| East Benton County Historical Society |
Paper prepared by David W. Harvey & Katheryn H. Kraft
[Presented to the Society of Architectural Historians,
Marion Dean Ross - Pacific NW Chapter, October 11, 1997]
While the physical character of our contemporary suburban
landscape is traditionally attributed to a post World War II
housing phenomenon, the roots of our suburban ideal lie much more
deeply. Ebenezer Howard's late 19th century Garden City concepts,
as well as the "communitarian" experiments of the
1930s, are the most obvious precedents. However, as we scrutinize
W.W.II era defense and war housing projects, it becomes clear the
degree to which a shifting economic base spurred by defense
manufacturing, in conjunction with a mobile population and modern
community planning concepts, served to create the framework for
modern suburban development.
The typical W.W.II defense or war housing project was constructed
in proximity to a defense manufacturing or military facility.
They were undertaken by "community builders," like
William J. Levitt, who consolidated land subdivision,
construction and sales into one enterprise, or constructed with
public funds and intended to be eventually used for public
housing purposes. By contrast, the Hanford Engineer Works Village
(Richland, Washington) was constructed at an isolated location as
part of the highly secretive Manhattan Project and was designed
as a sizable permanent federally-owned company town. Today extant
homes, commercial buildings and public spaces, overlaid by fifty
years of use and alteration, continue to embody characteristics
associated with large scale post-war housing developments. The
purpose of this paper is to examine the various factors including
geographic isolation, secrecy and urgency, in conjunction with
expeditious and opportunistic decision-making, that served to
shape the Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) Village, a truly nuclear
community.
Hanford Engineer Works Background
In early 1943, the Manhattan Engineering District (MED) of the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers selected Hanford, Washington as the
site for United States World War II plutonium production
facilities. E. I. du Pont de Neroours & Company, Wilmington,
Delaware (DuPont) was hired to construct and operate the
industrial facilities, identified as the Hanford Engineer Works
(HEW), as well as to create a new village to house their
operational employees. On January 23, 1943, a meeting held at the
DuPont headquarters was attended by officials of DuPont and the
Corps of Engineers where General L. R. Groves outlined the U. S.
Government's land acquisition policy for the Hartford Engineer
Works. He reported that the agricultural hamlets of Hanford,
Richland and White Bluffs, including 50,000 acres of farmland,
were to be immediately acquired so that a 625 square mile secret
facility could be created. (Fig. 1)
The project site was selected, at least in part, due to its
isolation from any population center. (1)
From the outset of the project, the planning of the Hanford
Engineer Works (HEW) complex was based on the realization that
the surrounding Columbia Basin communities would be able to
supply living facilities for only a very small portion of the
necessary construction and operational personnel. Consequently,
it was necessary to rapidly develop a significant amount of
temporary housing (2) for thousands
of construction crew members and to plan and construct a
permanent village to house the production workers and their
families.
The Corps of Engineers selected the southwestern portion of the
project area, (3) the site of the
small agricultural town of Richland, to establish the new
"village". (4) The original
town site of Richland was established in 1906 during a period of
accelerated irrigation development and land promotion. It had a
population of approximately 250 people within its incorporated
limits when, in February-March 1943, all of the privately owned
property was acquired by ccndemnation. (5)
(Fig. 2) The old town site comprised roughly one-third of the
land needed to create the HEW Village. This was a rural community
with a civic and commercial center situated along the old county
highway and a scattered pattern of residences, established farms
and fruit orchards. (Fig. 3) DuPont officials noted that the
"land when irrigated was productive but many of the farms
had been taken over by the irrigation district during the
Depression through the inability of the owners to pay their water
rentals."
Richland was selected as the Village site because of its relative
close proximity to the major processing areas at the northern end
of the nuclear reservation. Although it was an established
community that already possessed some of the necessary
infrastructure, it was considered to be sufficiently distant
(15-30 miles) from the production facilities for security and
safety purposes.
Gustav Albin Pehrson Profile
In early March 1943, DuPont and military (MED) officials
contacted G. A. Pehrson, a Spokane, Washington architect-engineer
and asked him to assume the task of furnishing the engineering
and architectural services required to create the Village. After
considerable hesitation and negotiation, Pehrson contracted with
DuPont to provide services that would include the preparation of
complete plans and specifications for the dwellings, commercial
buildings, dormitories, community buildings and the related water
service, sewer system and waste disposal, electric power
distribution and the streets and sidewalks. He began work in
mid-March and was required to provide the plans and
specifications for the initial duplex house type within one week.
Architectural plans and specifications for the design of the
housing for a village of 6500 residents (and intended to expand
to serve 12,000 residents) were required to be completed within
two and one-half months. Pehrson's staff reportedly grew from
"2 men and a girl" to over 350 architects, draftsmen
and engineers. He established an office in Pasco and continued to
operate an office in Spokane at the Old National Bank Building.
Construction of the HEW Village began with the earliest housing
units in late April. The first housing unit was completed in late
July and work on the project continued under intense pressure
until early 1945. The project was not considered complete until
June 1945.
Gustav Albin Pehrson was a Swedish-born architect who is credited
with the design of hundreds of buildings in Spokane and the
Inland Empire from 1913 until his death at the age of the age of
85 in 1968. (6) During his
long career, Pehrson developed the well deserved reputation of
having an unyielding temperament for hard work. He began his
Spokane career with the venerable firm of Cutter & Malgren
(who coincidentally was also a Swedish immigrant) and served as
the project architect for the design of the Davenport Hotel.
After a falling-out with K.K. Cutter in 1916, Pehrson established
his own firm and continued as Louis Davenport's architect for
several decades. During the 1920s and 1930s, he operated a
diverse architectural practice, designed numerous highly regarded
commercial and residential projects and gained regional
notoriety. (Fig. 4 & 5)
By 1943, Pehrson was clearly among the most well known and
established architects practicing in the Inland Empire. The
creation of the HEW Village fits into what was a lifelong pattern
of industrious devotion to the challenges of financing, designing
and constructing architecture. There is no record of any prior
involvement by Pehrson with Federal Housing Administration or
Defense Housing projects during the late 1930s or early 1940s. (7) He was reportedly involved
with the design of aircraft hangars at Geiger Field (now
Fairchild AFB), immediately prior to assuming this project. His
selection, by military and civilian officials, for this highly
secretive and complicated project appears to have been based on
both his reputation for hard work and his familiarity with and
appreciation of the terrain and climatic conditions of the
Columbia Basin.
"Report on the Hanford Engineer Works Village"
In August 1943, after the earliest house types were well under
construction, DuPont requested that G. A. Pehrson prepare a
report describing the general features of the HEW Village.
The Report on the Hanford Engineer Works Village (Richland,
Washington) was modeled on a similar report prepared for the
Clinton Engineer Works Village at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that was
simultaneously under construction. (8)
Pehrson's lengthy report was submitted in November 1943 and
documented the prior six months of work. It described the
existing conditions at the town site, the background and basis
for the design of the entire village, and identified the problems
encountered in the process. (9)
Three principle problems faced the planners of the Village and
the individuals directly involved in the design and construction
processes. First, as a war project, to be completed as quickly as
possible, important aspects of the project had been completed
prior to the involvement of architects and site planners. (10) Most difficult was the fact that a
great deal of information about the project and its purposes
could not be revealed. The architect-engineer and the surveyors
and planners he hired knew only the barest essentials about the
project. According to A.G. Pehrson's November 1943 report. (11)
"The reason for the location of the site was not divulged,
although the specifications precluded the possibility of locating
the work near any existing town of a size sufficient to
accommodate the people required...the planners could not weigh
any of the sociological or ecological factors involved. Under the
circumstances, they were without information as to the
anticipated future use, ownership, administration, economic or
industrial base of the village, or the probable population shifts
after the war. In the actual laying out of the site, therefore,
many important decisions were deferred to those with more
thorough understanding of the scope and objectives of the
project."
Second, while the planners were aware that the Village was
intended to house people working at the HEW (and those employed
in the administrative area), standard information about the
intended population was very limited. The initial analysis of
housing requirements was made by the Army and DuPont and was
based on several incorrect assumptions regarding the utility of
the existing housing accommodations (within and outside the
Village site) and the actual required plant, construction and
Village work force population. The number of plant employees and
family members, the anticipated total Village population, the
number, sizes and costs of the required housing units and the
related Village retail, commercial and community needs
fluctuated. throughout the design process. The project began with
the anticipated immediate Village population of 6500 and grew to
a final building schedule based on an actual Village population
of nearly 16,000.
In addition to these factors, G.A. Pehrson was simultaneously
pressured by DuPont to provide good quality housing for their
employees and by the military for an economical approach that
would provide only the most basic and minimal forms of housing.
Debates ensued regarding the inclusion and utility of basements,
fireplaces and enclosed porches and brought about frustration and
ultimately compromise for both Pehrson as well as DuPont
officials.
The Layout of the Village Plan
The Village was initially designed to house only HEW operational
personnel and their families, however, its construction was
ultimately expedited for the purpose of making a portion of it
temporarily available for housing construction personnel and
their families. It differed from earlier New Deal era housing
projects, planned towns or communities that typically had the
advantage of proximity to populated areas for supplies,
equipment, and personnel. Prior New Deal era planned communities
or resettlement towns were typically established to house low
income families. The HEW Village however, was a rather unusual
company town constructed in a state of urgency and secrecy at an
isolated location. Thus, according to a 1945 DuPont report;
"due to its size, unique nature and remote location, there
was little in the way of precedent upon which to draw upon Speed
of construction was paramount so that in most cases only a
minimum of study could be given to, the various problems and
questions arising before arriving at decisions or determining
policy." (12)
While the Village was created in response to a wartime emergency,
it's planning reflected to some degree the democratic and
environmental attitudes of earlier "communitarian"
planners. (Fig. 6) The design attempted to follow the existing
land contours and sought to preserve the existing shade trees
(cottonwoods, willows and black locust trees) and old fruit
orchards. The same quality of materials and construction were
used in all dwellings. Yards were large and as uniform in size as
feasible and the site plan included generous amounts of
"greenbelts," or open space and common areas. (Fig. 7)
The Village plan was neighborhood oriented with a predominantly
curvilinear street system. (Fig. 8) Neighborhood streets and main
arterials were designed to accommodate bus travel to and from the
Hanford Engineer Works and commercial areas within the Village.
Some streets terminated in cul-de-sacs and instead of garages the
plan included parking courts or car compounds. The parking courts
provided convenient off-street parking and connected the
residences via a network of courtside walkways. (13)
Following utopian "garden" communities, the plan for
the Village separated residential, commercial and industrial
areas from one another by the use of greenbelts or open space.
G.A. Pehrson noted that there were plans for an "abundance
of open green spaces running into the center of the town, with
tree-lined parkways dividing the town naturally into
neighborhoods, providing pleasant and safe walks for students
going to and from schoo!."(14)
He noted that there was already a fine park along the Columbia
River, "with wedges of greenery and trees coursed by
irrigation canals fringed with trees and shrubs...the answer to a
town planners dream. There could be no better guarantee against
tedium, no better guarantee of open air and space to play. (15)
All of the houses types in the original Village plan were
wood-frame construction with concrete foundations and basements.
They were constructed in wall sections which were then raised
into place in a production line method. Much of the framing
lumber was high quality Douglas Fir that had been harvested from
the 1929 Tillamook burn in Oregon. (Fig. 9) Complete mills, shops
and concrete plants were set up on site. These factors
contributed significantly to the speed, low cost and uniform
quality of construction.
A variety of eight different house types and floor plans were
used to create a total of 2500 permanent housing units. The
majority of the house types constructed were duplexes, however,
single family homes that varied in size and construction cost
were an essential part of the Village plan. The intent was to
achieve a mixture of income levels in each of the neighborhood
districts. Despite these intentions, specifications called for
higher cost houses to be given more favorable locations,
concentrated in the district nearest the Columbia River. Indeed,
the majority of the duplexes were concentrated in the western
portion of the town, with a greater number of single family homes
located east of the old County Road (now George Washington Way),
and nearer to the river. (16)
The generous spacing of all dwellings was recommended, due to the
low cost of land and high degree of fire danger during the hot,
dry summers. Each residence typically included an ample backyard.
To reduce monotony (and increase privacy) houses were placed at
an angle to the street; higher two-story houses were placed at
the middle of the block while at the ends of the blocks, lower
units were set back, in order to achieve an "open"
feeling at the street intersections.
Potential flooding from the Columbia River was of concern to the
planners. There had been a record flood overflowing the river
banks in 1894 and large areas of the original. Richland town site
were seriously impacted. It was decided that a uniform minimum
first floor level elevation of 360 feet above sea level, four
feet above the town site's flood level, would be used for all
residential buildings.
The Existing Settlement Landscape
Pehrson's design for the Village took into consideration the
existing highway and road system and the presence of 185 existing
residential, commercial and community buildings. It was initially
estimated that 75 of the existing buildings could be retained,
reconditioned and, converted for residential and or commercial
use. Pehrson's work involved the examination and assessment of
these settlement era structures. This aspect of the project
proved to be time consuming and discouraging. The problems of
incorporating existing buildings and structures into the Village
plan were several. Some of the residences had electricity, but
few had sewers and indoor plumbing, and water was mainly from
individual wells. Pehrson determined that "these conditions
naturally affected the adaptability of the dwellings to modern
use." (17) Many of the
properties were found to be either of questionable quality and
unsuitable for continued use, difficult to incorporate into the
layout and infrastructure of the Village plan or too expensive to
modernize and bring up to the standards required by DuPont and
the Corps of Engineers. Thus, only twenty-six of these structures
were ultimately retained for use within the Village. (Fig. 10)
Pehrson expressed dismay with the requirement that they utilize
even those nineteen residences and seven commercial facilities.
"The difference in the materials used, the general
appearances of the structures, and the necessity of accepting
them 'as they are' hampered site planners and will influence the
total effect of the commercial center as now planned ....the
current buildings are conspicuous and so prevent the effect from
being as harmonious as the planners had hoped." (18)
Ultimately, the layout for the HEW Village took into
consideration the natural and the cultural landscape of the old
town site and other features within the general vicinity. The
designs of the new house types were also based on the architect's
observations of the existing older residential structures. Not
surprisingly, G.A. Pehrson observed; (19)
"..their orientation, their use of screen porches shaded by
vines and trees indicated to the site planners the expression of
the need by the former residents of shade and as great a degree
of air circulation as possible."
Residential House Types: Design Criteria & Social
Implications
The creation of the HEW Village involved the planning and design
of four distinct residential neighborhood districts and a central
business district, as well as the design of commercial, community
and administrative structures of all kinds and functions and
their related utility and sewer systems. However, only the
residential building designs that significantly defined the
character of the Village are worthy of close scrutiny, in an
effort to understand both their design criteria and social
implications.
The final housing plan prescribed dwelling types typically
identified by "unit" letter. These basic housing types
were organized by the number of bedrooms (one, two, three or
four) and the related cost of construction. For non-residents
identified as "transients," or individuals waiting for
assignment to other dwellings the housing plan called for the
construction of the Transient Quarters, initially referred to as
the Clubhouse. For persons without family members, there were
dormitories for women, the "J" units (Fig. 11), and for
men, the "K" units. The Corps of Engineers initially
anticipated the need for only six women's dormitories and twenty
men's dorms. In fact, there proved to be a substantially greater
number of single women than single men in the operational work
force and seventeen women's dormitories and eight men's dorms
were actually provided.
One-bedroom units were initially planned to be provided in
eight-unit apartment buildings ("r' Type), similar to the
familiar row house. Because there was sufficient land area and a
desire to avoid "the psychological hazard in a too-cramped
plan," the row house type was limited to only the
one-bedroom units. In the final analysis, the "I" Type
was entirely eliminated from the housing plan and prefabricated
individual one-bedroom units were provided.
The two-bedroom units were provided in a Duplex - Type
"B" plan. Three-bedroom units were provided in the
Duplex - Type "A" plan as well as three different plans
for single family residences, Type "E", "F"
and "H". Four-bedroom units were provided by three
separate plans for single family residences, Type "D",
"G" and "L". These housing types each had a
basic plan (Fig. 12-19), however some variation was achieved by
using different exterior cladding materials, altering the mass or
flipping the plan of the building and altering the roof form.
The Duplex Houses (Types A & B) were the basic housing types
within the Village. The Type "A" was a two-story duplex
with two three-bedroom family units. The two identical family
units were symmetrically placed around a central axis. A central
party wall allowed for three outside walls at each unit. This was
a crucial feature, given the summer time temperatures, and
provided maximum opportunity for cross ventilation on both the
first and second floor levels. The floor plan included a large
living room and dining alcove and a kitchen designed to
accommodate 2-3 people at work. This house type, as all of the
original planned house types, included a generous amount of
closet space and a basement that housed a coal furnace and
provided a laundry space 'and general storage area. Perhson
described the interior appointments, the built-in cabinetry,
plumbing and kitchen fixtures and interior finishes as
"adequate without being luxurious.(20)
The interior finishes remained standard throughout the project;
floors were typically natural stained hardwood with kitchens and
bathrooms being linoleum, wall and ceilings were painted dry-wall
with softwood trim. The box-like, two-story form of the
"A" Type helped to break up the monotony within the
streetscapes of the Village and was distinguished by a variegated
siding pattern and symmetrical Colonial Revival derived
proportions.
The one-story duplex plan, Type "B", was the principal
family housing unit in the Village. The two identical two-bedroom
family units are symmetrically placed around a central axis, very
similar to the Type "A" duplex units. Again, the
bedrooms were placed at exterior angles in order to provide cross
ventilation. The standard rear exit/basement stair arrangement
(utilized in virtually all of the house types) provided easy
access to the basement and efficient circulation between the
basement, the main house and the out-. of-doors. Again, generous
closet and storage spaces of various kinds were provided, which
Pehrson noted "is highly favored by the housewife."(21) The standard dining and living
room alcove remains a essential element within the floor plan, as
well. The Type "B" plan, being one story in height was
a distinctly horizontal form and was typically finished with
heavy cedar shakes. The gable ends incorporated vertical siding
complimentary to the exterior wainscoting used on the Type
"A" units.
The Type "F" and Type "H" units were each
single family house types designed to be constructed within the
under-S6000 construction cost range. The Type "F" was
two-story form, nearly square in plan that includes three
bedrooms on the upper floor level. Perhson noted that it is
"a version of an old and much admired plan, it offers every
possible utilization of space and advantage of orientation.(22) It was indeed economical in space
and construction cost, and is clearly based on the "American
four-square," a highly popular house type dating back to the
mid-19th century. Every room could be cross ventilated and while
the standard living room dining alcove was provided, a large
kitchen, by HEW Village standards, was also included. In exterior
appearance the architect found the form rather "boxy",
thus he utilized a side gable roof form with wall dormers. The
finishes again fit into the Village pallet and included the
exterior wainscot treatment, quite similar to the Type
"A" duplex. The other lower cost single family unit was
the Type "H". This three-bedroom unit is clearly
similar to the individual unit plans of the Type "B"
duplex. The one story form and side gable plan as well as the
exterior finishes are very similar. The living room/dining
alcove, rear stair configuration and storage space remained
essential elements. A "Colonial" paneled door with
fluted trim surround was provided in order to give this unit type
some individual distinction.
The Type "D", Type "E" and Type "G"
units were each single family house types initially designed to
be constructed within the under-S7500 construction cost range.
Later in the project the Type "L" was added within this
category. In a conscious effort to follow a "democratic
principle (23) these houses differed
in "quantitative" rather than qualitative ways. They
utilized the same quality construction materials and techniques,
incorporated the same essential spatial features (living
room/dining alcove, storage space and relationship to the
out-of-doom). The designs primarily differed in the quantity of
bedroom (four) and bathroom (two) space. It was assumed that many
of these houses would be occupied by the "more permanent
executives upon whom certain socio-business demands are
made." (24) Thus, substantially
fewer of these house types were indeed constructed. A conscious
effort was made to lend variety, however rather subtly, to the
use of these standard plans by varying the exterior cladding
materials, between shake siding and horizontal wood siding and
alternating the mass or plan orientation. In the case of the Type
"E", the roof form also varied between a straight gable
form and a hipped gable form.
Architectural Character of HEW Village Residences
Traditional architectural forms and elements were consciously
used within the housing designs to provide villagers with a sense
of normalcy and continuity. The architectural character of the
HEW Village fits within the modern 20th Century "Minimal
Traditional" stylistic category. These residential designs
reflect the form of traditional eclectic designs, that gained
broad popularity in the 1920s as Tudor and Colonial Revival
styles, but with only minimal decorative elements. This Minimal
Traditional style was commonly constructed between 1935 and 1950
and has its roots in Depression era forfeiture as well as the
modern International Style design mode that favored the
efficiency and the unornamented wall surface. A lack of ornament,
simplified building forms, intermediate roof pitches and close
eaves and rakes distinguish all of the Village house types. The
one-story and one and one-half houses, with dominant front gables
suggest the Tudor cottages popularized in the 1910s and 1920s.
The two-story houses are loosely based on well-established
traditional Colonial plans and house types.
The design criteria utilized as a basis for the HEW Village house
types indicates that serious consideration was given to the
varying sizes, as well as the comfort, of relocated families, the
occupational and social-related needs of executives as well as
less Senior employees and the opinions and needs of relocated
housewives, all in conjunction with an predominantly
"democratic" approach. In addition, there was an
equaling overriding need to maintain high morale. G.A. Perhson
stated: "High morale cannot be achieved by crowding skilled
and veteran workers into inadequate dwellings. Neither can it be
predicated upon salary, position or caste distinction. No village
can eliminate such distinctions entirely for it is the .American
tradition to aspire to executive status and where such men locate
will undoubtedly be considered favored territory; but in so far
as the planners could arrange these matters, all types of houses
were scattered throughout the project." (25)
During the latter stages of the establishment of the HEW Village
the Army Corps of Engineers recommended that DuPont consider the
possibility of using prefabricated housing within the Village.
The Operating Department and Design and Construction Divisions
within DuPont selected a prefabricated housing model used at a
War Housing project in Knoxville, Tennessee. These prefabricated
house types had originally been designed for the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Thus, the Village plan was expanded to include
1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and three-bedroom prefabricated house types
that could be constructed for DuPont at a significantly lower
cost than the Pehrson designed house types. A total of 1804
prefabricated units was approved for construction and located in
the southwestern portion of the Village. The one-bedroom
apartment buildings, Type I, were deleted from the original
housing plan and fewer Type "B" duplexes were
constructed than originally anticipated. The design of these
houses, with flat roofs and without traditional form or
architectural character, placed in a repetitious pattern and
concentrated in one district, deviated significantly from
Pehrson's plan for the Village. (Fig. 20) However, the necessary
housing was provided in a more expeditious and economical manner.
Evolution of Hanford Engineer Works Village
After August 6, 1945, the purposes of the Hanford Engineer Works
became well known. The Village continued to provide housing and
community needs to workers involved with plutonium production.
The post-WW Ii era brought additional growth and the planned
homogeneous expansion of the original Village plan. (Fig. 21) By
1950, the population of Richland had grown to almost 22,000 and
hundreds of additional houses, based on G.A. Pehrson designed
house plans, had been constructed. Between 1957 and 1960, the
entire town, including the individual houses, the commercial and
community buildings and the administrative facilities not
directly involved with the Engineer Works production or
operation, was sold to the town residents and business owners.
While the creation and establishment of the Village had been one
of the largest undertakings of this kind in the nation, the sale
of the town was reported to be the largest single-package real
estate transaction in United States history. Over the subsequent
forty-plus years, the homogeneous Character of these residential
properties and their neighborhoods has been gradually modified
and changed to suit private ownership and individual taste,
reflecting broader changes in American society.
The Hanford Engineer Works Village was shaped by a peculiar
mixture of military austerity, business concerns, economic
opportunism, and democratic and environmental ideals filtered
through communitarian and public works projects and overlaid on a
settlement landscape. It was considered a "step-above"
its sister atomic cities of Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. Here, a
mobile population found lucrative employment in a highly
secretive defense manufacturing mission, as well as comfortable
middle-class housing. The Hanford Engineer Works Village provided
a respite from the harshness of the surrounding desert and the
strict military atmosphere at Hartford. One recognizes in this
nuclear village the essential framework of our modern suburban
communities.
Footnotes
| EBCHS home page | ebchs @ verizon.net |
