B08_PEFO_267538_Atch_12_Historic_Preservation_Report.pdf

Historic Preservation Report Painted Desert Community Complex

PETRIFIED FOREST NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA

Contract # 140P2022D0023

PMIS 267538 Rehabilitate Painted Desert Community Complex

November 2023

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Intermountain Region

1 Park Rd

Petrified Forest National Park, AZ 86028

Prepared for:

National Park Service

Petrified Forest National Park

Contact: Jeannine McElveen

Park Manager

Jeannine_McElveen@nps.gov

PROJECT TEAM:

Architect: Hennebery Eddy Architects

Carin Carlson AIA, Principal ccarlson@henneberyeddy.com

Tim Mitchell AIA, Historical Architect tmitchell@henneberyeddy.com

921 SW Washington Street, Suite 250

Portland, OR 97205

Landscape Consultant: DHM Design

Contact: Bill Gotthelf PLA ASLA

BGotthelf@dhmdesign.com

900 South Broadway

Denver, CO 80209

Civil Consultant: Calibre Engineering

Contact: James Gusky PE jgusky@calibre-engineering.com

8822 S Ridgeline Blvd #310

Highlands Ranch, CO 80129

Structural Consultant: DCI Engineers

Contact: Samantha Fox PE SE

Sfox@dci-engineers.com

1060 Fowler Avenue, Suite 202

Bozeman, MT 59718

Mechanical and Plumbing Consultant: Interface Engineering

Contact: Shem Heiple PE, Principal

ShemH@InterfaceEng.com

100 SW Main Street, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204

Electrical Consultant: Interface Engineering

Contact: Lauren Krueger, Electrical Engineer

LaurenK@interfaceeng.com

100 SW Main Street, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204

Fire Protection Consultant: Interface Engineering

Contact: Kenton Aikens PE FPE CFPS

KentonA@interfaceeng.com

100 SW Main Street, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204

Front Cover:

012 PDCC Plaza from Upper Terrace, UCLA Richard and Dion Neutra Papers, 1925-1970

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 | Project Background

1.2 | Project Goals and Objectives

1.3 | Historic Preservation Report

1.4 | Physical Description

2. Historic Preservation

2.1 | Historical Background

2.2 | Significance

2.3 | Character-Defining Features

2.4 | Integrity

2.5 | Preservation Zoning

3. Existing Conditions

3.1 | Conditions Summary

3.2 | General Conditions

3.3 | Visitor Center/Administration Building &

Residential Wing

3.4 | Central Plaza

3.5 | Maintenance Building

3.6 | Vehicle Storage Building

3.7 | Community Building

3.8 | School Building

3.9 | Residential Blocks

3.10 | Exterior Elevation Condition Diagrams ... 185

4. Treatment Approach

4.1 | Preservation of Modern-Era Resources

4.2 | Resource Prioritization

4.3 | Regulatory Standards & Guidelines

4.4 | Design/Treatment Guidelines

5. Appendix

A | Bibliography iv National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

(page intentionally left blank)

This section contains project background information, project goals and objectives, as well as the purpose of this Historic Preservation Report and Hennebery Eddy Architects’ preservation, assessment, and treatment approach methodologies.

Introduction

1. Introduction

2 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

3Introduction

Introduction

Visitor Center, Concession Building, and parking lot c. 1960s (Image provided by NPS)

In 2019, Facility Engineering Associates provided the National Park Service (NPS) with a Project Scoping Assessment (PSA) report identifying key issues associated with deferred maintenance at the Painted Desert Community Complex (PDCC).

The PSA includes conceptual recommendations for a comprehensive rehabilitation project across the complex in coordination with preservation of historic features and modifications for ongoing facility use.

The recommended project would address structural stabilization, envelope restoration, replacement of mechanical and electrical systems, and upgrades to meet current code and use requirements. The report also provided a recommendation for construction of a new Science building to accommodate programmatic needs associated with the park’s paleontological program.

As an outgrowth of the PSA report and project formulation, NPS contracted with Anderson Hallas Architects in 2022 to conduct Title I Scoping Trip, Predesign, and Schematic Design services for the rehabilitation project. At the completion of Scoping Trip services, NPS and the A/E acknowledged that the PSA estimated costs for a comprehensive rehabilitation across the complex, in comparison to rough order of magnitude costs developed during the scoping phase, were significantly underestimated and PMIS budget would not be sufficient for the entire scope outlined in the PSA. In response, NPS provided the A/E with a set of priorities for organizing project scopes of work, primarily based on level of required structural stabilization and potential impact to the National Historic Landmark (NHL).

As part of the Predesign phase of the project, a Geotechnical Forensic Evaluation was completed in early 2022 by Yeh and Associates confirming previously understood subsurface conditions, collapsible soils and expansive clays, and providing stabilization recommendations founded on the use of either micropiles or helical piers at building foundations. Additional treatment recommendations for stabilization of concrete slabs on grade located over expansive clays included installation of structural slabs, replacement of underlying clay material with non-expansive material, use of chemical stabilization at expansive clays, and implementation of drainage improvements to reduce the amount of water content present in the clay soils beneath slabs on grade.

1.1 | Project Background

4 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Project Background Introduction

Based on the Predesign Project Program, Group 1/ highest priority buildings were recommended to receive full structural stabilization (micropiles and slabs), fire protection systems, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing system upgrades, and interior finish repairs. In addition, individual buildings in Group 1 were provided with a range of recommendations for restoration of historic features, envelope improvements, and providing accessibility.

Group 2 building improvements primarily focused on stabilization of buildings, using less invasive strategies, repair of building framing and envelopes, and improvement of building systems for safety and ongoing building use.

Group 3 building improvements focused on controlling drainage around foundations to minimize future movement and addressing select, life safety structural repairs.

Additional primary recommendations for site improvements during the Predesign phase included rehabilitation of the Central Plaza, overall site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, concrete walkway replacement (for ABAAS compliance and where subsurface work is needed), and restoration/ new vegetation at the Central Plaza and some building perimeters.

At the completion of the Predesign Phase, the Anderson Hallas Architects team worked in coordination with NPS to develop further priorities based on funding limitations. At this point in the design process, the working budget was stated at $35 million, including both base bid and bid options.

The VA Workshop focused on selection of a preferred alternative for rehabilitation and stabilization of the Visitor Center/Administration building and Apartment wing and included common-to-all scope and cost assumptions for the remaining buildings. It also appears that project design focus was now centered on exploring rehabilitation options at the Visitor

Center/Administration building and Apartment wing that balanced preservation of historic features with building modifications to enhance accessibility, security, and park operations. The preferred alternative selected in the VA process provided for:

• A three-stop elevator

• Revised stair layout at Visitor Center/ Administration Building

• Revised Residential Wing offices

• Consideration for adding staff restrooms within the VC/Administration/Residential Wing buildings.

A Schematic Design phase further developed the selected preferred alternative and project scope components identified as common-to-all alternatives.

The work scopes to be developed in Schematic Design were robust structural stabilization of the Visitor Center/Administration building and Residential Wing, Maintenance Building, Vehicle Storage building, School Building, and Community Building, as well as livability upgrades to Housing Block C.

With assumed organization of construction bid items:

• Base Bid – VC/Administration/Residential Wing, Maintenance Building, Vehicle Storage, Block C and housing studio conversion, Site and Paving

• Bid Options – School and Community buildings

At the completion of Schematic Design, NPS contracted with Hennebery Eddy Architects to validate, and in some cases reevaluate, schematic design decisions and move forward with design development documents for the validated scope.

During the scoping validation phase, a complex-wide condition assessment was identified as an outstanding need to develop a comprehensive understanding of deferred maintenance and building prioritization. Documentation of the historic preservation factors and approach was also noted as necessary to guide the project team and support the compliance process.

5Introduction

Visitor Center and Concession Building

PMIS PROJECT GOAL

The goal of the project is stated in the Project Management Information Statement (PMIS) and reiterated in milestone documentation:

Rehabilitate buildings to correct maintenance/repair work and address ongoing structural deficiencies, code and accessibility violations, and restore significantly modified historic features.

REVISED PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Project objectives have shifted slightly in response to assumed construction costs and changing emphasis of scope prioritization. In the PMIS, the following objectives were stated:

• Building and site wall foundations will be stabilized to address long term on-going movement

• Building envelopes will be repaired and some areas will be restored to match the original historic design and construction

• Select interior spaces will be renovated to meet current needs of the complex and restoration of specific historic design elements will be prioritized

• Outdated building and utility systems will be replaced, including upgrading electrical and mechanical systems to meet current demands or replacing the systems that have exceeded their life cycle

• The public restrooms will be updated to improve visitor experience, promote water conservation, and facilitate cleaning

As a designated National Historic Landmark complex, all aspects of the project must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Standards allow for reasonable alterations that accommodate continued use while prioritizing retention and preservation of the character-defining features that support the property’s significance and integrity.

1.2 | Project Goals and Objectives

6 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

7Introduction

Visitor Center Balcony (Image provided by NPS)

REPORT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This report is intended to provide an analysis of historic preservation goals and physical conditions as of 2023. This analysis will provide support for sound decision making throughout the design process in balancing building and user needs with historic preservation goals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. It will also support compliance discussions with the State Historic Preservation Office. Objectives of this analysis are to establish:

• Hierarchy of buildings and spaces based on public visibility, integrity, and conditions

• Hierarchy of character-defining features, including intangible qualities related to design intent

• Priorities based on material conditions and deficiencies

A deeper understanding of the historic and physical conditions and comparative analysis will inform the accounting and balancing process when operational needs and historic preservation standards are at odds. An assessment of current physical conditions is critical to analyzing causes and recognizing patterns of deterioration, as well as more accurately accounting for treatment costs.

RESOURCES

The following resources have been identified as primary sources of information informing this analysis. Subject matter experts will be engaged early in the design process with specific questions and for validation of assertions and approaches.

Published:

• Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma by Ethan Carr

• Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type by Sarah Allaback

• Neutra: Complete Works by Barbara Lamprecht

• Preservation of Modern Architecture by Theodore H. M. Prudon

• Richard Neutra 1961-66 Buildings and Projects by W. Boesiger

• Richard Neutra: And The Search for Modern Architecture by Thomas Hines

• National Register Nomination

• 2016 National Historic Landmark Nomination

• 2006 Historic Structure Report

• 2018 Cultural Landscape Inventory (Revision)

• 2005 Cultural Landscape Report

1.3 | Historic Preservation Report

8 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Historic Preservation Report Introduction

Other:

• The Neutra Institute for Survival Through Design

– neutra.org

Subject Matter Experts:

• Barbara Lamprecht, M.Arch, Ph.D.: modern building historian and consultant, author of articles and essays on Richard Neutra

• Peyton Hall, FAIA: Principal Architect Emeritus with Historic Resources Group, Pasadena, California; adjunct professor at University of Southern California; expert in heritage conservation and modernism

• Thomas Hines, Ph.D.: Architectural historian, Professor Emeritus of History at UCLA, written extensively about Richard Neutra

• Sylvia Lavin, Ph.D.: Professor of history and theory of architecture at Princeton University

• Raymond Neutra, Ph.D. MPH: President at Neutra Institute for Survival Through Design

• Sian Winship, MHP: Architectural historian, President of the Society of Architectural Historians/Southern California Chapter

METHODOLOGY

This report compiles the support documentation and analysis of the historic preservation and physical condition factors that will guide the design and compliance processes moving forward. This analysis is presented in two sections – Historic Preservation and Condition Assessment. The following summarizes the approach methodology to each type of analysis and how findings will be used to develop a treatment approach.

Historic Preservation

An on-site inspection of the existing conditions of the Visitor Center/Administration Building, Community Building, School Building, Maintenance Building, Vehicle Storage, and housing blocks, as well as the Central Plaza, site, and context was carried out by Hennebery Eddy Architects, DCI, Interface, DHM, and Calibre August 21-25, 2023. During this investigation, original design, materials, and features were documented at all subject buildings and the site. Character defining features were inventoried and interior spaces were assigned preservation zones based on significance, level of integrity, and potential to restore integrity.

Condition Assessment

The August 21-25, 2023, investigation also included physical condition assessment of all the aforementioned buildings and spaces. Conditions were warm and sunny with occasional passing showers. Periods of rain were intense enough to show water movement across the site and from roof to ground at buildings. Access was provided to the site, building exteriors, roofs, and all areas of building interiors. Exterior building materials and features were visually assessed from the ground and by ladder. Interior building materials and features were visually assessed from the ground. All readily visible material and feature conditions were documented.

Non-Destructive Investigation (NDI) tools were used by the assessment team to obtain a higher level of condition data where useful and feasible. NDI findings aided in identifying causes of deterioration, severity, and conditions that might require further destructive investigation. NDI tools that were used on site included sounding, probing, magnets, and moisture meters. No destructive investigation was performed. Conditions were photo-documented and recorded digitally using mobile tablet technology.

Exterior and interior conditions were annotated on field forms prepared for the project.

Physical paint samples were taken during the August 21-25, 2023, site investigation and subsequent laboratory analysis conducted by Hennebery Eddy Architects in September 2023. Original specifications provided color numbers from the Plochere Color

9Introduction

Historic Preservation ReportIntroduction

System, still in business in Los Angeles, California.

Samples were taken from building components known to have been painted to confirm locations of colors from the original scheme.

Treatment Approach

Findings from the historical analysis and condition assessment were used to establish a hierarchy of significance, an evaluation of integrity, an assessment of existing conditions, and a recommended prioritization of buildings and spaces based on combined findings.

The recommended treatment approach is guided by the following standards and guidelines, which are discussed in detail in the Treatment Approach chapter:

• Best practices for preserving Modern architecture

• NPS legal mandates and policy directives

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

• Applicable NPS Preservation Briefs

10 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

11Introduction

Site Plan, Painted Desert Community Complex

The Painted Desert Community Complex (PDCC) is the primary gateway to the Petrified Forest National Park (PEFO) in northeastern Arizona. The complex is located less than one mile north of Interstate Highway 40 and acts as the fulcrum between the Petrified Forest to the south and the Painted Desert to the north. The climate is arid with few natural protections against high winds and sun. Temperature averages range from 90°F in the summer to 20°F in the winter with occasional snow. The landscape is windswept and sparsely vegetated.

The complex consists of a collection of one- and two-story, horizontally-oriented buildings with flat roofs, constructed in the Park Service Modern style.

Primary building materials include concrete masonry units (CMU), stucco, steel, glass, and aluminum. Non-historic wood cladding has also been applied to some buildings.

Visitors access the complex by way of a parking area at the west end of the complex, bounded by the two-story Visitor Center/Administration Building, one-story Oasis Building, and one-story Maintenance Building. The solid walls of the buildings bounding the parking lot funnel visitors to the Central Plaza, an approximately 140’ x 70’ concrete paved area containing a reflecting pool, landscape vegetation, trees, benches, and a petrified log exhibit. The

1.4 | Physical Description

VISITOR CENTER/ ADMIN

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

MAINTENANCE YARD

VEHICLE STORAGE

OASIS

BLDG

CENTRAL

PLAZA

RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS

TRAILER COURT

BLDG

COMMUNITY BLDG

SCHOOL BLDG

TEACHERAGE

BLOCK A BLOCK B BLOCK C BLOCK DRESIDENTIAL WING

TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH

Location Map

12 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Physical Description Introduction

Central Plaza is bounded by the Oasis Building to the north, Visitor Center/Administration Building to the west, and two-story Residential Wing to the south. East of the south boundary of the Central Plaza are the one-story Community Building (which has a two-story height), and the one-story School Building.

West of the Central Plaza (south of the Maintenance Building) are the Maintenance Yard and one-story Vehicle Storage Building. Further east are four one-story residential blocks (Blocks A-D). Three carport structures are located to the north of the Residential Blocks. The one-story Teacherage apartments building is located south of Residential Block B.

Individual materials and assemblies at each building are described in detail in Chapter 3.

This section introduces the Painted Desert Community Complex in the context of Modern architecture and the NPS Mission 66 Program. The significance and integrity of the property is then analyzed as a whole and in terms of each contributing individual building in the project area.

2. Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation

14 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

15Historic Preservation

Visitor Center, Central Plaza, and Concession Building, c. 1960s (Image provided by NPS)

Modern-era design and construction in the National Parks was directly influenced by two key factors: the modern movement in architecture (post-WWII) and the Mission 66 program. These both reflected the modern concerns of economy, efficiency, equity and innovation.

THE MODERN MOVEMENT

The period of design referred to as Modernism began in the 1920s and stretched through the 1970s in America, overlapping lingering styles of the past and Post-Modern ideologies of the future.

The early wave of Modernism was focused mainly around the International Style and began to decline toward the 1950s. The Late-Modern period covers roughly the 1950s through the 1970s and includes many sub-styles such as Formalism, Brutalism, and Expressionism. The modern movement afforded the opportunity to “create a new style with few or no references to the past, but also as a tool for creating more, improved, and healthier living and working environments accessible to and affordable for everyone.”1

1. Prudon, Theodore H.M. Preservation of Modern Architecture.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.

Modernism expressed advancements in technology, materials, and building methods. Modern manufactured materials such structural steel, plate glass, aluminum or steel windows and doors, concrete and unit masonry were employed in simple designs and truth in materials.

Common differences from ideologies of the past included tenets such as:

• Outdoor spaces used as transitional spaces allowing lobbies to be minimized

• Transparency and visual continuity

• Materials bridging between exterior and interior spaces

• A concise and natural material palette

• Open offices/flexible plans, often with movable room dividers for maximum flexibility and functionality

• Modern manufactured materials such structural steel, plate glass, aluminum or steel windows and doors, concrete and unit masonry

• Components prefabricated or constructed on site

• Electrical and mechanical innovations

• Social equity and democratic values

2.1 | Historical Background

16 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Historical Background (cont’d)Historic Preservation

MODERNISM & THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The federal government began to embrace and promote modernism and its tenets by the late 1950s.

Chiefly it was the economy of construction and functionality, directly allied with the desire to provide services and amenities to the greatest number of people that helped modern design gain influence in government-sponsored building programs.2 Further fueled by the forward-thinking Kennedy Administration’s publishing of the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture” in 1962, federal agencies sought to construct buildings that served as models rather than imitation, embraced contemporary innovations, and took advantage of the modern collaboration between art and architecture. The General Services Administration (GSA) alone carried out over 700 modern building projects between 1960 and 1976. The National Park Service embraced the modern movement as well with their Mission 66 program to modernize and expand visitor services in parks.

THE NPS MISSION 66 PROGRAM

A full history of the conception and implementation of the Mission 66 program is provided in the NPS Mission 66 Era Resources MPD and supported by publications by subject matter experts including Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma by Ethan Carr and Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type by Sarah Allaback.

The core concept at the heart of the Mission 66 program was its intent as a conservation program and not as a development program, and that it would ultimately preserve and not destroy park lands, which was termed “enjoyment-without-impairment.”3 The program also embraced the idea that “parks were for the people” and “preservation outside the context of public enjoyment was simply not what the National Park Service intended to achieve during the

2. Prudon.

3. Carr, et al, NPS Mission 66 Era Resources MPD, 2015.

Mission 66 program.”4 “The entire era represents the National Park Service’s presentation of a new way for the American public to experience national parks.”5 It “was intended to modernize, enlarge, and even reinvent the National park system by its 50th anniversary in 1966.”6

The National Park Service, under the direction of program champion Conrad Wirth, developed its own “guiding principles” for architectural design within the national park system in 1957. “The decision to employ modernism in the parks was not revolutionary for the time; it was revolutionary for the place.”7 The Offices of Design and Construction were charged with the following directives: “Whatever we do in the line of development in the parks, it must fit the terrain and be inconspicuous; durability is an important attribute; sound planning is basic to economic results; nothing should be built unless the need is already realized; don’t try to lead your profession in fancy design.”8 “These new (Mission 66) planning strategies, together with modernist architectural design, created an overall ideal of national park development that was different from the prewar model… [and] the result can be described as the modernist national park.”9 Though this was a new era of development in the NPS in many ways, landscape architects were encouraged and continued to use principles established in the 1930s, namely that “new construction was to lay lightly on the land,” using native plants and the concept of “landscape naturalization” to heal disturbed sites, and to minimize the removal of trees.10

Under the Mission 66 program the number of campsites and picnic areas in National Parks more than doubled and 584 comfort stations were constructed. 257 administrative and service buildings

4. Carr, et al.

5. Carr, et al.

6. Carr, et al.

7. Carr, et al.

8. Carr, et al.

9. Carr, Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma, 257.

10. Carr, et al.

17Historic Preservation were built including a considerable number of visitor contact buildings and small modular buildings providing office space. 218 new utility buildings including storage buildings, workshops, and structures with garage bays for maintenance vehicles and mechanical equipment were erected. 1,000 units of new housing were planned and thousands of miles of roads and infrastructure were improved.11 Standard drawings were developed for a number of building types including comfort stations and residences and regional offices began taking more responsibility for approving site plans and working drawings.12

THE PAINTED DESERT COMMUNITY COMPLEX

The Painted Desert Community Complex (PDCC) is the primary gateway to the Petrified Forest National Park (PEFO) in northeastern Arizona. The complex is located less than one mile north of Interstate Highway 40 and acts as the fulcrum between the Petrified Forest to the south and the Painted Desert to the north. President Theodore Roosevelt conserved the initial parkland by designating the southern portion as a national monument in 1906. The designation expanded to include the northern Painted Desert portion in 1932. By that time, upgrades to US Route 66 (now Interstate 40) had increased automobile traffic along the northern edge of the park and shifted visitors away from the southern entry at Rainbow Forest. The increase in visitors demonstrated the need for an entry and visitor facility near the highway.

The Interstate Highway Act (1956) and postwar proliferation of automobile travel further revealed the need for a visitor center. The number of visitors to the park quadrupled to 440,000 from 1945-1955 and again increased to 700,000 by 1962. The strain on park resources became a national issue addressed by the Mission 66 program to modernize and expand National Park Service (NPS) facilities. The program resulted in increased road access within parks and hundreds of new buildings nationwide. The PDCC is

11. Carr, et al.

12. Carr, et al.

the largest project within the Mission 66 program and considered an outstanding example of the Park Service Modern style that emerged during this period.

The NPS selected architects Richard Neutra and Robert Alexander to design the PDCC in 1958.

The NPS had already hired Neutra and Alexander to design the Gettysburg Cyclorama building in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which was under construction concurrently. The architects were nationally respected as practitioners of the International Style within the Modernist movement, and their work for the parks was evidence of the NPS’s modernization efforts under Mission 66.

The PDCC was dedicated in 1963 and completed construction in 1965. Some early modifications, such as installation of upstairs windows in the Residential Wing, were completed with Neutra’s approval. By the time the complex was completed, shoddy construction and unstable foundation conditions had already begun to affect the structures.

The NPS completed repairs and alterations in the following decades, at times hiding or altering character-defining features. The 1993 Park General Management Plan called for demolition and replacement of the complex. Soon after, the NPS and Neutra’s son Dion expressed interest in the PDCC’s preservation and rehabilitation. The plan for demolition and replacement was reversed in a 2004 General Management Plan amendment and the complex, nominated as a district, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2005.

Subsequent Historic Structure and Cultural Landscape Reports outlined several steps toward rehabilitation, some of which the NPS completed in the following decade. The demolition of the Gettysburg Cyclorama in 2013, heightened interest in the PDCC. In 2016, the PDCC designation was elevated to a National Historic Landmark.

18 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

PDCC CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY

Major construction activities within the project area are summarized below (Source: 2006 HSR, unless noted otherwise).

Date Building/Area Event

1961-1962 (Completed July 1962)

Administration Building, Residential Wing

Initial construction (Kealy Construction)

1961-1962 (Completed October 1962)

Residential Blocks Initial construction (Rasmussen Construction Company)

1961-1963 Vehicle Storage Building Initial construction (Rasmussen Construction Company)

1962-1963 Central Plaza Initial construction (Packer Construction Company)

1962-1963 (Completed March 1963)

Community Building, Maintenance Building, two utility buildings

Initial construction (Rasmussen Construction Company)

Between 1962 and

Residential Wing North-facing hallway on second floor, originally open to the exterior, enclosed with a horizontal band of windows13

1964 Covered Walkways Initial construction (Glen D. Plumb)

1963-1965 School Building Initial construction (Arimexal Inc., contract completed by bonding company). Teacherage apartments also part of contract.

c. late 1960s Community Building North elevation roll-top door, central entrance bay on south elevation, and row of clerestory windows on east elevation covered over with board and batten siding. Doors restored in 2004.

1966 Residential Blocks Grout pumped into soil around Residential Blocks B, C, and D in an attempt to stabilize movement

1970 Central Plaza Reflecting pool filled in, but left intact under fill material14

1973 Visitor Center Exhibits changed, carpeting installed

1975 Visitor Center Lobby subdivided to form auditorium for visitor orientation movie

1976 Throughout complex White stucco surfaces repainted light brown.

1976 Residential Blocks Exterior stucco painted light brown, and brightly colored exterior trim painted “tobacco brown”

1978-1979 School Building New foam roofs installed

c. 1980s Maintenance Building Board and batten addition to sign shop

c. 1980s Vehicle Storage Building Two bays infilled at north and south ends of building with board and batten siding

1980s Residential Wing Apartment interiors remodeled/altered

c. 1980s Residential Blocks Original exterior finishes partially covered with board and batten siding, plywood, and T1-11 siding.

c. 1980s Residential Blocks Exterior storage units added in residential courtyards, with wood cladding and external gutter systems. Some service yards were also enclosed.

13. Historical photos provided by NPS

14. Date provided by William Parker, Chief of Science and Resource Management, PEFO. HSR lists the filling in of the reflecting pool under 1980s alterations but does not provide a date.

19Historic Preservation

Date Building/Area Event

c. 1980s Residential Blocks Original oil-fired in-floor forced air heating systems (in interior utility closets) replaced with gas-fired furnaces.

c. 1980s School Building Storefront was covered with T1-11 in the 1980s 15

1981-1987 Residential Blocks Interior courtyard ribbon windows and surrounding walls of the residences (except Apartment 208) were removed and the walls were reframed. This included expanding the kitchens in some units. Picture windows were added in some living rooms.

1986-1987 Visitor Center South balcony of second floor enclosed and remodeled into three offices

c. 1986 Residential Wing Original aluminum windows replaced with wood windows, and original hollow metal exterior doors replaced with solid core wood doors (one second floor apartment, most first floor apartments). T1-11 siding installed at some exterior walls.

1989 Visitor Center Hipped, steel-framed roof structure installed over original roof and extending over second floor east balcony. Additional expansion of both levels into the balcony footprint was planned but never realized.

Early 1990s Central Plaza Irrigation turned off to Central Plaza, residential plazas and courtyards, resulting in death of non-native plants

Unknown (before 1997) School Building East window wall of the library covered with T1-11 siding

Unknown (1997-2006) Residential Blocks Asbestos flooring removed or encapsulated

Unknown (1997-2006) School Building Interior alteration to convert west classroom/office/storage room to offices

c. 2000s School Building Windows and appearance restored 16

2001 Residential Wing Building re-roofed

2001 Maintenance Building, Community Building, School Building

Roof resurfaced with membrane roofing over tapered insulation (replaced prior non-historic roof resurfacing)

2003-2004 Residential Blocks Roofs replaced with single-ply membrane over tapered insulation (replaced earlier non-historic roof modification) and HVAC systems replaced with roof-mounted units.

2004 Community Building Interior restoration work

2004 Central Plaza Reflecting pool restored and plantings restored

Unknown (before 2006) Maintenance Building Windows added to carpentry shop, sign shop, and toilet/locker room

Unknown (before 2006) Maintenance Building Five of original ten translucent fiberglass overhead doors on east elevation removed

Unknown (before 2005) Residence Blocks Ornamental metal supports added to south elevation. Most supports removed in 2005.

2008-2009 Community Building Helical piers added to underpin existing foundation elements along the exterior walls on all but the north side

2015 and 2022 Visitor Center Micro-pile foundation upgrades and exterior restoration/repair work

15. Date provided by William Parker, Chief of Science and Resource Management, PEFO

16. Date provided by William Parker, Chief of Science and Resource Management, PEFO

20 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

21Historic Preservation

Visitor Center/Administration Building east balcony, c. 1960s (Image provided by NPS)

NATIONAL REGISTER SIGNIFICANCE

The PDCC is listed as a district in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. The period of significance begins in 1961 with the construction of the complex and concludes in 1965 when construction finished. The complex is nationally significant under Criterion A within the category of Community Planning and Development for its contribution to the Mission 66 program and efforts to modernize NPS sites. The PDCC was the largest Mission 66 project and can be understood as an exemplary result of the program’s efforts. The complex successfully unifies public and private-oriented buildings around a courtyard system and creates a “microcosm of a city” that simultaneously provides a public gateway to the park and community resources for park staff and their families.

The PDCC is nationally significant under Criterion C in the area of Architecture for its contributions to the International Style. Richard Neutra and Robert Alexander are recognized as leading practitioners within the Modernist movement and their architectural signatures are evident in the character-defining features of the PDCC. Moreover, the complex retains subtle nods to Neutra’s interests in indigenous architecture and “Biorealism,” or the adaptation of architecture to users’ needs within a specific environment. These interests are evident in the use of materials such as stucco and slumped brick as well as the orientation of the building clusters to mitigate wind within the courtyard system.

The district was elevated to National Historic Landmark status in 2016 following demolition of Neutra’s Cyclorama building at Gettysburg National Military Park, Pennsylvania in 2013, and recognition as a National Treasure by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2014.

HIERARCHY OF PUBLIC VISIBILITY

As a complex, designated as a district, significance is based in the collection of inter-related buildings that together form a planned, cohesive whole. All buildings in the complex, except the Vehicle Storage Building, contribute equally to the significance of the complex in the NHL. A hierarchy of public visibility can be established based on the level of public access to different areas of the complex and to each building. Buildings or landscape spaces central to the purpose of the complex have higher public visibility and interaction, ranking them higher than buildings supporting the function of the complex and less visible to the public. The integrity of buildings with higher public visibility and direct connection to public spaces pose greater impact to the integrity of the complex as a whole.

2.2 | Significance

22 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Significance (cont’d)Historic Preservation

BUILDING RANKINGS: PUBLIC VISIBILITY

Building Analysis of Public Visibility Public Visibility

(High/Medium/Low)

Visitor Center/ Administration Building

Primary to the complex purpose, main public space, high visibility, focus of design

High

Central Plaza Primary to the complex purpose, main public space, high visibility, focus of design

High

Residential Wing Primary to the complex purpose, visible from public spaces, focus of design

High

Residential Block A Primary to the complex purpose, visible from public spaces, focus of design

High

Community Building Secondary/support building, visible from public spaces, focus of design

High

School Building Secondary/support building, visible from public spaces, focus of design

High

Residential Block B Primary to the complex purpose, less visible from public spaces, focus of design

Medium

Residential Block C Primary to the complex purpose, less visible from public spaces, focus of design

Medium

Residential Block D Primary to the complex purpose, less visible from public spaces, focus of design

Medium

Maintenance Building Tertiary/support building, not visible from public spaces, consistent material palette

Low

Vehicle Storage Building

Tertiary/support building, not visible from public spaces, consistent material palette

Low

23Historic Preservation

Central Plaza

Character defining features (CDFs) are assemblies, features, materials, and design concepts that, individually or collectively, represent a building’s historic significance. To maintain a building’s historic integrity, character defining features should be preserved and treated per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation, Restoration, or Rehabilitation.

CDFs documented below are adapted from the 2006 Historic Structure Report. ALTERED denotes CDFs that have been altered or removed after the period of significance and are not visible in their historic, character-defining form today.

CDFs: OVERALL SITE AND COMMON-TO-ALL Site

• Sited on a high point near the edge of the open Painted Desert

• Series of rectilinear open plazas surrounded by inward-facing buildings, arranged to protect from prevailing winds

• Hierarchy of public, semi-private, and private open spaces

• Covered walkways connecting some plazas – flat canopy, steel pipe columns, square ceiling light fixtures

• Approach and entrance sequence from parking area to Central Plaza

• Outdoor recreation area with basketball/tennis court and ball field

• Trailer court with concrete block wall and associated building

• Groupings of functionally similar buildings creating a gradient of public to private space, with the Central Plaza being the most public, and the Residential Blocks being the most private

Exterior

• Modern style buildings with simple, rectilinear massing

• Low profile, one- and two-story masses with flat roofs

• Horizontality, emphasized by length of mass, horizontal fenestration, bands of materials, and flat canopies

• “Desert tan” concrete masonry unit (CMU) as primary wall material with stucco/plaster and aluminum framed glazing/Transite panel secondary wall materials

• Aluminum framed windows – storefront, ribbon, fixed, slider, jalousie

• Light fixtures – square ceiling

• Neutra-selected Plochere color scheme

• Use of floor to ceiling glazing or wide expanses of glazing to connect those on the inside to the outside world, transparency and visual continuity

• Strategic creation of framed or enclosed exterior spaces as extensions of the interior space

2.3 | Character-Defining Features

24 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

Character-Defining Features (cont’d)Historic Preservation

Interior

• Exposed CMU walls

• Solid flush wood doors with wood panel transoms

• Wood panel insets where doors are in a series

• Light fixtures – linear ceiling, square ceiling, adjustable exhibit

CDFs: PER BUILDING Visitor Center/Administration Building

Exterior

• Sited at focal point of entry and south side of Central Plaza

• Two-story building with solid desert tan colored concrete block walls facing north and south

• Flat roof ALTERED (Compromised by installation of overframed roof)

• Floor to ceiling glazing at Visitor Center, transparency and continuity, connection to the Central Plaza

• Second floor balcony framed by exposed structural steel columns and beams (“Spider legs”) ALTERED (Spatial experience changed by installation of overframed roof)

• Clear anodized aluminum individual letter signage and NPS logo on north wall

Interior

• Unobstructed open interior space in Visitor Center

• Emphasis to Central Plaza

• Separation of public space (first floor) from private space (second floor)

• Ceilings: 9” square white acoustical tile with clear finish aluminum track running in one direction only, at 9” on center, with recessed linear 9” wide fluorescent lights.

• Interior doors: Light maple finish with matching maple transom above doors

• Vinyl flooring tile

• Low volume at second floor admin space opening into library/conference room or exterior patios

• Desk location and wall lettering in Visitor Center lobby ALTERED

• Blue tile floors in Visitor Center lobby ALTERED

Residential Wing

Exterior

• Sited at south side of Central Plaza

• Two-story building mass

• Flat roof

• Irregularly coursed solid sandstone wall at first floor, facing Central Plaza

• Second story cantilevered enclosed corridor facing Central Plaza, with stucco finish and ribbon windows

• Desert Tan color concrete block two-story solid wall at east end

• Desert tan concrete block patio enclosure walls along south side

• Painted hollow metal exterior doors

• South side flat roof overhang

• South side second floor window wall with clear anodized aluminum windows

• East side second floor cantilevered over first floor

• East side solar overhangs below roof overhang

• Private orientation to south

• Public orientation to north

• Corridor connection to Administration Building

Interior

• Exposed concrete masonry unit walls ALTERED (paint finish is non-historic)

• White metal kitchen cabinets and integral drainboard

• Second floor units: Continuous aluminum louver to corridor, above doors

• Light maple interior doors with matching transom

• Two-room unit configuration

• Square light fixtures

• Original finishes and fixtures in Unit 215 (Apt G)

25Historic Preservation

Community Building

Exterior

• Sited at southeast corner of Central Plaza

• Sited at connection of public/private so it can be used by either

• Tall building matching height of adjacent two-story Apartment Wing

• Desert tan CMU solid walls with few penetrations

• Full-height stucco bay on south side of building

• Covered walkway on Central Plaza side

• Primary entrance wall opens to Central Plaza

• Rear wall opens to south side

• Roll up doors open up to Central Plaza

Interior

• 20-foot high ceiling in Community Room

• 9 inch square white acoustical tile with clear finish aluminum track, runs in one direction only, at 9 inches on center, with recessed linear 9” wide fluorescent lights

• Centered row of diffusers in ceiling

• White plaster soffit

• Wood slat interior walls

• Interior lighting

• Movie screen

• Automatic curtain system

• Intact original kitchen with white metal cabinets with silver pulls, salmon color plastic laminate countertop with waterfall edge, original double sink

School Building

Exterior

• Sited at east side of naturally landscaped plaza

• Long, narrow, rectangular one-story building

• Flat roof cantilevered out on south side

• Covered walkway on north side facing Central Plaza

• Solid concrete masonry wall on north side facing Central Plaza

• Aluminum framed glazing and panel wall system at south elevation, originally featured operable sliding wall panels

• Oriented to south for privacy

• Privacy wall facing public plaza

Interior

• Schoolroom and library clear finish light maple base cabinets with turquoise plastic laminate countertops

• Schoolroom and library chalkboards

• Bathrooms with original ceramic tile

• Open area that can be subdivided by movable curtains

• Ceiling, lighting, flooring

Maintenance Building

Exterior

• Projecting wing attached to northwest corner of Administration Building

• Long, narrow one-story rectangular building

• Sited at north side of Maintenance Yard, facing Vehicle Storage Building

• Solid desert tan CMU wall facing main visitor parking lot

• Overhead rolling translucent service doors and other openings to the Maintenance Yard

- Consistent bay infill with one language for vehicular access bays and another for solid and pedestrian access bays

• Flat roof with metal fascia

• Exposed painted steel frame with infill panels of siding on Maintenance Yard side

• Isolated from public area

Interior

• Painted concrete floor, CMU walls, acoustical ceiling panels with metal ribs

Vehicle Storage Building

Exterior

• Sited at south side of Maintenance Yard, facing Maintenance Building

26 National Park Service | PEFO PDCC - Historic Preservation Report | November 2023

• Long, narrow, one-story building

• Solid desert tan CMU walls facing away from Maintenance Yard

• Open bays facing Maintenance Yard

• Flat roof supported on masonry walls and exposed painted steel posts

Interior

• Exposed steel roof deck and structure, exposed CMU walls, exposed concrete slab

Residential Blocks

Exterior

• Low, single-story, horizontally oriented buildings

• Flat roofs with painted metal gravel stops

• Deep cantilevered soffits protecting over concrete walkways, with square recessed lights

• Desert tan CMU and white stucco exterior walls

• Boldly painted doors/trim, with a cohesive exterior color scheme per block

• Private vegetated courtyards providing a “desert oasis” experience

• Inward-facing units oriented toward courtyards

• Windowless public-facing facades ALTERED (Windows have been added to some public-facing facades)

• Ribbon windows on walls facing courtyards ALTERED (Ribbon windows removed at most units)

• Aluminum framed windows with minimal exterior trim and aluminum corner flashings at exposed building corners ALTERED (Aluminum windows replaced with vinyl at most units)

• Wide aluminum sliding patio doors at courtyards ALTERED (Sliding patio doors replaced with wood French doors at most units)

Interior

• Exposed CMU at select interior walls ALTERED (Exposed CMU covered with gypsum board in most units)

• Smooth gypsum board at interior partition walls

• Clear finished wood flush panel interior doors and transoms

• Minimal clear finished wood door and base trim

• Painted wood sill, jamb, and head with no interior trim at windows

• Division of public and private spaces, with the kitchen/dining/living area in one leg of the “L” and private bedroom/bathroom spaces in other leg of “L”

• Enameled steel Youngstown kitchen cabinets with arrow-shaped hardware

• Plastic laminate kitchen countertops in unit color scheme

• Closet in each bedroom with painted sliding doors in unit color scheme and minimal trim

• Block and unit color scheme

Central Plaza

• Paved plaza between Visitor Center, Residential Wing, and Oasis Building

• Stylized “oasis” concept defined by rectilinear islands of green foliage emerging from flat plane of patterned and textured earth tones

• Pigmented, exposed aggregate concrete paving with contrasting smooth concrete banding pattern

• Concrete scoring pattern

• Arizona sandstone raised planters and benches

• Four round raised…