construction date): Character Defining Features of Office Standard Plans. Form: The general form of office standard plans is rectangular, which lessens complexity and cost while creating the most efficient interior space. The singular addition to the rectangular form is the use of protruding central entry vestibules on several versions. Walls: Walls are wood framed with rock wool insulation. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 14 Foundations: Foundations for all office category resources are concrete with crawl spaces and foundation vents to allow below-grade air circulation. Floors: Flooring materials are not specified for the office category resources except in one instance (A95) where it is to be linoleum with plywood base. The floor and sub-floor are supported by a central wood beam on posts. Roofs: Roof style varies depending on the standard plan: speeding side gables of 5/12 or 6/12 pitch with deep overhang; traditional front gable with modest overhang, and; flat roof with modest overhang. Roofing: Roofing materials for gabled versions are specified to be wood shingles or cedar shake shingles, while the flat roof for R4 Plan A95 is 20-year built-up gravel surface construction. Porches: Gabled versions are devoid of entry porches, but instead utilize an entry vestibule rather than porch. In R4 Plan A104 however, the flat roof is extended forward to create a raised entry porch. Cladding: There are four types of cladding for the office standard plans. The earliest plan version utilized wood siding similar to other agency structures. Subsequent versions moved into more traditional mid-century materials such as half-inch exterior wall sheathing similar and equal to Nuwood impregnated sheathing. Versions from the APW period upgraded the aesthetic by utilizing a native stone veneer on bottom third with 8” lap siding on upper twothirds with copper flashing cap (R4 Plan A97a) and native stone veneer on bottom half and forming entry posts with upper half in T1-11 textured siding, as well as sides and rear (R4 Plan A104). Windows and Doors: Doors for gabled standard plans have a more traditional appearance of a single main door with an upper glass panel (either half size or two-thirds size). In R4 Plan A95, the door is flanked by aluminum awning-type tri-sash windows and in R4 Plan A97a, the door is flanked by casement windows. Secondary doors have an upper-half glass pane. The major variation is in the front entry of R4 Plan A104, which has large ¼” plate glass panes and a double-set of aluminum doors. Windows include four general categories, including: • Fixed single pane, vertical or picture window, with paired operable single casement; obscure glass in bathroom window • Aluminum awning-type tri-sash windows; • Casement windows, either single or in threes; and, • Factrolite glass in two-sash form, either paired or in threes; WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 15 Interior Walls and Ceilings: Interior walls and ceilings are finished with gypsum board. Ceilings are typically 8foot in height. Heating and Ventilation: Most office standard plans have a brick-faced chimney specified for all fuel and equal to metalbestos custom chimney. One version (R4 Plan 181) has a metal chimney to vent an oil furnace. Versions. All versions include rooms for reception and display, project or work room, restrooms, and a ranger office. Other versions have space for an assistant ranger office, forester, receptionist, and more or less storage spaces. Standard plan R4 A104 is the most synonymous with higher-style mid-century design, showing more International style influence than other office resource types. Office plans that are far deviations from the standard plan include the Stanley District Office (R4 Plan A156) and the Teton Supervisors Office (R4 Plan A102; demolished). A representative example of an office resource is the Manila District Office on the Ashley National Forest in the Flaming Gorge Ranger District, which follows the district ranger station standard plan (R4 Plan A94) (Elevation at upper right by LGB). William Turner shared several fond memories of some of his favorite designs in his 1998 oral interview with John Grosvenor. “My favorite (office) design is that of the Ketchum (Sun Valley) District Office on the Sawtooth National Forest. It was designed to appear as if coming up from a rock outcrop just in front of it.” (Elevation drawing at lower right by William R. Turner) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 16 “Another interesting building is the Stanley Ranger District Office in the Sawtooth National Forest, not far from the Redfish Lake Visitor Center. It is a rustic, early-day type of building with a covered front porch and a main entryway and reception room, with a wing to be built on each side of it. The south wing was designed and built originally; the north wing has not been built.” (Grosvenor 1999) (Floorplan drawing below by William R. Turner) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 17 Residential/Domestic The residential and domestic administrative resource type includes barracks, bathhouses, bunkhouses/crew houses, dormitories, mess halls, portable and pre-fabricated residences, and residences/dwellings. Architectural surveys suggest that most of the work that Turner was assigned was in the use category of dwellings. Surveyed buildings numbered seventeen in total and included singlefamily dwellings with one to four bedrooms, and bunkhouses. Seven dwellings were located in Utah while ten were located in Idaho. Known residential/domestic structures built between 1956-1970 and designed by Turner’s team include (listed by construction date): (Table Continues Below) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 18 Character Defining Features of Residential/Domestic Standard Plans. Form: Massing of the structures in residential/domestic standard plans is rectangular. Appendaged onto the rectangular mass of dwellings are front and/or side porches. Walls: Walls are wood framed with rock wool insulation. Foundations: Foundations are concrete with either a crawl space or a finished basement, depending on the plan. Floors: Specification for the kitchens and baths are for pine plywood flooring covered with standard gauge linoleum. Main rooms have oak flooring. Roofs: Standard plan dwellings have traditional side gables. The deviations from these plans are for the two bunkhouse and mess hall standard plans, flat roof, and the Duplex Dwelling standard plan (R4 Plan A142), side hipped roof. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 19 Roofing: Roofing for residences is specified to be cedar shingles, with some porches having 30-year composite (asphalt) shingles. The nearly flat roof of the mess hall plan is 20-year bonded composition construction. Porches: All residential standard plans include a front porch of some type in one of two variations: front-gabled portico; or extended pent-roofed portico over the door and picture window. One plan includes a side porch with a pent roof. Porch supports are 4” x 4” unfinished wood posts. The mess hall plan includes a stoop with pipe railings. Cladding: Cladding includes traditional shiplap-style, 10” cedar wood siding, log cabin or Shevlin siding, and exterior plywood with battens on the stud line. By 1965 and the design of the Duplex Dwelling, vertical red cedar siding was utilized for R4 Plan A142. Windows and Doors: The door schedule for dwellings typically had at least three varieties of doors specified, including two types of exterior doors and one type of interior. The mess hall has a set of double entry doors. Exterior doors have a heavy, residential Ranch style influence or are vernacular. Windows are scheduled in three basic variations for dwellings: one-over-one double-hung sashes, single or paired; one-by-one aluminum sliders; and, picture windows. Interior Walls and Ceilings: Interior walls and ceilings are finished with gypsum board. Ceilings are typically 8-foot in height. Heating and Ventilation: Two varieties of heating are found in residences: electric furnaces, vented through the roof, and propane gas heaters, vented through the chimney. Both are vented through the roof. Early plan chimneys are brick-faced metal vents. Later chimneys evolve to using Van Packer or equal pre-fabricated chimney. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 20 Versions. All residences have a kitchen, bathroom, living room, dining space, and at least one bedroom. Some standard plans include additional storage in a full utility room, an integrated garage, and multiple porches. In some versions, such as R4 Plan 178A and R4 Plan A69, the kitchen, dining, and living rooms are combined as one open-plan space. A residential/domestic plan that is a far deviation from the standard plans is the A-frame House (R4 Plan A150A). Another evolution in design can be seen in mess hall design. The mess hall standard plan (R4 Plan A73) from 1960 is traditional in exterior appearance in that it is similar to most other forest service structures in form and materiality. By the time the McCall Aerial Protection Unit Mess Hall is designed in 1963 (R4 Plan A113), the design has become heavily influenced by mid-century design in roofline form, fenestration, structural construction, and materials. (Elevation drawing below by JWH) A representative example of a residential/domestic resource is the LaSal Guard Station Dwelling on the Manti-La Sal National Forest in the Moab Ranger District, which follows the onebedroom guard station standard plan (R4 Plan 169) (Photo at left by USFS Region 4). WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 21 Specialty One method of looking at Turner’s impact on the built environment would be to also consider the specialty buildings, including visitor’s centers, that were unique buildings constructed between 1956-1970 during Turner’s leadership of the building department. These buildings had more of a specialized purpose that required additional investment in design and construction, beyond what a standard plan could provide. Given that these buildings do not follow standard plans, they may require an advanced level of research, documentation, and context development to evaluate them for National Register eligibility. These include the following (listed by construction date): Turner recalled two interesting specialty use projects in 1998. “Two special buildings were required there (Lucky Peak near Boise, ID). One was a tree cold storage building where trees would be stored after being taken from the ground in early spring for sorting and packaging. The building was to be designed for temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 percent humidity! We hit it pretty close. A second was a seed cold storage building, which was to be designed for zero degrees Fahrenheit year round. After it was built, I was there in August. The temperature outside was over 100, and inside it was minus 8 degrees – quite a difference.” “One special building I remember was the visitor center at Redfish Lake on the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho. A helper at that time was Darwin Hamilton, who WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 22 was quite artistic; he came up with the basic looks of the building and I did the structural design. That is a beautiful site and we built this great building there. It was very enjoyable. Soil Conservation Service records showed that 70 pounds should suffice. However, because of the much heavier snow loads close by, I did not want to take a chance and designed it for 100 pounds. I was fond of heavy shake shingles and put them on the roof. The pitch of the roof is borderline, and we eventually put sheet metal on the overhang edges to control the ice dams.” (Grosvenor 1999) (Rendering below by Darwin M. Hamilton) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 23 Utilitarian The Utilitarian administrative resource type includes carpentry shops, combination buildings, equipment storage buildings, garages, shops and sheds, gas and oil houses, generator sheds, pump houses, sheds (for paints, lumber, storage, tools, pesticides, etc.), toilets, woodsheds, and warehouses. Known utilitarian structures built between 1956-1970 and designed by Turner’s team include (listed by construction date): (Table continues below) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 24 Character Defining Features of Utilitarian Standard Plans. Form: The form of utilitarian standard plans – both for garages and warehouses – is rectangular, which lessens complexity and cost while creating the most efficient interior space. Walls: Walls for garages are wood framed and left unfinished on the interior. Walls for warehouses and minor structures are composed of concrete block and split block masonry. Some specifications call out for expansion and control joints and reinforcing rebar within the walls. Foundations: All foundations for utilitarian standard plans are concrete without basements. Some footings include rebar. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 25 Floors: All floors for utilitarian standard plans are dressed concrete. Roofs: The vast majority of roofs are gabled and have a 5/12 pitch. Pitched roofs have a modest overhang trimmed with fascia board on the gable ends. A few examples have exposed rafter tails. All warehouses and a few other minor structures have flat roofs, commonly with an overhang of less than six inches. Warehouses such as those in R4 Plan A106 are some of the only period structures to have used glulam beams, which are left exposed under a modest roof overhang on three sides. Roofing: Gabled buildings are specified to have cedar shingle roofs, and be finished with fascia and soffit. Flat roofs have 20-year built-up construction. Porches: Garages and other minor structures are devoid of porches. Many have concrete steps or stoops to elevate the floor and door from ground level. Warehouses, while not technically having porches, include loading docks that are located under an extension of the roofline to cover the area. The loading dock is above finished grade and includes concrete steps. Cladding: Ten-inch bevel siding is most commonly used on Garages and is specified for three minor structures. Two garages include T1-11 textured siding and a combination cladding of horizontal redwood siding on the bottom with vertical plywood above. Warehouses of standard plan design are exclusively constructed of concrete block that is unfinished on the exterior. Five other minor structures have a wide range of exterior materials including unfinished split block masonry, unfinished concrete block, board and batten, 1” x 8” shiplap siding, and a combination cladding of horizontal redwood siding on the bottom with vertical plywood above. Windows and Doors: Garages include overhead wood doors, some with windows and others are devoid of fenestration. Garage windows are either single multi-pane barn sash or vertically-oriented sliding operable windows. Garage entry doors are specified to be solid core wood. Most minor structure standard plans are devoid of windows. However, the Diesel Generator House (R4 Plan 173B) has two louvered doors for ventilation, and metal doors are specified for the Flammable Storage Building (R4 Plan173B) and Pump House (R4 Plan A151). Warehouses include solid overhead garage doors, and either solid or upper glass entry doors. Windows in warehouses include operable, awning type, obscure glass units. Interior Walls and Ceilings: Garages were either unfinished open studs on the interior or included plywood shelving. Some structures include shiplap siding of 1”x8” size or plywood WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 26 finish. Utilitarian structure ceilings were left open to the roof. Warehouses were left unfinished concrete block on the interior and included cabinetry or built in work space. Heating and Ventilation: According to the standard plans, no heating or ventilation was planned for garages. One Pump House (R4 Plan A161) included an electric heater. Ventilation on flammable storage buildings was accommodated through window and door air circulation and metal rooftop ventilators. Heating in warehouses was accommodated by gas heater units suspended from the ceiling and vented out the roof. Additional venting in warehouses was provided by operable windows, garage doors, and plumbing vents. Versions. There are six standard plans within the utilitarian resource group, with the singlecar and storeroom standard plan including five versions, and the double-car and storeroom standard plan including two versions. Variations within the garage standard plans and warehouse standard plans are numerous based on size and location of garage doors, doors, and windows; however, the forms and general materiality remain the consistent. Within the flammable storage standard plan, there are five different versions, each for a specific use. With each version, the form, materials, roof, cladding, windows and doors, interiors and heating and ventilation change to accommodate that use. Some of the specific variations include ventilation options (roof vs door), protective sheathing (wood siding vs concrete block) and doors (wood vs metal), and shelving storage arrangements. A representative example of a utilitarian resource is the Baker Assistant Ranger Garage on the MantiLa Sal National Forest in the Monticello Ranger District, which follows the single car garage and storeroom standard plan (R4 Plan 23A1) (Elevation at right by Cal Spaun). WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 27 Considerations for Evaluation of Historic Significance In order to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, a structure must meet three requirements – age, significance, and integrity. The National Register states that, generally, properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are at least fifty years old. Properties less than fifty years of age must be exceptionally important to be considered eligible for listing. Evaluation should follow the process for determining the significance and integrity of a resource, which are based on the National Register of Historic Places criteria and seven aspects of integrity. The four significance criteria under which a property may be potentially eligible for the National Register are: • Criterion A – Associated with an event or patterns of events or historic trend that has made a significant contribution to the history of the community, the region, the state or the nation; • Criterion B – Associated with the lives of persons significant in our national, state, or local history; • Criterion C – Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; • Criterion D – Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. The National Register defines integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” Of the three National Register requirements, integrity is probably the most complicated and difficult to understand. To simplify things, the National Register staff sometimes tells applicants that integrity means the candidate structure has to look historic. There are seven factors, or “aspects,” that must be evaluated to determine if the historic look, or integrity, survives. These seven aspects of integrity include the following: • Location; • Setting; • Design; • Materials; • Workmanship; • Feeling; and • Association. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 28 With further survey, information, and research it may be determined that, as in Region 6 (Pacific Northwest), Region 4’s mid-century building program may have been modeled after the popular American Ranch style, thereby remaking the “rustic” landscape into a midcentury modern, suburban-like administrative environment. Given the existing information, it can generally be stated that stylistically, Turner’s standard plan buildings are stylistically vernacular and devoid of most ornamentation. The common character of their design aesthetic is that they follow the policy that they appear to be ‘of the forest.’ Therefore, rather than evaluation by style, these resources should be considered more accurately by administrative resource type by use and plan. (Kline 2018) WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 29 Bibliography Ancestry.com. William Roylance Turner. Accessed 2020. www.ancestry.com. Deseret News. 2006. "Obituary: William Roylance Turner." Deseret News. August 6. Accessed 2020. https://www.deseret.com/2006/8/7/19752219/obituary-william-roylance-turner. Find a Grave. William Roylance Turner. Accessed September 2020. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/81019947/william-roylance-turner. Grosvenor, John. 1999. A History of Architecture of the USDA Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff, EM-7310. Hendee, Clare. 1958. "Memo to Regional Foresters." March 10. Kline, Rachel D. 2018. Beyond Rustic: Wartime and Mid-Century Administrative Facilities of the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest: 1941-1970. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Moffett, Wilden, interview by Sue Van Allen. 2002. (November 19). Polk City Directories. Ogden, Utah and Provo, UT: R. L. Polk & Company. Accessed 2020. www.ancestry.com. Strack, Don. 2019. Columbia Steel Corporation Ironton. July. Accessed September 2020. https://utahrails.net/industries/columbiasteel.php#:~:text=Columbia%20Steel%20Corporation's%20pig%20iron,built%20by%20t he%20Union%20Pacific. USDA Forest Service. "Building plans, correspondence, handbooks, and policies. Collections held by USFS Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah." —. 1957. Operation Outdoors: Part I: National Forest Recreation. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Warrum, Noble. 1919. "Trails to the Past." Utah Since Statehood, Utah County, Utah Biographies. Accessed 2020. https://utttp.genealogyvillage.com/utah/utahsincestatehoodpg11.htm#turner. Wilson, Richa. 2017. "Building the Forest Service in Utah: An Architectural Context." Utah Historical Quarterly (Utah State Historical Society) 85 (1): 41-57. —. 2016. "The Enchantment of Ranger Life: Administrative Facilities of the Uinta National Forest, 1905-1965. Forest Service Report No. UWC-16-1328." USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. WILLIAM ROYLANCE TURNER, USFS REGIONAL ARCHITECT, 1956-1981 30