The Loomis Addition was one of the first neighborhoods added on to the city of Fort Collins back in 1887. (It includes the area inside Laporte, Whitcomb, Mulberry and Washington on the west side of Old Town.) It contains houses that span almost the entire chronology of the city starting in 1885 and continuing through to today. The bulk of houses built in this area, however, were built before 1910. Another large chunk were added before the Second World War. There are 71 examples of Queen Anne style homes, 78 examples of Classic Cottages, 61 Craftsman Bungalows and Cottages, and 38 Minimal Traditional houses. There is also a scattering of Period Revival homes, American Foursquares, one Italianate and a few specially designed by local architects. (These numbers and terms are from the context that was recently put together by Humstone Consulting regarding the Loomis Addition. I’m going to use some slightly different terms below.)
On Thursday night, Mary Humstone will be talking more about the history and architecture of the Loomis Addition. (See below for details.) But in the meantime, here are a few examples of each type of house that can be found in this neighborhood, just to whet your appetite.
You’ll note that most of these houses represent a very simple form of each style of architecture. If you look online, you can probably find much more elaborate versions of each of these styles. Despite the variety of types of architecture that are represented here, an overarching theme is a characteristic simplicity of form. Those who lived in Fort Collins before us were fairly simple folk. There were some more well-to-do families who built much fancier homes than what you’ll see on this page. But most of those homes were built closer to downtown and several have met the “wrecking ball of progress” (as Wayne Sundberg refers to it).
Vernacular Cottage
To say that something is “vernacular” is akin to saying that it’s “home grown.” When using the term in an architectural context, it means that the building was made from local materials by local builders in a style that is usually simple, practical, and rugged. Though the term “cottage” is used many different ways throughout the world, in Northern Colorado a cottage tends to be a one or one and a half story house of fairly simple design.
616 W. Oak Street
This house at 616 W. Oak Street is one of the few houses that was built before the Loomis Addition was platted. William Bernheim, the first Jewish man in Fort Collins, owned this corner of the block at one time and he and his family may have lived in this house, which was built in 1885.
712 W. Olive Street
Like 616 W. Oak Street shown above, this simple cottage has a gable roof, but the gables face to the sides with the eaves facing forward. The entrance portico (mini-porch) with pediment (the triangular bit) seems to me to be a nod toward Classical Revival architecture.
210 S. Grant Avenue
This is the house that I mentioned in a previous article on the Loomis Addition as regularly having ads in the newspaper for all sorts of odds and ends from fresh pressed cider and special tonic to make your chickens lay more eggs, to various types of furniture and other paraphernalia.
132 N. Loomis Avenue
This house has a hipped roof and turned wooden posts supporting a porch (or would you call it a patio?) area.
723 Laporte Avenue
This cottage looks very similar to 132 N. Loomis, but it has the addition of a decorative gable dormer in front.
829 W. Mountain Avenue
Though the front porch was enclosed on this house, you can still see the same basic theme as the previous house. The front porch extends almost the width of the house, the roof is shallow and hipped, and there is a small decorative hip roofed dormer in front.
822 W. Oak Street
At this point you may be thinking, enough with the cottages already! But a preponderance of houses in the Loomis Addition are simple cottages. And yet each one has small details that set it off from its neighbors. There are variations in how the porch looks, whether it has a front dormer or not and what style that dormer is, whether the dormer contains a decorative window or just a vent, and so on.
820 W. Olive Street
815 W. Oak Street
811 W. Oak Street.
715 Laporte Avenue
This cottage is a little different in that it’s made a stone rather than wood.
615 Laporte Avenue
128 N. Grant Avenue
This cottage is also made of stone. And it has the added distinction that Rolland Moore (for whom the park was given its name) was born here.
Queen Anne Victorian
Another very common style in the late 1800s was the Queen Anne Victorian. These houses were generally asymmetrical, had gabled or hipped roofs, and had large 1:1 windows (meaning that one large pane of class hung over another large pane of glass — as compared to windows with several smaller panes of glass grouped together). They also tend to have more decoration than the simple cottages or Craftsman homes.
121 N. Grant Avenue
This is the only example of an Eastlake-style house (which is a variation within the Queen Anne style). It is also sometimes referred to as the “Raffle House.” Mary Humstone explained the story behind this in the context that she wrote on the neighborhood:
Abner Loomis hired contractor H.W. Schroeder to build a six-room, brick Eastlake-style house at 121 North Grant as a speculative house, and offered it in a raffle to anyone who purchased a lot in the addition. The raffle was to be held when 200 lots had been sold, which was accomplished within a year. In a drawing held at the opera house on May 11, 1888, Mr. J. M. Fillebrown of Geneva, Nebraska, was the lucky winner of the $3,000 house. Fillebrown sold the house a few months later to Arthur “Billy” and Alice Patterson for $1,200.
119 N. Grant Avenue
This house has the overall form of a Queen Anne, but it looks at though any decoration it once had on the front gable have been lost to a stucco job along the way.
117 S. Whitcomb Street
This house was one of four brick Queen Anne’s in a row that were all built by the same person on South Whitcomb Street. These houses are now part of the South Whitcomb Historic District.
816 W. Mountain Avenue
629 W. Oak Street
Even the Queen Anne Cottages (1-story rather than 2) are asymmetrical with a decorated front gable and 1:1 windows.
213 S. Grant Avenue
The asymmetry and large porch mark this house as a Queen Anne despite the front gable that isn’t quite as steep as I would expect on a Queen Anne house.
American Foursquare
From walking through Old Town, it seems to me like the East Side of the Old Town neighborhoods has many more Foursquares than the west side. There are only 4 in total within the Loomis Addition and they are all within one block of W. Mountain Avenue. You can see by looking at them how they got their name. They are 2-story buildings with a rather square shape and generally four main windows in front.
714 W. Mountain Avenue
708 W. Mountain Avenue
Italianate
There is only one house in the Loomis Addition in the Italianate style. Commonalities of the Italianate that we see in 145 N. Loomis Avenue include the height, low-pitched, hipped roof, paired windows, and a small entry porch.
145 N. Loomis Avenue
Period Revival
You may have heard the saying that everything old is made new again. Short skirts, dark plastic glasses, beards, bell bottoms… styles come and go and come back again. The same is true with styles in architecture. There are periods were we fall back in love with the styles of the Romans or Greeks or the Tudors. Period Revival architecture is exactly that, reviving architectural elements from a prior period.
825 W. Mountain Avenue
This house has a gambrel roof, what I think of as a “barn style” roof. That’s an immediate tip off that this house is in the Dutch Colonial Revival style, which often features gambrel roofs, a porch under overhanging eaves, and dormers.
722 W. Mountain Avenue
The only gambrel roofed buildings in the Loomis Addition are all found on Mountain Avenue.
730 W. Olive Street
This Colonial Revival house is symmetric with the exception of a chimney and basement window on the right side. The front door is accentuated by being extended forward and framed with columns and highlighted with a railing around a second story porch.
231 S. Grant Avenue
This house stands just across Grant Avenue from the Colonial Revival house at 730 W. Olive Street and bears several of the same distinctives including strong symmetry and an accentuated doorway.
Craftsman
The Craftsman style is known for having exposed wood, knee braces at eaves, deep porches, large porch columns, and “divided upper window lights” (which means that the bottom pain of a window would be a solid piece of glass, but the upper part will house multiple smaller panes of glass).
708 W. Oak Street
This house features exposed wood not only as decoration at the top of the gables, but also sticking out under the eaves to the side of the house.
824 W. Mountain Avenue
Note the multiple panes of glass at the top of each window and the solid pane underneath.
716 W. Oak Street
713 W. Oak Street
The clipped (tucked in at the top) gable on either end of this house, as well as over the entranceway, is another common feature in Craftsman houses. The windows also have 4 tall panes of glass on top and a solid pane at the bottom.
706 W Oak Street
This house is listed as a Craftsman style in the Humstone Consulting context, and yet I find it to be a great example of how the vernacular comes into play in these older houses. If all I saw were the windows on this house, I’d immediately call it a Craftsman. But the gable-ended roofline and the portico with pediment (mini-porch with triangular bit on top) remind me of some of the Simple Cottages that we looked at earlier. I think this mixing of styles is a direct result of an owner or builder deciding to follow one building style while adding just a splash of this or that …just because. It’s part of what makes these older houses truly unique to Fort Collins. Although you can go to many American cities and find examples of Craftsman, Italianate, Classic Revival, etc. types of homes, it’s these personalized touches that make this a house that you will only see here, in Fort Collins, on Oak Street.
Minimal Traditional
As the Modern movement took off, streamlining and simplifying styles became in vogue. Fort Collins was already a city of simple houses, and the Minimal Traditional style fit in well with the one story cottages and Queen Annes that already lined the streets.
205 S. Grant Avenue
Minimal Traditional houses often had no, or incredibly simple, ornamentation.
214 S. Washington Avenue
This one story Minimal Traditional has a very understated hipped roof with minimal decoration. Though automobile ownership was becoming increasingly common, attached garages had not yet become the norm.
Mid-century Ranch
The Ranch house represents many of the ideals of the Modern Architecture movement. Buildings kept a very low profile in order to merge with natural surroundings. Large plate glass windows featured prominently in the front of the house in order to let in natural light. Natural materials were often used. And there was minimal ornamentation.
The automobile was becoming increasingly common and a single attached garage, visible from the front of the house, was beginning to be included at one end of the ranch or the other.
111 N. Whitcomb Street
106 N. Washington
231 S. Whitcomb Street
This was one of the last houses built in the Loomis Addition during its historic period. There were only 2 houses built in the 1960s, 1 in the 70s, 1 in the 80s, and 1 in the 90s. The 21st century is seeing a small resurgence in building as older houses are torn down to make way for new.
Houses with Known Architects
For many of the houses in the Loomis Addition, there is no recorded information regarding architects. Builders are sometimes listed, but it’s possible that they used pattern books or some other pre-made plans to work from. But there are at least three houses within the district where the architect is clearly known.
614 W. Mountain Avenue
This house at 614 W. Mountain Avenue was designed by one of Fort Collins’ most prominent architects — Montezuma Fuller.
616 W. Mulberry Street – The Sheldon House
The house at 616 W. Mulberry Street, often referred to as the Sheldon House, was designed by Arthur Garbutt. But possibly far more interesting is the fact that this house wasn’t originally built in this location. It used to stand at 131 S. Howes Street, where the shorter part of the Key Bank tower is today.
309 S. Grant – The Forney Mansion
The house at 309 S. Grant Avenue, often referred to as the Forney Mansion because J. D. Forney once lived there, was originally built for Thomas Reinholtz in 1919. Frank Bull designed and built the house.
There are over 300 houses in the Loomis Addition. Many still retain their historic integrity and walking down the street can feel like taking a step back through time.
If you would like to find out more about the history, people, and architecture of the Loomis Addition, please join us on Thursday at 6:30pm at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery for a short presentation and several work tables where you can research the history of your own home (whether it’s within the Loomis Addition or not) and find out more about repairing and maintaining a historic Fort Collins home.
Sources for this article:
I studied math in college, so I’m not an architect and have never studied architecture in a classroom environment. But I’ve voraciously scoured the internet and flipped through architecture books that I picked up off of Amazon and I’ve done my best to accurately categorize each house shown here. I used Mary Humstone’s context of the Loomis Addition as a guide for many of the architectural styles that I have shown here, though I have rearranged a few homes from one category to another based on my own evaluation of the houses. I also used the following websites as reference points:
I found a nice description of “vernacular” at http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/design/design-guides/design-style/vernacular-introduction.
A description of Queen Anne and Italianate styles came from http://www.historicnewengland.org/preservation/your-older-or-historic-home/architectural-style-guide.
I learned more about the Dutch Colonial Revival from http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/dutch-colonial-revival.
And I used the Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering to make sure I described Craftsman houses correctly. – http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1625Field.pdf
I changed a few houses from the Minimal Traditional category where Mary had put them, and set them under the Ranch heading instead, based on http://www.antiquehomestyle.com/styles/ranch.htm.
And I picked up information on the architect behind the Sheldon House – http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/Guides/Architects_garbutt.pdf – and the original location of the house from – http://history.fcgov.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ph&CISOPTR=33234&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
Your homework shows. Thanks for doing the legwork that few of us would know how to start. While you only allude to it, your survey tells us about the work-a-day lives the people who built these houses lived. Loosing these houses looses that history, but honestly, the houses themselves don’t embody terribly interesting architecture or design, or lend themselves to eye-opening restoration. These houses are just the small structures local people built and raised their families in. If we bulldozed three-fifths of them, would Fort Collins suffer?
I do find the architecture to be interesting. It’s not exotic or ornate, but I see value in the simplicity. I think we’re swinging back towards a time when we, as a culture prefer contrasting forms, colors, and styles. I see that in a lot of new construction and in the preference for preserving elaborate Victorians over more simple Ranches or Cottages. But there are also times when we seem to prefer those simple forms. So even if we’re not on that end of the pendulum swing right now, I think we still lose that balance if we raze the less well loved or appreciated forms.
Losing 3/4s of them would change our perception of history. When in a meeting with several people from a historic district in downtown Colorado Springs, they were scratching their heads and asked us, “Why are all the houses so small? Where did all your grand houses go?” Though we have lost some grand houses, we never had them in the numbers that a city like Colorado Springs or Boulder has had. We started as a simple town with simple values. We could save a few houses and hope that’s enough to remind us of our origins, but I suspect we’ll eventually come to think the smaller houses were the exception, not the rule. It’s only in saving neighborhoods of such simple houses that we’ll remember it wasn’t an oddball quirk here or there that popped up in our history, but it was the way of life.
Yes, the difference in built environment between Fort Collins vs. Boulder and Colorado Springs is a testament to how different life was up here. That longstanding difference has undoubtedly, and subtlely, exerted its influence as Fort Collins has tripled/quadrupled in size and has contributed to the outstandingly livable scale of our city today, which we prize with all our heart. I think of it as “cultural momentum”. Choice City residents built small houses and now we’ve got a small city. Hallelujah! — That’s sustainability in action… But let’s get back to the small houses. So many of them throughout Old Town seem to be moldering, structurally suspect, slowly decaying structures that can only be rehabilitated at substantial cost. As the middle class contracts, we might think some of these small houses would appeal to families wanting to find an affordable, less spacious alternative to a suburban tract house. We all know people who have conducted — and are living — that arithmetic. But, the inflated value of “Old Town” real estate parametrizes the cost of an Old Town small house and diminishes its desirability. Which, then, still leaves these Old Town small houses on their lots moldering away — Reminding us of our city’s history but not particularly moving forward in their own right. These houses’ original builders saw them as serving an immediate need. Perhaps that need should be respected, acknowledged as having been fulfilled, and the lot should now be put to another sustainable purpose.
Or maybe we should designate the entire acreage of Old Town as a sustainability engine and work with the culture, dynamics and continuing history (?) of livable, built solutions that arise from that,,, What do you think?
Did someone say “Small is beautiful”?
I walk Old Town every day and although I do see some homes that are substantially decayed, I’d say that’s a very small percentage. I also think there’s pressure from builders to replace rather than to refurbish. (We experienced quite a bit of that when we remodeled our house a few years back.) Although on the surface it looks like replacement is cheaper, refurbishing actually adds more money to the local economy (requiring more craftsmanship, which puts money in the hands of local residents, instead of cheap replacement materials, most of which come in from other states or countries).
I agree that the small houses, mixed with the absurd price pressures, make a rather weird problem for anyone trying to buy a home in Old Town. I think that in large part you have to tell yourself that you’re not just paying for a house and the land that it’s on, but you’re also paying for the walkability and other intangibles.
A sustainability engine. That’s a really interesting way of looking at it.
I’m working on my next homework assignment for the urban design class I’m taking online and it involves sketching out new development that helps to meet some of the needs of the city. I’m thinking about a high density core along Harmony – a second downtown, if you will. I’m imagining it as more dense than Old Town. I feel like the main pressures the city is facing are continuing pressure to grow and expand coupled with the (some self-imposed and some a bit more immutable… if anything can be a bit immutable) pressures for constraint.
All of this to say that I feel like history is important and I want to preserve the historic houses and historic urban design as much as possible. But at the same time I recognize that there are environmental and sustainability pressures that could be eased with increased density. But I just don’t see that we’re at a point where we need to push that density into Old Town. We still have green fields within the growth boundary and I think we should be maximizing those spaces. Based on things I’ve seen and heard from Smart Growth America, the demand for single-family homes is going to decrease and multi-family homes will be increasingly sought after (by Millenials and retirees, in particular).
I’m all for creating a New Town with some high rises that capitalize on mountain views. With all of the reservoirs down along east Harmony, the views could be quite beautiful in both directions, and it would provide another area of density where we could grow, but still keep within our city growth boundaries in order to preserve open space. (And I think it would help to conserve water, despite growth… and if we got all jiggy with it, we could aim for net-zero buildings….)
First, great job on recording history. I commend your efforts to record city history as it helps us understand why were are the way we are.
Your statement about building a second Downtown on Harmony is rather concerning. In particular, “I just don’t see that we’re at a point where we need to push that density into Old Town.”
You want density, economic growth, environmental stability, but not for yourself. Gotcha. Who cares if the barista who serves your hot drink of choice at your preferred College Ave coffee shop is economically forced to commute from Johnstown because you are more focused on your own petty concerns like shade, nevermind that our city has such a developed tree canopy that blocks the sun out anyway – truly missing the forest for the trees.
Bjorn, part of what I’m learning in the urban design class is that growth in the shape of a dumbell, with a hub on either end and good transit connections between the two, is a positive design style for creating high density cores that are accessible by a greater number of people. Old Town is already one of the densest parts of town. (The most dense, of course, is the West Central Neighborhoods. But everything close to campus is pretty packed.)
And there are no greenfields in Old Town in which to build more intensely dense areas. There are, however, still green fields along Harmony, and though it wouldn’t quite be a dumbbell shape, putting increased density along Harmony and improving the transit options along Harmony so that they connect well with MAX, will help to make the city more accessible to a larger swath of people than it currently is. By continuing to sprawl along the southeast end of town, we’re adding minimal housing on maximal land. What I’m proposing is adding maximal housing on minimal land, which would do exactly the opposite of what you’re accusing me of. The goal would be to create more affordable housing (for the barista who I don’t know because I don’t tend to go out to coffee shops very often and I don’t drink coffee). Creating increased density and improving transit should also have the affect of making larger portions of the city more easily accessible to even people without a car of their own (either because they can’t afford it or because they’ve chosen a lifestyle that leans more towards biking, walking, and public transit).
As far as the trees… Trees grow their leaves in summer when their shade is most needed. They lose their leaves in winter when sun is most needed. Houses, on the other hand, stand too upright in summer to block out the sun when it passes over Fort Collins at close to a 90 degree angle and they don’t shift out of the way in winter when the sun is closer to a 60 degree angle and the houses end up blocking an even greater degree of sun. Solar access is an affordability issue. People who have lived in their small Old Town houses for decades have been forced to move because large new buildings next door have led to increased (doubled) heating bills in winter as well as to increased problems with seasonal affective disorder.
The proposed ideal shape by Jarrett Walker of humantransit.org (he also redesigned our bus system in 2000 before he graduated onto the big wigs, FWIW), is to maximize bus utilization, but hasn’t been rigorously confirmed – Mathematician Alon Levy notes that this urban model leads to longer transit trips on average. http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/more-on-vancouvers-obsession-with-filling-buses-hoisted-from-comments/
The lack of Old Town greenfields is irrelevant – land can be recycled to higher and better uses. Land can and should be recycled from low value 1800’s shacks to higher value duplexes and apartments more suited for today – to not do so is to perpetuate discrimination against poorer populations; students and non-white newcomers.
I’m not sure how often you visit the Southeast, but far more residential density is already being permitted than in Old Town. Not only are single-family lots smaller, but many rowhome and apartment complexes have been constructed. Due to the very strong demand, the *entire* field behind Toys-R-US and Target is proposed as six story apartments (about 1500 units) and is working its way through Development Review. They are accepting new development, you are not. Simple.
What I’m accusing you of is supported by your record, both on your blog and in your public advocacy. You have chosen to publicly advocate for measures designed to restrict development recycling to higher and better uses in core neighborhoods. You have strong record on non-auto advocacy and environmental measures, but dilute the impact by economically supporting the exact opposite – more sprawl in exurban boomtowns, commutes from Johnstown, more pollution.
It is very regrettable that you desire such control over the actions of your fellow residents that you need to grasp at straws to maintain such control – claiming that people might get SAD from development. Not only is any correlation blatantly untrue at a smell test level (if you’re indoors, artificial light is used; if you’re outdoors, during the winter when people are home from work or school, its dark out), but using SAD, which isn’t even listed separately in the DSM-5, as a crutch is frankly offensive to people who suffer from actual mental disorders and depression. The long commutes you chose to economically force lower-income residents to make from car dependent exurbs are directly linked to high blood pressure, obesity, sleep disorders, etc – and as you likely are aware of, multiple peer reviewed studies by medical professionals have reached similar conclusions, not just unsupported anecdotes and blind speculation.
You have made commendable strides in your very informative historical archiving as well as your support of non-auto transportation modes, but the work of your left hand is cancelled by the obstructionism of your right hand. You have a choice, Meg: Will you continue to publicly support development obstructionism at a severe environmental, economic, and societal cost towards people who aren’t as privileged as you, or will you recognize that you have made mistakes and support more development in your neighborhood for the economic, environmental, and societal benefits for all of our city’s residents?
“They are accepting new development, you are not. Simple.”
Have you walked down Mason lately? Have you been over on Plum? Do you ever visit Old Town North? Have you been on Linden by the river lately? How in the world can you say that we’re not accepting new development in the Old Town area?! That doesn’t make any sense.
“You have chosen to publicly advocate for measures designed to restrict development recycling to higher and better uses in core neighborhoods.”
Such as?
In the past I have been involved in advocating for changes in restrictions regarding single family homes that are being torn down and replaced by single family homes. These restrictions neither called for an end to razing old structures, nor did they call for a reduction in occupancy levels. In fact, the restrictions did not address the issue of recycling lots from one use into another use at all. That had already been determined in the 1990s, before I had even moved to Fort Collins, when the city zoning was put into place.
“It is very regrettable that you desire such control over the actions of your fellow residents that you need to grasp at straws to maintain such control – claiming that people might get SAD from development.”
Though I refer to the issue with SAD, it is the people who have actually experienced it and who addressed the issue with city council that first brought it to light. I am only helping their voices to be heard. I’m sorry if you find it offensive that I am repeating a specific issue that victims of SAD have experienced. Based on your reprimand, I am assuming that even those with SAD should not bring up their problem if it has to do with their home of many decades being negatively impacted by poorly planned development next door.
“Meg: Will you continue to publicly support development obstructionism at a severe environmental, economic, and societal cost towards people who aren’t as privileged as you, or will you recognize that you have made mistakes and support more development in your neighborhood for the economic, environmental, and societal benefits for all of our city’s residents?”
I will continue to publicly support development that is done in such a way that it does not negatively impact neighboring properties. I’m sorry if you don’t like that. But I have met and heard the stories of far too many people who have been very negatively impacted by poorly planned development to not support them in their struggle to encourage better planning and smarter growth within the city. A new building is a clean slate. It can be designed in a variety of ways. I think it is entirely fair to encourage new development to occur in a way that it does not negatively impact neighbors. That doesn’t mean that new development can’t happen, just that it needs to happen in a way that it is appreciated by everyone in the neighborhood that’s going to have to live with it on a day to day basis.
I’m sorry that you have not been able to find local housing. I know that rental rates are out of control right now. But issues involving replacing single family homes with single family homes either will not affect rental rates at all, or will actually increase rental and home ownership rates as houses become larger and therefore more expensive, raising the prices on even the smaller residences in the area. This increased growth in the size of single family residences does more to harm your ability to live in the city than to help it.
I know that you disagree with this stance. I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Really interesting stuff and well put together. If you haven’t stumbled on McAllister’s Field Guide, you might find it interesting and helpful (http://www.amazon.com/A-Field-Guide-American-Houses/dp/0394739698). Also, you might considering looking into taking Architectural History at CSU by Dr. Janet Ore- or at least sitting in on it. Ore’s class focuses on the cultural history aspect and how architecture reflects different historical trends– it’s a fabulous class! Many of the history grad students are taking it to help with developing our preservation and cultural resource management skills.
Hi Jordan! I have the Abrams Guide to American House Styles (by William Morgan) and American Homes (by Lester Walker). The McAllister’s guide looks familiar, but I don’t have a copy.
I’ve also talked to Janet Orr about auditing her class, but I haven’t had time to even look up when/where/etc. yet. But I do hope to some day. I’ve also been watching Coursera in hopes that they’ll post an architecture class (other than early Greek and Roman).
Janet gave a talk in Greeley recently on Mid-Century Moderns that was really excellent. I’m hoping to start focusing on mid-town soon which is full of mid-century moderns. I think folks don’t really think of them as historic yet, but many are falling into the 50+ years old range where they can be considered for historic landmarking. And I love how modern architecture is so chock full of idealogies. Architecture wasn’t just about doors and windows and floors and roofs any more, it was about thoughts of indoor vs. outdoor, nature vs. science vs. industrialization, curves and lines, height and depth, fabrication and machinery. We take so much of this stuff for granted now. We just expect that houses should come with ribbons of windows and new office buildings should have glass corners. But it was all brand spanking new and cool back then.